Political Correctness Vs First Amendment

Nobody likes a racist...except maybe another racist. No one likes to see someone denigrated because of their race, religion, nationality, or gender. In a country where "all men are created equal", it just isn't right. But under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, everyone has a right to an opinion, and the right to voice that opinion.

Unhappily today, one can be sued, fined, or even arrested for "politically incorrect" speech. That's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

The irony is that we let neo-Nazis and the KKK march in parades, even protecting them from protestors with police officers. But if someone tells a dirty joke in the workplace, he can be fired or worse. Political correctness has got to go.

I don't know anyone who really approves of political correctness, and the biggest question I often hear is "How did ever get started, much less gain such a foothold?" I don't know when it started either - one day it was just there. Suddenly you couldn't open your mouth without stopping to think "is someone going to be offended?", or "will I lose my job?"

I understand part of the motivation, and that part isn't bad. It's nice when people respect the rights of others and don't denigrate them prejudicially. But even those who would do such a thing still have a right to their opinions. We may not like people who are racist, sexist, or arrogant, but they nevertheless have a right to be those things - and to speak their minds.

In terms of racism and sexism, things are better now than any time in history. We didn't need political correctness to achieve that. But now you can't tell a woman she looks nice, or ask her for a date more than once, for fear of a sexual harassment charge. You can't criticize a member of a minority for cause without being accused of racism. In today's politically correct atmosphere I would really hate to be a cop.

And it gets worse. Advocates of PC have tried to ban books, such as Huckleberry Finn, because they contain racial terms that are now forbidden; the Disney Corporation no longer markets the delightful Songs of the South because of how blacks are portrayed - and you can't find a copy anywhere - never mind that blacks are the heroes of that classic tale.

No one that I have ever met approves of political correctness, yet everyone lives in fear of it. You no longer have a right to your own your thoughts. In wartime Nazi Germany, citizens could be arrested or shot for "defeatist" talk. In wartime Japan, people were sometimes arrested for "wrong thinking", if they happened to express an opinion critical of the war. Communist countries have used political correctness as a tool of oppression for decades.

So why do we tolerate it in America, the land of the free? Political correctness is nothing less than an attempt at thought control. Maybe a better word for it would be "Practicing Communism".

Victims Of Political Correctness

In the United States it is both legal and perfectly acceptable to say that homosexuality is not immoral before anyone with an ear to listen. It is also perfectly acceptable to the hearer or reader of such a statement to agree or completely disagree with the statement. Or is it?

In fact it is not. While it has not become the law of the land to hold to hold an opposing opinion it can be stifled, refused and rejected depending what platform or what place the assertion is made.

The writer of the aforementioned statement was complaining about the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy in regards to homosexuality. He thought it was wrong to force the homosexual soldier to have to live a lie.

It is impossible to miss yet another double standard here that has emerged with the ongoing concept of political correctness.

I have written two books and have hundreds of articles read throughout the world. I have columns online as well as articles in nationally syndicated periodicals and I have only had three articles rejected. The reasons, "not politically correct." The incorrectness sited was saying that homosexuality was immoral. No, I wasn't asked my opinion but I was told I couldn't "tell" it. Maybe I need help here but it sounds just like "six of one and a half dozen of the other" to me.

Being a Christian I cannot espouse or suggest that homosexuals should be hated or harmed in any way whatsoever. To harm them would be clearly unlawful and immoral. It is an opinion not a battleaxe. If it is perceived as one then the kind of slander and character assassination that passes by political correctness proponents of the hour might be considered something akin to a nuclear weapon.

Few Americans have not heard the rantings of Charlie Sheen, Bill Maher, Sean Penn and Rosie O'Donnell regarding everyone from Jerry Falwell to President Bush. Of late even the Pope has taken a few slams.

The President has been called a murderer, a liar and some names I don't care to mention here. None of the chiefs or architects of political correctness had anything negative to say about these remarks. They are acceptable under PCs one sided definition. No one was censured for making these remarks and we can assume no ones written statement was excluded or deleted. Where then is the balance, where is the fairness, suffice it to say it is conspicuously missing.

Am I on a soap box? As long as my feet are planted here in America, you bet I am. I'm not mad at homosexuals I am rather quite displeased with the one sided and unreasonable double standards of political correctness. If that seems hard to understand remember that even as I write I have in mind previous experiments with political correctness that miserably failed. To be fair they did much more than fail because at the peak of its acceptance it cost the lives of millions of people.

Throughout history there have been despots, rulers and regimes that have decided what people could say or not say. In modern times that is often referred to as "the party line."

Nazi Germany had one, Communism had one and China's Mao had one. Has the "party line" shown up in America incognito, perhaps even clandestinely under a different name?

Do we need to be reminded that when taken seriously forcing people to mouth only "the party line" can and does cost millions of lives? Joseph Stalin alone is credited with the death of thirty million of his own countrymen for refusing to talk the right talk. In many cases their deaths were predicated only on a perceived truth and not based in proof that they ever spoke a single word against Stalin's policies.

The writer of the article previously mentioned in this article has a perfect right under the constitution to state his opinion and to put it forth with all argument and reason as he sees fit. Why is it that those with opposing views are getting censured more and more?

More people then ever are questioning both the meaning and the legality or constitutionality of the concept of "political correctness", among them of late has been highly respected Pastor John Hagee. He too is warning of the dangers of leaving this threat to freedom unchecked. Others are joining the ranks against this precursor to thought policing and I stand with them.

The Leaky Boat Of American Political Class Corruption - Domestic and Foreign

I am constantly amazed at the amount of corruption that tends to follow our political class around, both on our domestic shores and overseas. Consider a story that appeared in the September 24, 2010 issue of The Week Magazine entitled, "The Fight Against Corruption In Afghanistan." According to the article:

- Afghan President Hamid Karzai has recently blocked several investigations of graft in his administration.

- There have been ongoing complaints of corruption related to members of his government including his two half brothers who are allegedly involved with drug trafficking, bribery, and smuggling cash out of the country.

- Karzai recently freed one of his senior aides from prison who had been arrested on corruption charges.

- A recent in-country survey in Afghanistan found that 70% of those Afghans surveyed said that their local government officials are engaged in drug trafficking.

In return for this web of corruption and deceit from the Afghan government, the United States taxpayer expends roughly $100 billion a year and many dead American soldiers trying to get this situation right. Who should one be more mad at, the Afghan government officials and crooks who get away with this theft or the American political class that allows them to get away with it.

Another article on foreign corruption of U.S. taxpayer money comes from a New York Times article that appeared in the St. Petersburg Times on September 26, 2010, "Corruption Gobbles Up Gifts To Children." This article reviewed a program that the U.S. political class put in place to get almost 8,100 laptop computers into the hands of Iraqi children. The computers' value was estimate to be $1.8 million. The laptops arrived in Iraq last February but were not distributed right away.

While trying to track them down, it became known that in August, 4,200 of them had been auctioned off by some Iraqis for $45,700. The location of the other 3,900 computers was unknown at that time and still unknown today. Now, the article does acknowledge that ten government-employed customs people have been arrested in this case. However, seven months after the taxpayer funded computers landed in country, not a single on has been distributed to an Iraqi child and the location of the computers has apparently not been determined.

These are just two of the myriad of corruption instances that the American taxpayer has paid for in both war zones, Iraq and Afghanistan. And, as always, there does not appear to have been any person in our government or political class held accountable for the corruption and the waste. From $100 billion a year we waste in Afghanistan supporting a thoroughly corrupted government down to the relatively small, but symbolic loss of $1.8 million of laptop computers in Iraq, we are left with the classic political class situation: everyone is in charge but no one is accountable.

But I guess we should not be too upset that taxpayer dollars are being wasted via corruption half a world away. Consider just a sample of political class corruption examples we have faced domestically in recent years:

- Hawaiian Senator Daniel Inouye has been accused of using the leverage of his Senate office to coerce government regulators to bailout a distressed Hawaiian bank in which the Senator had made a significant investment, an investment that would be lost if the bank was allowed to fail like the regulators wanted.

- Congressmen James Traficant, Randy Cunningham, and William Jefferson have been found guilty of various corruption violations and have served or are serving prison time.

- Many former Illinois governors have either spent time in jail (Kerner and Walker), are serving time in jail (Ryan), or are trying not to go to jail (Blagojevich).

- California Congresswoman Maxine Walters is accused of doing the same deal in order to save a bank that her husband had heavily invested in.

- New York Congressman Charles Rangel is likely to go on trial later this year in Congress for his alleged misdealings and corruption in many areas.

- Florida Congresswoman Ginny Waite Brown was reported by the Associated Press to have been trading stocks in financial institutions at the same time she was sitting on a House committee that would determine which financial institutions got how much government/taxpayer bailout money. For most Americans, this is called insider trading and is a felony. For political class members this is called business as usual.

- Many of President Obama's nominees for high level government positions were found to have not paid their fair share of taxes including Tom Daschle, ex-long time Senator, and Tim Geithner, currently the Secretary of the Treasury. Again for most Americans, this type of tax evasion is at least a misdemeanor. For the political class, it sometimes feels like it is a way of life.

- The government organization that runs Medicare is so rife with corruption and mismanagement that it wastes, loses, and misspends almost $100 billion a year in government/taxpayer funds.

- Various Associated Press reports have reported that employees in the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Interior Department and most recently in the Defense Department (The Week - September 17, 2010) have been extensively involved, on work time and on government computers, in searching and downloading pornography off of the Internet. The latest Defense Department pornography finding identified over 250 Pentagon employees and contractors, some with the highest security clearance, had viewed and purchased child pornography, sometime with their government issued computers. This form of corruption at best involves the misuse of government salaries dollars and equipment, at worst sets up users of pornography for blackmail and other forms of corruption.

- When the Democrats took control of the House Of Representatives in 2006, newly appointed Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, stated that she would lead "the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history" and that she wanted to "drain the swamp" of Congressional corruption. Part of this effort was a bill signed by President Bush called the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act" in 2007. Parts of this bill called for disclosure of lobbyists' spending and contributions to politicians, a ban on lobbyist gifts to lawmakers, curtailment of free vacations from lobbyists, creation of an independent ethics office, and the identification of earmark sponsors.

- While sounding great, the ethics bill and the push to root out corruption has fallen short, according to a recent Associated Press article:

1) It appears that few in Congress are disclosing how lobbyists are helping them raise campaign cash for their re-elections even though there is a provision in the above law that requires them to do so.

2) Even though the ethics office that was created by the above bill has found grounds for misconduct with two Democratic members of Congress, Maxine Walters and Charles Rangel, Pelosi will probably be able to delay their House trial until after the November elections. You cannot say you are fighting for good ethics if you use your power to postpone possibly embarrassing ethics violations and investigations for political gain.

3) Recent news reports show that three Democratic members of Congress awarded Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholarships to their relatives. Talk about conflict of interest and a serious ethical violation, in spirit if not law.

4) While the 2007 ethics law that Bush signed required earmarks to be identified by lawmaker, it obviously did nothing to curtail earmark creation and waste since they are close to an all time high. Earmarks are nothing more than thinly disguised ways for the political class to direct taxpayer money to entities that turn around and give some of that money back to the lawmaker for his or her re-election campaign, i.e. it is a giant kickback scheme. In essence, the shell game of having taxpayers pay for incumbents' re-election campaigns is as healthy and as destructive as ever, it is just now we know who is doing the destruction.

- Recently, an influential former lobbyist, Paul Magliocchetti, pleaded guilty to funneling more than $380,000 to the re-election campaigns of three House Democrats. This $380,000 cash for incumbents cost the American taxpayer $137 million - this is the amount of defense contracts that the three Democratic Congressmen directed towards Magliocchetti's clients.

- Beyond the above ethics violations involving money, Pelosi could be considered in serious breach of ethics as leader of the House Of Representatives on many fronts. She has allowed members of her party to call American citizens, with legitimate differences of opinion with the Democrats actions and positions, racists. Pelosi herself called Americans opposed to Obama's health care plans un-American even though those Americans have a right to disagree with any politician. While she censured a Republican Congressman who called Obama a liar during a health care reform speech (even though the Republican apologized and his apology was accepted by the President), she had no problem with one of her fellow Democrats calling all Republicans "knuckle dragging Neanderthals." You cannot be considered an ethical person if you do not respect the opinions and rights of others to have those opinions. She should know better, she is a leading political figure in the country. However, her behavior in berating common citizens is unethical and despicable.

Thus, while Pelosi is taking credit for a law that is supposed to reduce corruption, a law that was signed by a Republican President and passed with wide Republican support, the fact is it does not make any difference who was responsible. Corruption, earmarks, lobbyists' influence, conflict of interest, non-disclosure, etc. are still major corruption issues with our political class. While her boat might look better, it is just as leaky as all of the previous political class boats of corruption.

As with the corruption that wastes our foreign policy dollars, nobody (so far) of any importance has faced an consequences from these domestic acts of corruption. That is what is frustrating the American people today, we pay and pay and pay through taxes and our dead soldiers just to have these types of wasteful corruption instances thrown back in our faces.

And the sources of the corruption are never fixed. We are so afraid of losing to the Taliban in Afghanistan that our political class tolerates the corruption from Afghan officials who are more concerned with their wealth and well being then fixing their country. We prop up another government in Iraq that is so corrupt that it would deny the simplest joys to their children, the ability to have a free computer. Our politicians feast for themselves on the taxpayer dollar while comparable behavior by those same taxpayers gets them jail time. Obama passes a multi TRILLION health care plan but never fixed the leaks of corruption in the current government health care plans. Thus, we will have a bigger boat that leaks more taxpayer money quicker.

When does it end and how do we fix the leaks? The following initial steps would be a good start:

Step 1 - reduce Federal spending by 10% a year for five years. If the political class has less of our money to spend, they are likely to waste less money also.

Step 2 - make a conscious and determined effort to crack down on tax and other government fraud and waste, aggressively bringing those crooks and fraudsters to justice. This step would also include the strengthening of ethics violations process and prosecution of current politicians in office.

Step 3 - bring home almost all of our foreign deployed troops. The world is full of corruption and criminals, why should we put them into power and then watch as they plunder our taxpayer money? Using this step and a much more restrained foreign policy should reduce the Defense Department budget significantly and eliminate the type of fraud that our political class subsidizes in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Step 4 - remove those members of Congress, sitting on those committees that are responsible for the oversight of the waste, corruption and fraud, from their committee posts for incompetence when appropriate. For example, whatever House and Senate committees are responsible for those Iraqi missing laptops, and the other billions and billions of taxpayer dollars that have been flushed down the Iraqi hole of corruption, those politicians should be removed from their committee posts and replaced. No more being in charge but not accountable.

Step 5 - institute term limits for all politicians so that they are out of office in a relatively short time, before they can learn the ropes of Washington corruption and profit both personally and politically by that culture of corruption.

Until you fix the leaks in the boat, corruption will find a way in and our tax dollars will find a way out. With TRILLIONS of dollars of national debt piling up and American families struggling in a very weak economy, every patch is needed if you are to fix our financial situation and make our taxpayer dollars more impact and useful in honest ways. Hopefully, the above suggestions to fix our culture of political corruption float your boat also.

Political Blogging - Ethics of Making Money From Your Blog

Blogging about politics can be tough business. Many may drop away from your blog because they disagree with you. On the other hand you will attract very little attention if you stay away from having an opinion about the subjects you blog about.

People have easy access to information about what happens - all over the globe. What they get much less of from traditional sources are analyses and behind-the-scenes impressions about what happens. That creates a duality when you blog about political subjects.

• On the one hand you want to stay objective - to remain credible
• But you also want to have a twist - to differentiate yourself from the crowd

You will have to realize, from the beginning, that politics and religion are the two areas where you will never agree with everyone.

When that has been said, it is also important to say that you can be biased in your analysis without pushing other people aside. Doing that in the best way when running a political blog involves presenting both sides of the equation, and using careful evaluation to show why you have the opinion you do - and how it affects other people.

When you use that type of debate, people may disagree with some of your conclusion, but they will nonetheless respect you for standing by your opinion. When you analyze things from a respectful perspective you show empathy for other people's views while also giving them food for thought.

It's What People Want - Food For Thought

This is the single most lacking ingredient in most political blogging. People are so focused on writing about high profile subjects, and matching certain key words that they totally forget their audiences. This is the one area where you can truly make a difference if you want to do a decent job in blogging about politics.

I know from personal experience that this type of blogging has a tremendous potential. I have seen my blog rise in power and visitor counts within days after writing on an important subject. I did this in danish, but you can have the same experience in any language. The important part is to realize what your assignment is, and after you know that, you can increase your readership considerably by choosing carefully reviewed opinions at all times. You may also have an undecided opinion, and that would be an excellent chance to call in further opinions using feedback from readers.

Daily Politics Blog - How to Find a Good One

So you are interested in the world of politics but do not know where to find a good daily politics blog. In this article I will provide you with the best method for finding the blogs you want to read. I will not tell you what to read, I will tell you how to find a political blog you want to read -one that suits your specific tastes.

If you know essentially nothing about the world of political blogging you should understand a few things right off the bat.

Firstly, a daily politics blog can come in one of two forms. The first type is the kind most people probably think a political blog looks like. It is the "personal blog". It is made by one individual. The second type is the corporate type. It is like a company as it has several writers or "contributors" who make up the daily blog into what is very similar to an online newspaper.

Secondly, the thing you need to know right away upon entering the politics blog universe is that the vast majority of political blogs are biased or at least "lean" one way or another -they are opinionated news. There are however many politics blogs that take a non-partisan or neutral approach to their blogging. Remember, this kind of blog might be articulating a point of view just like partisan blogs.

Finally, the most important thing to do, in my opinion, is to do research on the political blogs you start reading. If the blog is a personal one try to understand where they are coming from. If the blog is a corporate one look them up on Wikipedia. See who owns them and possibly which way they "lean" (left or right for instance).

Alright, so now that you are schooled in spotting blog types and their content you can start searching for a great daily politics blog.

I suggest you immediately figure out what kinds of political blogs you want to follow before you start following them. You should have an idea of what you are trying to accomplish by reading a blog online. Are you trying to educate yourself? Are you looking for other people who will articulate your shared positions on politics? Or maybe you want to act like a media analyst by looking at daily politics blogs on both sides of the political spectrum!

Whatever you are looking for and wherever you might be on the political spectrum, there is really only one final step to finding a great blog you can follow every day and it involves Google.

Search Google for the words "politics blog" (or blogs) or "political blogs" (or blogs) while combining a word that specifies exactly what kind of material you want to see. For example, if you are a life long Republican in the United States you might want to put "conservative" or "Republican" in front of politics blog. If you are a centrist you might want to type "moderate" or "centrist" at the beginning. What you put in addition to the first words is up to you and will depend on your political views.

Using Google is the best way for newbies to get settled in to the political blogging world as the first page results are usually the more established personal and corporate blogs. Since so many mainly personal political blogs die in their first year (people just stop writing), using Google is the ideal first step. Keep in mind you can use other search engines but Google superior in my humble opinion.

Partisan Politics and the United States Supreme Court

America is truly a blessed country. When one is to consider the long unbroken history of its democracy and judicial system. This in itself is a hallmark for any civilized society. The instrument which is keeping everything intact in the Judicial System of the United States is the Constitution. The Supreme Court with its nine Justices usually interprets the law and based our their expert legal opinions; laws are either over turned, upheld or granted. There is but one single gray area that usually haunts this fine Legal Institution and that is the area of politics.

Interpreting the constitution mainly based on legal opinion is basically one area that most Justices on the Bench are faced with. However, when there is a political component or personal bias then the decision is not truly fair or honest. Legal opinions are sometimes tainted with personal experiences and each Justice on the Bench knows this, therefore, their decision/s and their vote usually trigger a chain reaction in some quarters. The supreme Court of the United States was established in 1789 fully authorized by the U.S Constitution. The document provide the primary framework for the molding and shaping of laws in the United States.

In most recent years, politics have crept into the halls of the Supreme Court like a raging monster. At times, it can be a subtle descant or blatant legal opinions. America is at a crossroad, like any other country she is faced with social, political and religious influences that can infringe on the democratic fabric that is inscribed on the Constitution. Partisan politics in the US Supreme Court can shift this country into various directions which can destabilized the very foundation of its founding judicial principles. Legal opinions that is too extreme (right or left) can be considered partisan. Because the Justices see first their political agendas without first consulting the Constitution. When personal preferences (political, social or religious) are etched into the heart of an individual it is sometimes difficult to change their course of action. Justices on the Bench need to keep reminding themselves that their primary focus is Fidelity to the law; hold such tenants faithfully and keep their legal promise to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Get Elected With Political Campaign Yard Signs

During a political campaign it is imperative to get your name out there. You can hold press conferences, give speeches at local events, get involved in charity work, and run television promotions. All of these common methods make your voice heard. Another great way to spread the word is by posting political campaign yard signs.

Travel around town during an election time and you are bound to see plenty campaign signs. Whether it is a local judge running for reelection or the president campaigning for your vote, political yard signs have been an important part of candidate campaigns for many of years.

Why use political campaign yard signs to get your message across?

- Political signs are a cheap and convenient way of campaigning. They can be designed and purchased online at a reasonable price. And, they are produced in bulk so you will have plenty signs to spread throughout your area.
- Campaign signs can be displayed just about anywhere. Supporters of your campaign can put the signs on their yard. You can distribute them on popular street corners around the town that you are running in. And, you can surround the voting area with signs to help gain any last minute undecided voters. They are light, easy to transport, and they stick in the ground or can be attached to any surface.
- Political signs are an excellent way to reach thousands or people in one easy step. Think of how many people pass a certain area in one day or one week. Multiple that by the number of signs you distribute and you can see just how effective political campaign yard signs are.

In order to reap the benefits of using yard signs for your political campaign, the sign must be designed appropriately.

- A logo and colors should be selected early on in your campaign. Sticking with two or three colors throughout your campaign will help voters better associate you to your advertising methods. A political campaign sign should include these colors in a bright and easy to read manner. Make sure you choose a font and color where words are legible from a distance.
- Address one purpose instead of trying to fit multiple messages on one sign. Remember that passerby's have limited time to read your sign so you need to highlight and emphasize a single point for them to remember.
- Make your name the largest word on the campaign sign. The voters need to remember who they are voting for. Your name is the last thing you want them to miss seeing.
- Make the sign an appropriate size for where it will be displayed. Typical election yard signs are between 12 and 40 inches. A good rule of thumb is to judge the speed that the passerby will be traveling. If the speed is 30mph or less, 18 inch x 24 inch is a good size.

The Moderate - Key Political Views

In the world of politics, people who describe themselves as moderate share in common a handful of fundamental beliefs. These people are united not around a party or organization but around a certain worldview. In this article I am going to tell you the most important things you need to know about what defines a moderate.

Oxford dictionary describes a moderate as an "individual who is not extreme, partisan or radical". People often use centrist as a synonym with the term but it should not be used interchangeably. Moderates can be centrists, but they can also be classified either as center-left or center-right on the classic political spectrum. There is a significant degree of flexibility when it comes to party choice for these individuals as they have very pragmatic tendencies when it comes to voting.

There are, nevertheless, a select few beliefs and characteristics that ties every political moderate together. They are listed as follows:

Common Sense and Reason

A moderate's thinking about political issues is founded on the premise that they think with their heads. Meaning, they try to not let their emotions get in the way of making decisions on often difficult and complex issues. They understand the various implications both positive and negative that could arise from taking one position or another on a given topic. Thus, moderates try to vote as rationally as they can. Moderates weigh the importance of one thing versus the other and decide which one is truly more crucial and will be more beneficial to the society in which they live. They also have a tendency to vote pragmatically or "strategically" when the occasion warrants such behavior. The moderate despises irrationality, which leads me to the next section.

Belief in Science

I strongly and personally believe that a belief in science is absolutely essential to the identity of a moderate. To discredit the basics of science is to exhibit an utter disregard for reason and rationality. In most western countries this is not an issue like it is in the United States of America. Statistics from polls that ask Americans about their beliefs in science and evolution are absolutely disheartening to the average person of sanity. After having a president for the last eight years that disrespected and misunderstood science, the numbers should not come as a shock. Regardless of whether one votes as a moderate conservative or moderate liberal, a belief in science is imperative to being able to justly hold the 'm' word in their title.

Middle-of-the-Road Politics

Moderates often describe themselves as "independents", not affiliating themselves with any specific political party. However, they can favor one party over the other, hence the terms moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. When moderates' party of choice starts to move too far to the left or the right, they can become uneasy. Candidates who take far left or right ideological positions are not appealing to average moderate voters. When the media reports that independents decide elections in places like the United States and Canada, what they are really saying is that moderates decide those elections. In the U.S., the last two Democratic Presidents were moderates, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. George W. Bush campaigned as a moderate with the slogan "compassionate conservatism" but governed mostly as an ideologue. In Canada, the Liberal party of Canada defines itself as a centrist/moderate party and dominated Canadian politics for most of the last 100 years. These kinds of parties are most attractive to moderates.

I believe that these three aspects best describe what a moderate is and what he or she believes in. In the world of politics, moderates know how to work together and how to get things done.

Political Scenario in Kerala

Kerala political system is unicameral (single legislative house). The government is entrusted with the responsibility of executive, legislature and the judiciary. However the judiciary constitutes a series of lower courts, state tribunal and the State High Court. The state is headed by the chief justice who presides over the Governor's swearing. Apart from the chief justice, there are 26 permanent judges and two other additional judges (also called tempore judges) who hold office. The Kerala legislative assembly consists of the MLA (representatives of the people) who hails from various different regional and national parties. Different parties in Kerala have different ideologies and sectional interests. This multi party political system ensures that every part of the society is duely represented and looked after. The party who wins the majority selects or elects a head that represents the executive council presided over by the governor. Thus the governor of Kerala is vested with special powers by the President of the nation. However it is the chief minister that his executive council works for.

The chief minister has the power to elect / select the members of the executive council. The various members are appointed in various ministries which makes sure that the governance is efficient enough and encompass all. Individual portfolios are assigned to the ministers. The state executives are answerable to the legislative council. Local self-governing bodies like the municipality and the panchayats are chosen by regular polls.

At present the Kerala government is pictured by two main alliances, the United Democratic Front (led by Indian National Congress) and Left Democratic Front (led by the CPI (M)). The later is the present ruling alliance while the former party plays the role of the opposition. Mr. V.S. Achuthanandan heads the CPI (M). Racist sentiments sometimes become a major issue concerning Kerala governance.

Why The General Of Third World Fail In Politics

INTRODUCTION

The third world is a part of our earth that is always in the clutches of the military generals. Almost every general in this part of the earth is ambitious to grab the highest post of the president or chief martial law administrator. But wishes do not always come true. The golden bird does not sit on the shoulders of all the generals. Only few get the chance to rule and make the public of their states fool. There are a lot of such generals who do not succeed in usurping the powers.
and are not able to reach their "unnatural" political boundaries.

Why these generals fail in politics, let us make a survey of the causes and effects of their failure.

ATTITUDE

The first and foremost reason of the defeat in the battlefield of politics is the unreasonable attitude of the generals. Many generals attempt seriously to make good. They have native ability to do so. The native ability in this connection is the military background of the general. This general finds it almost impossible to sit at a desk and concentrate on his evil designs.

He cannot sit down for a long time due to some addiction or illness to ponder over the constitution. Sometimes he tries to do so, opens the book of constitution, but he is unable to decide about his abilities. He always procrastinates and the other rank fellows win the fields. He wastes his time in preparing himself to make a coup. In this way his time passes and nothing comes out in his favour.

Such habits are not easy to uproot. If the general wants to succeed he should have to eradicate such obnoxious habits otherwise he should shun all his noble designs of revolution.
Although he thinks that he is trying yet he does not try. He spends a lot of time in the presence of the books of constitution but is unable to amend it in his favour.

ADVISORS

A common cause of failure of the generals of the third world is mistaken ambition on the part of his advisors. The toadies and humbugs are always instigate the military chief to achieve the highest post but are not the best judge of the abilities of the general.
Many generals do not show any interest in political involvement. They are absolutely not fit for this job even for their own job but are advised by his advisor to get involved in the politics. Such a general cannot overthrow the elected government.

The reason behind this defeat is that he has to follow a direction mapped out by his advisor. That direction always runs counter to his interests and abilities.

Such generals always earn a number of warm enemies among the advisors and politicians. Their wish of making him a stooge does not come true and they become his enemies until they succeed in overthrowing him.
Such a general prefers to become ambassador or head of a lucrative department after retirement.

EASYGOING FELLOWS

Another type of a General who does not try is the very intelligent and diligent person .He has always done his duties efficiently and considers politics a child, s play. He supposes that he can float through the politics with as little effort as he did through military career. Such a general is the most pitiable person on the earth when he is pitted in the field of politics. It is almost a tragedy to see such a receptive mind wasting the entire opportunity the politics has offered to him.

PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH

The question of health both physical and mental is always one of the reasons for failure. If a proper free medical service is available in the USA or ENGLAND, the general can hold up the bridles of the administration. Moreover if proper cooperation exists between the establishment and the general he can easily make a coup.

FINANCIAL RESOURCES

Most of the generals want to join politics but the financial pressure is a very serious reason behind their failure. A lot of them could not find or avail opportunity to heap unlawful wealth during service. Such generals cannot succeed in their ambitions, as they can not gather timeservers around them. Such officers are unable to win sympathies of the establishment and politicians.

These generals are absolutely ignored by the patrons.

Moreover the generals who are cast entirely on their own resources cannot succeed because their entire income is not enough to grease the palms of the establishment. Politicians having vested interests should help them in this regard if they want to fulfil their interests.

JUDGMENT

There are a goodly number of generals whose judgment is perverted by the attraction of the motorcades and escorts of the prime ministers and presidents. So they want to overthrow them and fill up their gap. Such generals who aim at these things should shun their ideas of getting the status of a president or a prime minister .It is better for them to become chairman of a semi- governmental organization and lead their life in comfort and luxury.

POLITICS IS NOT CRICKET

A large number of generals drift into politics and drift out again without serving any interests. They think that politics are just like cricket. Most of them have not found any serious interest in politics. It is usually wise to let them retire in the cold world of general public so that they might know the real and miserable condition of the public.

CONCLUSION

In so far as the failure is concerned it can be avoided by acting upon the guidelines provided by the former military rulers. If this is not kept in mind the failure is the fate of such generals.
The advisors are advised to select the right general who follows the footsteps of his forerunners who had ruled the nation for a decade or more. It would be great service to the failing generals as well to the ignorant people who always welcome the person in the uniform.

Political Issues or a Matter of Life and Death

A member of Congress sent a Letter to me. She wanted to know what I was most concerned about what our Government can do for its Citizens. I was suppose to select the issues she thought were important. Well, the most disturbing thing about her form letter is the fact that the items she selected completely ignored the cause for why our life within this once great, "Land of Plenty," is as worse as it has ever been for any person who has ever lived, or ever will live in this once great, "United States of America."

That issue is, "Political Corruption." For some strange reason I can't think of one elected member of our Government who isn't guilty of some form of, "Political Corruption." It dosen't matter how trivial it might be. The truth is, those people who we trust to insure our well being aren't doing anything important for us. Why?

It is the desire of the richest people on Earth to successfully control the whole Planet any or every way possible. Their agenda and secret plan for the achievement of that goal is known to us as, "The New World Order." As for our Politicians, they are nothing more than the tools for the achievement of that, "New World Order." If we don't put a stop to what they are doing to our Country and the hard working and honest people within it, we will soon lose every right granted to us by the founders of our once great Nation.

Yes, every issue on her list can easily be dealt with for the benefit of the majority, but those super greedy and insane, "New World Order," People are doing their best not to allow that to happen. Who exactly are those, "New World Order," supporters, and why would they do such terrible things to us and the People of the entire World? They are sick! Not only are they sick, but they are, if they are Citizens of our Country, also traitors who are well on their way to destroying everything that made this Nation better than any other place on Earth.

So, who are those insane criminals and what can we do to save ourselves a great deal of prolonged grief and suffering, and also save the future generations of our own families? Those insane criminals are the People who control those huge multinational corporations. The truth is, they aren't loyal to any Country or any Political System. Their only loyalty is to the huge monsters they helped create that now sucks the wealth out of everyone.

Our elected members of our Government spend most of their time and our money for the benefit of those manmade monsters and the People who control them, while every other issue gets little or no attention for the good of, "We People." Prove me wrong! I wish I were.

By the way, our Government wasn't created for the purpose of being run like a business whose only reason for being is to break even or make a profit. Beside protecting us and insuring our well being, the true purpose of our Government is to create laws that allow for the transformation of our natural resources by our Human resources. In so doing, People are employed with honest work that is a benefit to all who live within the Country.

Toward that goal, the People whom we elected to preserve our way of life have certainly failed to fulfill that requested responsibility. History taught me that much, and if things continue as they are, the once great, "United States of America," will be nothing more than a, "Banana Republic."

Take a good look at South America, or any place where the majority has nothing and no real way to earn a living. Its Politicians are corrupt. There are more criminals than honest People, and the People who are rich are also the biggest criminals. It doesn't matter what kind of Political System is in place. The money they have and way in which it's spent makes them richer. Little by little, those greedy criminals are doing the same thing to us.

So, I suppose you want an example of what I just said, or do you believe that I am as nuts as the mental state of our Politicians? After what I tell you, you decide if I am just as nuts.

One of the World's largest oil companies employed me. My job was to calculate that company's State and Local taxes. After a few years, the management of that den of criminals decided that there wasn't any place for an honest tax accountant within the company and I was fired. In fact, I discovered that the management of that company wasn't loyal to anything but the earnings per share ratio shown on its published Annual Report to its shareholders. They asked me to do things that weren't exactly right and I refused. Were they setting me up to take the blame for their behavior, or was it a test of my loyalty? Who knows, but I didn't spend five years in college so I could learn how to be a crook.

Believe it or not, oil and natural gas isn't worth what we have to pay for it. Believe it or not, every multinational corporation isn't paying its fair share of taxes to any Country or Society on Earth. That, you can believe.

You can also believe that they destroyed the environment. They took away millions of jobs from, "We People of the United States of America." They want to control the energy resources of the entire World. In so doing, they are destroying our family relationships, corrupting the minds of our children, and using our tax dollars and the lives of our children to wage war against a People who are unlucky enough to be living on tens of billions of barrels of oil.

According to our elected members of our Government, that's perfectly legal to do so. Think about it, or is that too hard for us to understand? One thing for sure, too many People within our society are spaced out on one kind of drug or another. Right? Believe it or not, that poison hurt every family. In spite of our newly created Homeland Security, tons of illegal drugs still come into our Country. So too, millions of illegal aliens who, for the most part, are criminals.

No doubt, we are waging war against the wrong People, and our elected members of our Government are doing little or nothing to insure the future well being of any of us. Multinational corporations and the People who control those monsters are their most important consideration.

I am certainly concerned about what they are doing to us. Maybe I should run for the office of President? To do so, I'd need more than a hundred-million dollars and a really slick campaign manager. Where on Earth can I get that much money?

That Iraq dictator had more than six times that much hidden within the walls of his palace. Where and from whom did he get that many U.S. dollars? Maybe he got that money from the same People who contribute to our want-to-be Politicians?

Namely, those owners and controllers of those multinational corporations. No price is too high for their hearts fondest desires. Then again, being nuts might also be a qualification for the job of being the, "Number One Symbol of Democracy?"

Political Polarization is Damaging America's Listening Skills

Political polarization is currently the bane of American life. We as a citizenry have become so pushed to the extremes of political opinion and action that we can barely hear each other. If you are not talking about what I want to hear the way I want to hear it, I cannot hear you. The same is true from your side. How in the world are we ever going to reach common ground if we cannot "listen" and "hear" each other? We get stuck in nowhere-land with little chance of exit or repair. If you and I were devastated at the same location and moment by a natural or unnatural disaster, we would be forced to work together for our common good regardless of our political or other disagreements. We might even become friends through our necessary physical survival activity. I know that seems strange, but stranger things that that have happened in my life.

America's political polarization freezes us in time and activity and allows for no forward motion or repair. Our election process illustrates the polarization. We scream at our politicians because of their non-action in fixing what ails us. The political pundits and media continually feed and feed off this polarization (more about this part in a moment). What if you and I who disagree on any subject both contact our common political representative and demand that they act to each of our individual satisfaction. Just how does that representative make this particular conundrum work? Each of us has the right to expect that our vote counted toward what we individually believed. That is why we cast our vote for specific individuals. Unless you are a party-line voter, you ordinarily would vote for the representative that agrees with your personal stand on important issues. It would be rare to find a representative (or any other person) who agrees with you on every issue. We do not even get that with our own family.

At times we individually get to make difficult choices between those issues. In order for your opinion to count in any way, you must vote. A current example of a conflict within personal issues is environment versus energy needs. Do we continue to pay the price energy-wise which has us all economically screaming (no argument there) or do we continue our decimation of our environment and the resultant and natural backlash. Ask anyone who has recently gone through severe weather devastation of any form whether they are willing to face the destructive force of nature such as a hurricane, flood, earthquake, tornado or tsunami... or pay more for energy. To understand the difference you just have to be willing to stand in a victim's shoes as they faced the fury of nature. Such experience tends to be mind changing!

We already decided that we personally cannot solve our disagreement and that is why we would take personal action with our political representative. That person supposedly represents each of us, equally, and truly cannot possibly function in opposing directions at the same time. Does our representative stop because they are confused by our conflicting demands? Do they vote for one side or the other just to infuriate one of us? Does any of their own personal judgment and opinion enter into their decision and action? We hope we have chosen decisive people to represent and lead us, those who have the finest minds and skills. Are they entitled to act as individuals? Is it possible that they might see both sides of the issue and find no way out of the stalemate? Is it possible that once inside the process they were forced to change their minds? If you stand at a door and knock, you speculate on what you will find inside. Once you are invited in and that door closes you might find that your speculations were not valid and that you must change your rationale... and your vote. Something similar just occurred to me on the concept of net neutrality. I am not sure I understood it correctly when I signed a petition. Today I have doubts as to my own vote. As we learn new elements of an issue, we may find our conclusions changing Please know I am also aware of the misuses of political power, but I choose not to address that in this article.

We choose to place potential solution on the shoulders of a system that we continually ridicule. Let's see... common discussion reflects that we think our political system is broken. We collectively think the political system is a bureaucratic nightmare that goes nowhere, does nothing and needs to be thrown out like garbage. Yet we somehow also believe that this broken system is going to fix what ails us. Is that logical on our part? We think all politicians should be voted out of office (or worse). Those cretins should be replaced by noble people who will be super-human, honest, diligent, responsible, honest, and more wonderful descriptions, who sincerely desire to be public servants. I am not sure where we are going to find those noble humans to nominate for office. I know thousands of good people and I cannot suggest any one in particular that could fill that nobility role. Even if we know and could find one to nominate, could we get them elected?

Once elected, will they do any better than those that have gone before them and are being replaced? Once inside the system will they be able to do better or different actions to fix what ails that system? Will our wonderful hopes be realized in terms of fixing what is wrong? It only takes our representative one decision to maintain or discard our belief and our loyalty, if they vote against what we believe in. Despite the fact that we have agreed with their actions up to that point, one particular decision is repulsive to us and we abandon them. We voters are quite fickle that way. We tend to believe and act on "If you are with me you are my friend. If you are not with me, you must be my enemy" thinking. That is a bunch of nonsense. You and I will disagree from time to time. We are not meant to be in lock-step agreement on everything. We are individuals therefore we will differ on various issues. The same will be true of any representative we elect. If we substantially agree, we can make it work. If we substantially disagree, I have my upcoming vote.

I mentioned that I would address political pundits and media further. Those who can, do; those who cannot, talk about it. Before I manage to get taken wrong, I watch the news (including politics) regularly and of course I have my favorites. My general statement here would be that the American public and those who enter our homes and minds via the media (and that includes pundits of all types) seem to be caught in sound bites and repetition. We appear to be caught in voyeurism and media judgment. The paparazzi has provided us with the opinion we can butt our noses in where it just does not belong. Some of what goes on in your life is really none of my business and does not belong on the air. Our curiosity should not come at the cost of individual privacy issues. How would we feel if the cameras and mikes were turned on our lives? Invaded!

Also, if you say something often enough, what was truly trivial takes on unwarranted importance. I do not need to know and I personally resent having such nonsense shoved down my throat multiple times a day disguised as news. It does not inform me. It does not help me make better choices. This is a big world and there is an abundance of news to report, real news, not the salacious and the disturbing, and definitely not lies. I prefer true life to sound bites, much more interesting. My choice is to change stations or turn it off and I do.

However, my individual listening is not all that is being affected or infected. If others listen to such drivel and take in particularly the repetition of gossip or personal opinion as factual information that will affect me personally. How? It will affect me through the destructive education of others. Just because I have turned off what I find unhealthy or unreliable does not mean it was turned off everywhere. It influences many and that collective in turn can affect me. I can easily choose not to allow it to infect my thought process and decision-making ability. However, the collective value still has an effect on me.

Too many political discussions take on slants and directions that do not contribute to our overall education or good information. I watch a variety of television programming just to get a broader view. Sometimes I watch stuff I do not agree with or am not comfortable with what is being said. However, ignorance will never be my friend so I watch all sides.

Misinformation, misdirection, lies and personal opinion are continually being passed off as news. Any of that nonsense is not news, it is misinformation or personal opinion by whatever means. It feeds and exacerbates the political polarization that already exists. Particularly disturbing are the lies that are told enough times and with a tiny bit of truth embedded within that sure sound like the truth. Repeat it enough and it becomes a truth of repetition, but not one that is reliable. As I mentioned in a previous article. If it is not the whole truth, it is a lie.

By the way, pundits and media include you and I as well as we voice our personal opinions. If we are fully educated on issues, if we are completely truthful and forthcoming but not withholding important elements of the overall argument, and we are not leaning on knee-jerk reactions to make our point, we just might have something valuable to say.

Our country needs our best thoughts, our best efforts, our ability to listen and to hear, our best vote, our best representatives, and then it needs our faith that we can do pull this off. We can fix what is wrong. But healing and repair of that which is broken politically starts with listening to the other side. We then must remember that the position the other side holds has as much validity to that believer as the side on which we stand. They may be misinformed, uneducated, or wrong (or is that your side?) but their stand is their firm conviction. Freedom and our way of life is worth listening, hearing, considering, and looking for commonality in order to fix what is not working politically. If we can do this we could find more ways to use this a wonderful tool, listening. Good rule of thumb... You have two ears and one mouth. Listen twice as much as you talk. Do not let your mouth outnumber your ears.

Sharing Our Political Opinions

Can you even imagine what life would be like if you had to believe something just because someone told you to? What would you do if didn't believe the same as everyone, else but there wasn't anything you could do about it. There are rules that you cannot say anything that contradicts with what has already be agreed upon as being correct. That is how people used to live long ago and in some countries that is how they still live their lives today.

We are so lucky to live in a country where we can have varying political public opinions. In America, we have all different kinds of opinions and it is normal to agree with some and disagree with others. What else could be more important that having your own opinion about something? It's great to be able to believe differently than someone else if you don't like what they are saying, but it would mean nothing if you couldn't voice your opposing opinion. We have the right to say our political opinions publicly.

Many good things can come from sharing opinions as long as it is done in a manner of respect and learning. Sometimes it is too easy to focus on the differences and not spend more time on the similarities of our opinions. We might find ourselves arguing more than trying to reach an agreement. We need to remember always that we are blessed to have a country that allows us to have these rights and we should continue to always share our political opinions when we can.

Do Movie Stars Influence Our Political Opinions?

It is interesting to listen to a voice-over on a commercial. We've heard that voice before and wracked our memory trying to figure out who it is. Some voices to listen for are Sam Elliott, Donald Sutherland, Gene Hackman, Antonio Banderas, Richard Thomas, and Alex Baldwin. These are just a few of many movie stars who lend their famous voices to commercials. (More up front are the women stars who lend their beautiful faces and hair to beauty products. We don't have to strain to recognize them!)

Is there a reason advertisers use these famous male voices?

Certainly. One reason is that their voices are attractive and match the product in some way. The second reason is because they are actors can inject their voices with a certain persuasive emotion, be it comfort, confidence, pride or any particular characteristic that advertisers decide is needed to influence their audience. Well-known actors are hired over the usual ad actors because they are the best at their craft.

Have movies been influential in changing thought about social and cultural issues?

With convincing emotional performances onscreen, such issues as discrimination against black Americans and the gay and lesbian culture, promoting ecology, denigrating politicians and capital-based economics, actors and ideas have been persuasively presented to the American public. In so doing, public minds and opinions have been changed; attitudes altered.

Studies have shown that Hollywood has been responsible for instilling new values into the American psyche: some good, some worthless, some destructive.

The importance of evaluating credibility.

Good actors will take on a variety of roles. We appreciate the degree of talent and effort that goes into a stellar performance. If an actor submerges himself into a role, he often tells an interviewer it takes some time to let go of the persona. Other actors admit to playing themselves, using various aspects of their personality and experience. It is important to remember these admissions when they are standing up for one cause or another, because they can easily call on their acting experience for persuasive expression, and many of their beliefs have their origins in a strictly emotional response. It should also come as no surprise that, somewhere in their lives, is a large contradiction to their words.

There is no "Movie Stars are Us" store.

How many of us walk in and out of a fictional setting on a regular schedule? How would it affect our thought process? It is also wise to remember that movie stars, as much as they would have us believe the opposite, do not live the lives of ordinary Americans. They may touch the fringes occasionally, but their chosen profession prevents them from becoming involved in bake sales, PTA, worrying about job security on a week-to-week basis, nor do they worry about the mundane routine of punching a clock and turning out a certain number of widgets every day.

The next time we hear a movie star speak on subjects near and dear to our hearts, should we question whether they speak from personal experience or mere personal opinion, perhaps influenced by a role they've played, or a cocktail party conversation they had one night? From an actor, very likely, what we hear speaking is a display of emotion, minus the thoughts and values of every-day participation in American life.

Political Opinion - No Comment

Publicity is correlative to your position in the community. Seldom does the quiet worker, without incident become published in local news or publications. Though his achievements are many and great, he accomplishes great things in his lifetime, his quiet fortitude and persistence are rarely recognized as important or document worthy.

So, what makes a person worthy of comment? Worthy of being heard in a society such as ours? Is it his life? That he has something of grave importance to express? Or that his knowledge is vastly improved over that of the average person?

While it may be fortunate that everyone with a word to express is not heard, and there may actually be some benefit to censored press, it is my honest opinion that those who find it necessary to control the knowledge available to the public are creating a disservice to the general people of our nation. When words have value they are given press time, publicity and recognition. But don't all words have value? With the power of the press to promote issues, the purpose of words often becomes misconstrued. How about a variance given all people voice?

The people deserve to be heard. Even if their opinion is static, unpopular, or defensive, each person on the face of this planet has a voice and I believe they should be heard. Let's give them space to vocalize their opinions and let them be heard. Better yet, let's support the view of Right to Speech and promote it as a viable and valuable concept.

There have been cases where a person spoke out and was belittled, limited, and censored by the press. I can understand this to an extent, however, in today's means of transporting sound around the world... Why?

Let's hear it for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Be published!

Jan Verhoeff almost always has an opinion. Though on rare occasions she may choose not to voice her opinion. Those times are few and far between. But, she actively encourages others to state their opinions too.

Political Opinions on Political Blogs

No matter what your political affiliation is, it probably isn't represented by the mainstream media. By trying to please everyone, the media - like the political establishment it has come to serve - pleases no one. For most American people, until recently they just had to put up with this situation. Until the invention of political blogs, there was simply no good news analysis that did not try to tow a moderate party line. Thanks to politics blogs, however, that has all changed. No matter what ideological position you are coming from, you can find a political blog that is written for you.

I have been reading liberal political blogs for about three years now, and I feel like they have really enhanced my understanding of current events. We live in such a conservative society that much of the real news of what is going on is censored by the mainstream media. In these free political forums, however, the news can finally be heard by the public that is hungry for it. Unfortunately, political blogs don't have the budget to do some of the things that the more mainstream news outlets do. They cannot have correspondents all over the world, for example, ready to report any event that happens. What they can do, however, is access a wide range of different media and try to put together a more complete picture than any single publication does. News analysis is a valuable service, and one that is completely neglected by the mainstream media. Thanks to political blogs, we can get beyond the the facile analysis provided by most of the news pundit shows.

But some blogs are not based on facts. So it will be your job to know which political blogs are based on proof or spoofs. Of course, the problem with personal blogs is that they do not have the same standards of proof as some of the media outlets do. While most political blogs are at least as dependable as Fox news, when they are compared to legitimate media outlets, many of them falls short. This is why you have to pick and choose carefully when you are reading blogs. Anyone can write anything they want on a political blog, and it is very hard for someone to call them on it. After all, free speech is a right, and posting on the Internet is simply an extension of that right. People have just as much right to blog political fiction as fact, and rumormongers abounds. As always, it is up to you to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy for http://politicopinion.blogspot.com/

If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at mariyuana.ganjanita@gmail.com.

At http://politicopinion.blogspot.com/, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by http://politicopinion.blogspot.com/ and how it is used.

Log Files
Like many other Web sites, http://politicopinion.blogspot.com/ makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons
http://politicopinion.blogspot.com/ does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on http://politicopinion.blogspot.com/.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to http://politicopinion.blogspot.com/ and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense


These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on http://politicopinion.blogspot.com/ send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

http://politicopinion.blogspot.com/ has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. http://politicopinion.blogspot.com/'s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.