Please visit this website.
http://saveeastturk.org

Duration : 3 min 39 sec

Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: east

The study of politics first grabbed my attention when I started to pursue my own examination of the Civil Rights Movement. Examining the methods employed by the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations to achieve “order over justice” at various points in the movement always bothered me. However, these same methods that I deplored with the advantage of hindsight that I now enjoy through the works of many scholars such as Taylor Branch and David Garrow led to my fascination with international and comparative politics. Particularly, Pan-Africanism and its effect on Black American political thought and activism.
My study of civil rights was originally intended to be a personal examination of the people, places and events that were so critical in shaping my African-American experience. During undergrad, I found myself enchanted with classes such as Turning Points in U.S. History #1 which examined the Black slave from colonial times to the beginning of reconstruction, Turning Points in U.S. History #2 which examined the Black man during the height of the second freedom struggle know as the Civil Rights Movement, and Africana Studies which examined the modern African-American experience today in America – and was taught by a professor with a professed Pan-Africanist point of view. This Pan-Africanist prospective opened my eyes not only to Pan-Africanism, but also to having a more internationalist perspective of current events.
Coincidentally, the semester I was enrolled in Africana Studies, I was also privileged to be enrolled in The History of South Africa and Middle East 2: The Modern Period simultaneously. Looking back, The History of South Africa course reinforced Ian Bremmer’s theory on “The J Curve.” I saw how domestic pressure from an increasingly unhappy but politically powerless Black majority combined with sanctions and isolation from the international community eventually hastened the inevitable breakdown of apartheid. However, I was more impressed by how President Mandela had the vision and political savvy to use his political capital to transition his country to the upper right side of the J-Curve through the combination of reconciliation, openness, and sound economic policies (However, I firmly believe that to keep South Africa from the same fate as Zimbabwe or other African countries he had no choice but to pursue the policies that he did. Mandela was thinking for the long term rather than short term, just as the Whites who voted for the transitional government were thinking.)
Just as President Mandela was planning for the long term, Middle East 2: The Modern Period also taught me Theodore Herzl’s long term strategies for Zionism and the establishment of the modern nation of Israel. This was particularly fascinating for me because I was able to compare and contrast Pan-Africanism with Zionism. Although the two philosophies aren't identical, a sharp comparison of the two demonstrates when, where and how an idea is likely to take hold and evolve into a movement and why great movements don't always make for great administration and state building.
As a social studies education major I was often forced to substitute courses I was eager to take in the fields of international relations and Africana studies for courses that "were required" for my major. Originally I viewed this as a negative aspect, but once again hindsight has proved that taking the required social studies education curriculum which stressed breadth (geography, history, political science, economics, sociology) over depth (single discipline) has placed me ahead of some of my peers when it comes to understanding politics and contemporary history from multiple perspectives, which is an even bigger advantage in the interdisciplinary fields of Africana studies and international relations. This was confirmed in the summer prior to my senior year of undergrad. I finally got my opportunity to take two courses that induced me to consider a change of career plans, U.S. Foreign Policy and Comparative Politics. These two courses challenged the typical American citizen's thinking of foreign affairs by requiring us to go beyond our perceptions of the policy by examining a policy's messy domestic formulation, its comparative perception overseas, and the policy's resulting consequences at home and abroad. Each course challenged mythmaking by examining harsh realities due to history, geography, economics, and sociology – not just politics. Everything plays a role seen and unseen.
Although graduate school was never my intention three years earlier as I first entered college, I had now given it enough thought over the course of two years (sophomore & junior) to know that it was something I definitely wished to pursue. I knew I wanted to combine my interests in Africana studies, history, and political science/international affairs in a way that both advanced knowledge and challenged social norms and values in ways that could bring about fundamental change through practical pursuits. I needed creativity combined with hard facts, solid statistics, and in-depth analysis. I needed to study Africana studies with an emphasis in political science (international/comparative) and contemporary history. I saw this as the best path for myself because I would be able to use my breadth of studies to analyze issues from multiple angles, as well as my strong desire for in-depth analysis to dig deep into the heart/root of any issue.
Coincidentally, I had been a member of the legislative body of the student government for two years. This granted me the opportunity to participate in researching issues, conducting opinion polls, and most importantly test my knowledge, judgment and interpersonal communication skills in choosing the best options and alternatives for the student body. This experience was extremely helpful in my understanding of legislative politics by providing a practical application to my theory based knowledge. In the same manner my three years spent as a resident assistant in the residence halls on campus induced me into good time management skills as well as opening my senses and sensibilities to people with different backgrounds, ideals and habits from my own. Talking with residents and learning their values and interests forced me to see each situation that arose from multiple perspectives, be they right or wrong.
Being away from school for two years has been a huge advantage for me. Moving to metro N/A from central Pennsylvania (raised)/northeast Ohio (college) has also allowed me to bring the Civil Rights Movement to life through visiting museums and historic sights. Also, my southern experience has allowed me to experience life in a different region of the country which in turn has taught me just how diverse African-American thought can range on similar issues. I've invested my time in reading history, politics, old college textbooks (which seem to make even more sense now), The Washington Post, and scholarly journals such as Foreign Affairs, The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, and Policy Review. I also used my degree in education to teach tenth grade World History Honors at a local high school in N/A. This experience gave me (my last semester in undergrad I also student taught American government and Economics to high school seniors) the honor of disseminating knowledge to young intellectuals striving to push ahead in life. However, this isn't a path that can cure my intellectual hunger and curiosity. Even though I love teaching, I also love researching and creating knowledge as well. Teaching in an inner-city high school reinforced and even expanded upon my deep beliefs in "learning for learning’s sake" and keeping an open mind. Not only has my experience exposed weaknesses in me that I previously could only recognize in other people, but it also focused my graduate studies on African Americans within the African Diaspora. Growing up in Williamsport, PA, a conservative predominately white town in central Pennsylvania, I often experienced subtle (but noticeable) racism hidden under a veil of generosity. African-American history, culture and activism were 'melted' rather than 'solidified'. My college and subsequent job experience has provided me with a greater realization of my place within the African Diaspora. Naturally, my intense interest in the Civil Rights movement, international relations, and African Diaspora studies has revealed that my deepest desire is to increase communication, openness and cohesion among members of the Diaspora throughout the world. I realize that politics is what helps create history and should be taken more seriously by citizens and scholars alike.
In graduate school I intend to focus on African American studies with an emphasis in contemporary history and politics (primarily international/comparative). I intend to research how the African-American "double-consciousness" (Dubois) can effectively promote U.S. foreign policy (and global stability) in ways that will strengthen Pan-Africanism. In part of this study I intend to examine contemporary African-American members of the federal government to examine their "views and proceeding actions" towards U.S. foreign policy and Pan-Africanism. This is necessary in order to examine whether African-American policy makers have "adopted" a mainstream view of foreign affairs and why. I also intend to expand upon African-American participation in foreign policy to include new African immigrants and the effect they could have on U.S. foreign policy and their former countries by empowering democracy from abroad through American soft power, particularly the media. Do we need more "African" politicians in so called "Black" communities in order to diversify thinking on both sides and foster a better working coalition among both groups? If so, what compromises will have to be made on each side? In speaking of Africa, I would love to examine the question, "Does a shared view of history decrease violence and promote cooperation between rival groups within Africa and among the African Diaspora?"

I admit I skimmed a bit after the first portion, but you don't want to give an entire autobiography, particularly if the information is covered elsewhere in your application (transcript, CV, etc.). Briefly cover your background, spend a little more time on your motivation for studying in this field without giving a laundry list of your previous courses and accomplishments (if you have to go into depth, pick the most important ones or the ones you don't think are highlighted sufficiently in the rest of the application), and then explain why you need this degree from this school's particular program and what you hope to accomplish with it.

powered by Yahoo Answers

The study of politics first grabbed my attention when I started to pursue my own examination of the Civil Rights Movement. Examining the methods employed by the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations to achieve “order over justice” at various points in the movement always bothered me. However, these same methods that I deplored with the advantage of hindsight that I now enjoy through the works of many scholars such as Taylor Branch and David Garrow led to my fascination with international and comparative politics. Particularly, Pan-Africanism and its effect on Black American political thought and activism.
My study of civil rights was originally intended to be a personal examination of the people, places and events that were so critical in shaping my African-American experience. During undergrad, I found myself enchanted with classes such as Turning Points in U.S. History #1 which examined the Black slave from colonial times to the beginning of reconstruction, Turning Points in U.S. History #2 which examined the Black man during the height of the second freedom struggle know as the Civil Rights Movement, and Africana Studies which examined the modern African-American experience today in America – and was taught by a professor with a professed Pan-Africanist point of view. This Pan-Africanist prospective opened my eyes not only to Pan-Africanism, but also to having a more internationalist perspective of current events.
Coincidentally, the semester I was enrolled in Africana Studies, I was also privileged to be enrolled in The History of South Africa and Middle East 2: The Modern Period simultaneously. Looking back, The History of South Africa course reinforced Ian Bremmer’s theory on “The J Curve.” I saw how domestic pressure from an increasingly unhappy but politically powerless Black majority combined with sanctions and isolation from the international community eventually hastened the inevitable breakdown of apartheid. However, I was more impressed by how President Mandela had the vision and political savvy to use his political capital to transition his country to the upper right side of the J-Curve through the combination of reconciliation, openness, and sound economic policies (However, I firmly believe that to keep South Africa from the same fate as Zimbabwe or other African countries he had no choice but to pursue the policies that he did. Mandela was thinking for the long term rather than short term, just as the Whites who voted for the transitional government were thinking.)
Just as President Mandela was planning for the long term, Middle East 2: The Modern Period also taught me Theodore Herzl’s long term strategies for Zionism and the establishment of the modern nation of Israel. This was particularly fascinating for me because I was able to compare and contrast Pan-Africanism with Zionism. Although the two philosophies aren't identical, a sharp comparison of the two demonstrates when, where and how an idea is likely to take hold and evolve into a movement and why great movements don't always make for great administration and state building.
As a social studies education major I was often forced to substitute courses I was eager to take in the fields of international relations and Africana studies for courses that "were required" for my major. Originally I viewed this as a negative aspect, but once again hindsight has proved that taking the required social studies education curriculum which stressed breadth (geography, history, political science, economics, sociology) over depth (single discipline) has placed me ahead of some of my peers when it comes to understanding politics and contemporary history from multiple perspectives, which is an even bigger advantage in the interdisciplinary fields of Africana studies and international relations. This was confirmed in the summer prior to my senior year of undergrad. I finally got my opportunity to take two courses that induced me to consider a change of career plans, U.S. Foreign Policy and Comparative Politics. These two courses challenged the typical American citizen's thinking of foreign affairs by requiring us to go beyond our perceptions of the policy by examining a policy's messy domestic formulation, its comparative perception overseas, and the policy's resulting consequences at home and abroad. Each course challenged mythmaking by examining harsh realities due to history, geography, economics, and sociology – not just politics. Everything plays a role seen and unseen.
Although graduate school was never my intention three years earlier as I first entered college, I had now given it enough thought over the course of two years (sophomore & junior) to know that it was something I definitely wished to pursue. I knew I wanted to combine my interests in Africana studies, history, and political science/international affairs in a way that both advanced knowledge and challenged social norms and values in ways that could bring about fundamental change through practical pursuits. I needed creativity combined with hard facts, solid statistics, and in-depth analysis. I needed to study Africana studies with an emphasis in political science (international/comparative) and contemporary history. I saw this as the best path for myself because I would be able to use my breadth of studies to analyze issues from multiple angles, as well as my strong desire for in-depth analysis to dig deep into the heart/root of any issue.
Coincidentally, I had been a member of the legislative body of the student government for two years. This granted me the opportunity to participate in researching issues, conducting opinion polls, and most importantly test my knowledge, judgment and interpersonal communication skills in choosing the best options and alternatives for the student body. This experience was extremely helpful in my understanding of legislative politics by providing a practical application to my theory based knowledge. In the same manner my three years spent as a resident assistant in the residence halls on campus induced me into good time management skills as well as opening my senses and sensibilities to people with different backgrounds, ideals and habits from my own. Talking with residents and learning their values and interests forced me to see each situation that arose from multiple perspectives, be they right or wrong.
Being away from school for two years has been a huge advantage for me. Moving to metro N/A from central Pennsylvania (raised)/northeast Ohio (college) has also allowed me to bring the Civil Rights Movement to life through visiting museums and historic sights. Also, my southern experience has allowed me to experience life in a different region of the country which in turn has taught me just how diverse African-American thought can range on similar issues. I've invested my time in reading history, politics, old college textbooks (which seem to make even more sense now), The Washington Post, and scholarly journals such as Foreign Affairs, The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, and Policy Review. I also used my degree in education to teach tenth grade World History Honors at a local high school in N/A. This experience gave me (my last semester in undergrad I also student taught American government and Economics to high school seniors) the honor of disseminating knowledge to young intellectuals striving to push ahead in life. However, this isn't a path that can cure my intellectual hunger and curiosity. Even though I love teaching, I also love researching and creating knowledge as well. Teaching in an inner-city high school reinforced and even expanded upon my deep beliefs in "learning for learning’s sake" and keeping an open mind. Not only has my experience exposed weaknesses in me that I previously could only recognize in other people, but it also focused my graduate studies on African Americans within the African Diaspora. Growing up in Williamsport, PA, a conservative predominately white town in central Pennsylvania, I often experienced subtle (but noticeable) racism hidden under a veil of generosity. African-American history, culture and activism were 'melted' rather than 'solidified'. My college and subsequent job experience has provided me with a greater realization of my place within the African Diaspora. Naturally, my intense interest in the Civil Rights movement, international relations, and African Diaspora studies has revealed that my deepest desire is to increase communication, openness and cohesion among members of the Diaspora throughout the world. I realize that politics is what helps create history and should be taken more seriously by citizens and scholars alike.
In graduate school I intend to focus on African American studies with an emphasis in contemporary history and politics (primarily international/comparative). I intend to research how the African-American "double-consciousness" (Dubois) can effectively promote U.S. foreign policy (and global stability) in ways that will strengthen Pan-Africanism. In part of this study I intend to examine contemporary African-American members of the federal government to examine their "views and proceeding actions" towards U.S. foreign policy and Pan-Africanism. This is necessary in order to examine whether African-American policy makers have "adopted" a mainstream view of foreign affairs and why. I also intend to expand upon African-American participation in foreign policy to include new African immigrants and the effect they could have on U.S. foreign policy and their former countries by empowering democracy from abroad through American soft power, particularly the media. Do we need more "African" politicians in so called "Black" communities in order to diversify thinking on both sides and foster a better working coalition among both groups? If so, what compromises will have to be made on each side? In speaking of Africa, I would love to examine the question, "Does a shared view of history decrease violence and promote cooperation between rival groups within Africa and among the African Diaspora?"

if you want to cut this down, try starting with the questions then to the main point, that will reduce sentences, hence. less gobbledygook. ^_^

powered by Yahoo Answers

The study of politics first grabbed my attention when I started to pursue my own examination of the Civil Rights Movement. Examining the methods employed by the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations to achieve “order over justice” at various points in the movement always bothered me. However, these same methods that I deplored with the advantage of hindsight that I now enjoy through the works of many scholars such as Taylor Branch and David Garrow led to my fascination with international and comparative politics. Particularly, Pan-Africanism and its effect on Black American political thought and activism.
My study of civil rights was originally intended to be a personal examination of the people, places and events that were so critical in shaping my African-American experience. During undergrad, I found myself enchanted with classes such as Turning Points in U.S. History #1 which examined the Black slave from colonial times to the beginning of reconstruction, Turning Points in U.S. History #2 which examined the Black man during the height of the second freedom struggle know as the Civil Rights Movement, and Africana Studies which examined the modern African-American experience today in America – and was taught by a professor with a professed Pan-Africanist point of view. This Pan-Africanist prospective opened my eyes not only to Pan-Africanism, but also to having a more internationalist perspective of current events.
Coincidentally, the semester I was enrolled in Africana Studies, I was also privileged to be enrolled in The History of South Africa and Middle East 2: The Modern Period simultaneously. Looking back, The History of South Africa course reinforced Ian Bremmer’s theory on “The J Curve.” I saw how domestic pressure from an increasingly unhappy but politically powerless Black majority combined with sanctions and isolation from the international community eventually hastened the inevitable breakdown of apartheid. However, I was more impressed by how President Mandela had the vision and political savvy to use his political capital to transition his country to the upper right side of the J-Curve through the combination of reconciliation, openness, and sound economic policies (However, I firmly believe that to keep South Africa from the same fate as Zimbabwe or other African countries he had no choice but to pursue the policies that he did. Mandela was thinking for the long term rather than short term, just as the Whites who voted for the transitional government were thinking.)
Just as President Mandela was planning for the long term, Middle East 2: The Modern Period also taught me Theodore Herzl’s long term strategies for Zionism and the establishment of the modern nation of Israel. This was particularly fascinating for me because I was able to compare and contrast Pan-Africanism with Zionism. Although the two philosophies aren't identical, a sharp comparison of the two demonstrates when, where and how an idea is likely to take hold and evolve into a movement and why great movements don't always make for great administration and state building.
As a social studies education major I was often forced to substitute courses I was eager to take in the fields of international relations and Africana studies for courses that "were required" for my major. Originally I viewed this as a negative aspect, but once again hindsight has proved that taking the required social studies education curriculum which stressed breadth (geography, history, political science, economics, sociology) over depth (single discipline) has placed me ahead of some of my peers when it comes to understanding politics and contemporary history from multiple perspectives, which is an even bigger advantage in the interdisciplinary fields of Africana studies and international relations. This was confirmed in the summer prior to my senior year of undergrad. I finally got my opportunity to take two courses that induced me to consider a change of career plans, U.S. Foreign Policy and Comparative Politics. These two courses challenged the typical American citizen's thinking of foreign affairs by requiring us to go beyond our perceptions of the policy by examining a policy's messy domestic formulation, its comparative perception overseas, and the policy's resulting consequences at home and abroad. Each course challenged mythmaking by examining harsh realities due to history, geography, economics, and sociology – not just politics. Everything plays a role seen and unseen.
Although graduate school was never my intention three years earlier as I first entered college, I had now given it enough thought over the course of two years (sophomore & junior) to know that it was something I definitely wished to pursue. I knew I wanted to combine my interests in Africana studies, history, and political science/international affairs in a way that both advanced knowledge and challenged social norms and values in ways that could bring about fundamental change through practical pursuits. I needed creativity combined with hard facts, solid statistics, and in-depth analysis. I needed to study Africana studies with an emphasis in political science (international/comparative) and contemporary history. I saw this as the best path for myself because I would be able to use my breadth of studies to analyze issues from multiple angles, as well as my strong desire for in-depth analysis to dig deep into the heart/root of any issue.
Coincidentally, I had been a member of the legislative body of the student government for two years. This granted me the opportunity to participate in researching issues, conducting opinion polls, and most importantly test my knowledge, judgment and interpersonal communication skills in choosing the best options and alternatives for the student body. This experience was extremely helpful in my understanding of legislative politics by providing a practical application to my theory based knowledge. In the same manner my three years spent as a resident assistant in the residence halls on campus induced me into good time management skills as well as opening my senses and sensibilities to people with different backgrounds, ideals and habits from my own. Talking with residents and learning their values and interests forced me to see each situation that arose from multiple perspectives, be they right or wrong.
Being away from school for two years has been a huge advantage for me. Moving to metro N/A from central Pennsylvania (raised)/northeast Ohio (college) has also allowed me to bring the Civil Rights Movement to life through visiting museums and historic sights. Also, my southern experience has allowed me to experience life in a different region of the country which in turn has taught me just how diverse African-American thought can range on similar issues. I've invested my time in reading history, politics, old college textbooks (which seem to make even more sense now), The Washington Post, and scholarly journals such as Foreign Affairs, The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, and Policy Review. I also used my degree in education to teach tenth grade World History Honors at a local high school in N/A. This experience gave me (my last semester in undergrad I also student taught American government and Economics to high school seniors) the honor of disseminating knowledge to young intellectuals striving to push ahead in life. However, this isn't a path that can cure my intellectual hunger and curiosity. Even though I love teaching, I also love researching and creating knowledge as well. Teaching in an inner-city high school reinforced and even expanded upon my deep beliefs in "learning for learning’s sake" and keeping an open mind. Not only has my experience exposed weaknesses in me that I previously could only recognize in other people, but it also focused my graduate studies on African Americans within the African Diaspora. Growing up in Williamsport, PA, a conservative predominately white town in central Pennsylvania, I often experienced subtle (but noticeable) racism hidden under a veil of generosity. African-American history, culture and activism were 'melted' rather than 'solidified'. My college and subsequent job experience has provided me with a greater realization of my place within the African Diaspora. Naturally, my intense interest in the Civil Rights movement, international relations, and African Diaspora studies has revealed that my deepest desire is to increase communication, openness and cohesion among members of the Diaspora throughout the world. I realize that politics is what helps create history and should be taken more seriously by citizens and scholars alike.
In graduate school I intend to focus on African American studies with an emphasis in contemporary history and politics (primarily international/comparative). I intend to research how the African-American "double-consciousness" (Dubois) can effectively promote U.S. foreign policy (and global stability) in ways that will strengthen Pan-Africanism. In part of this study I intend to examine contemporary African-American members of the federal government to examine their "views and proceeding actions" towards U.S. foreign policy and Pan-Africanism. This is necessary in order to examine whether African-American policy makers have "adopted" a mainstream view of foreign affairs and why. I also intend to expand upon African-American participation in foreign policy to include new African immigrants and the effect they could have on U.S. foreign policy and their former countries by empowering democracy from abroad through American soft power, particularly the media. Do we need more "African" politicians in so called "Black" communities in order to diversify thinking on both sides and foster a better working coalition among both groups? If so, what compromises will have to be made on each side? In speaking of Africa, I would love to examine the question, "Does a shared view of history decrease violence and promote cooperation between rival groups within Africa and among the African Diaspora?"

You get really wordy in both paragraphs that start with "Coincidentally…" Your strongest paragraph starts with, "Although graduate school…", but could still have the verbiage tighted.

Take the paragraph which begins, "Being away from school for two years…" and challenge yourself to break it into two smaller paragraphs and really tighten and strengthen the language. It should be about 1/2 its current length and double its impact.

Where you can really tighten things up throughout the paper (and cut much of the length) is by cutting extra long phrases like, "In graduate school I intend to focus on" or "I also intend to expand upon African-American participation in…." and find a simple, concise phrase to replace the wordier ones. Try things like, "I shall focus upon" and "______ intrigues me."

One suggestion is to find a colleague who is a Journalism teacher to read it and help you cut the extra verbiosity. Anyone who grades writing for a living can help you immensely.

powered by Yahoo Answers

If you say that government is too big and truly overweening, you elicit a surprising degree of agreement among people, even mainstream columnists, economists, and nearly everyone. Even government employees, who famously resent their bosses, might be quick to agree. If you hang outside the offices of the IRS in Washington, D.C., in the park at noontime where its employees take their lunch, you will get an earful of vitriol against the bureaucracy such as you wouldn't hear outside 1990s militia circles.
Incidentally, the government is having a terrible time recruiting employees. Only 16% of college-educated workers say that they are interested in a government job. Among those without a college degree, there is twice the level of interest. Among people currently employed, those with managerial or professional occupations show a low interest level of 17%.
Among those who want work to be challenging and enjoyable, only 9% thought a government job qualified. And, interestingly, among those who say they want to make a contribution to society, 90% said that non-government work in the private sector, whether for profit or non-profit, is the way to go.
Now, what this means is that the smart set avoids government. Government work might still be attractive to people with fewer economic opportunities, but they are entering it for reasons that are not ideological. And for that reason too, they are less loyal to the public sector and glad to bail out if something else comes available.
Most people view this as a very bad trend. I would only say that it is a significant trend, especially considering that in the heyday of government central planning, government sought to attract the best and the brightest. Often it did. Now, one might argue that if government were doing what it should be doing, this would be a good thing. But if government is doing many bad things, it is certainly not a bad trend for it to experience a brain drain.
It is always a tragedy to see smart and entrepreneurial men and women be attracted away from productive employment in the private sector toward a position of power in the public sector. It makes us poorer to have the talents drained away from wealth creation toward wealth destruction. As for the very few good people in politics — Ron Paul is the great exception that proves the rule — they are true public servants only insofar as they work to diminish government power rather than increase it.
So long as government is large and overweening, we are better off with a public sector that cannot attract the best and brightest. They should stay put where they can continue to expand the range of goods and services offered within the market framework. It is the market that provides us the means necessary to improve our standard of living, and the tools we need to maintain some degree of independence from the state.
We often rail against incompetence in government. But before we go too far with this language, we need to consider that competence in government may be a far worse fate. We don't need genuinely competent antitrust enforcers, drug and food regulators, tax collectors, money manipulators, labor-law interventionists, gun grabbers, and environmental police. As H.L. Mencken said, we should be thankful that we don't get all the government we pay for.
To be sure, we are paying far more today for government than ever before. Consider the real annual growth rate of total government outlays by presidents. Under Nixon, it was 3%. Under Carter, it was 4.1%. Under Reagan, 2.6%. Under Bush's dad, 1.9%, a figuring owing to the cuts in military spending. Domestic spending soared. Under Clinton, whom we all denounced as a socialist, it was 1.5%, the lowest rate in the postwar period. And under the present Bush, who promised less government? The real annual growth rate of total government outlays has been 5%, which compares to Johnson-era spending.
The old rationales for government growth may have been discredited in the public mind. But they are alive in Washington, among the special interest groups, and among the media. I would like to identify the main ones.
Rationale Number One: The Good Samaritan State. In this view of government, the state should act like the third person to come upon the poor man who had been beaten and robbed. They imagine a population that is divided among three types of people: victims, victimizers, and those who refuse to help.
The victim classes we know all too well, because the litany is said again and again within the structure of labor law: the elderly, the very young, ethnic and racial minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, workers, the underpaid, people in rural areas, those who deal with urban overcrowding, people who breathe dirty air or eat chemically produced products, artists, the manufacturing industry, people with peanut allergies, the dyslexic, short people, fat people, the leisure deprived, and I've probably left out a hundred or so other groups.
Among the victimizers, we similarly have a list: capitalists, racial and ethnic majorities, sexual majorities, the overpaid, managers and CEOs, people who live in gated communities, the well armed, consumers of cell phones, owners of mines, anyone living off a trust fund, fully abled men, and anyone who resents social managers telling them what to do.
In the view of those who advocate the Samaritan State, these two classes of victims and victimizers are constantly at war. There is nothing but conflict between them. The loss of one is the gain of the other. These categories are fixed and unchanging. The lack of harmony of interests is built into the structure of the social and economic world. The remedy requires an institution that is relentlessly engaged in reweighing the power relationships between the two groups. The conflict cannot be finally ended, but justice requires that the victims are given an unending stream of compensation and that the victimizers are treated with disdain and punished for their very existence. Social justice thus requires that victimizers are reduced, disabled, denounced, and spat upon, while the victims must be exalted, fed, clothed, funded, and made whole.
This is how the Left, broadly speaking, thinks the world works, and should work. It doesn't matter whether one considers oneself a hard Marxist or a soft social democrat, the intellectual tie that binds them together is the view that conflict and not cooperation characterizes the work of society in the absence of an institution dedicated to bringing about social justice.
The institutional answer is, of course, the state. The state is the Samaritan who lifts up and exalts the meek, and smites the proud and powerful who would otherwise walk right past the poor person on the street, who is the very archetype of the victim in the leftist view of how the world works.
But there are many things wrong with this view of society. In the parable, the victim was beaten and robbed. He was exploited only in a very narrow and old-fashioned sense: his person and property were violated. These are crimes against libertarian ethics, a system of thought that mirrors what every religious and ethical system has taught: do not kill and do not steal. In other words, he was not a victim of some hazy notion of Social Injustice.
He was not discriminated against, exploited by an employer, made to work long hours, or denied a comfy living in his old age. There is a huge difference between being beaten and robbed, and having to pay high prices for prescription drugs. The great error of the Left is its inability to distinguish the injustice of violence from the supposed injustice of inequality of material condition.
As for the Samaritan, he was not acting as an agent of the regime. He used his own money to help the victim. He got him back on his feet and paid his bills at the private clinic where he was deposited for care. The Samaritan did not rob someone else to give money to the man on the street. He presumably got his money justly by hard work and investment. He had no desire to keep the man dependent, nor to exercise power over him, tax him, regulate him, nor send him to war.
The state is something very different. It has no income but that which it robs from someone else. It seeks its own gain at others' expense. It protects itself and promotes itself before the interests of everyone else. It is beholden to special interests who create and control its regulatory apparatus. It is not impartial. It sides with its friends over its enemies. Moreover, the state is an exploiter, a murderer, a violator of human rights.
The typical response of the Left is to say that they want a state that does only good things such as share and care, and not bad things such as steal and kill. But this cannot be. We might as well wish for a lion that only purrs and cuddles, or a rattlesnake that only provides percussion accompaniment to mariachi music. The very nature of the state is that it exists only through and for compulsion. To imagine otherwise is not to face reality.
Rationale Number Two: The Solomonic State. In the Bible we are told that King Solomon had "understanding exceeding much and largeness of heart, even as the sand that [is] on the sea shore." And his "wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt." He was "wiser than all men" and "his fame was in all nations round about." He spoke "three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five." He "spake of trees, from the cedar tree that [is] in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom."
Now, I'm not here to dispute the Bible's account of Solomon's wisdom. But let us also recall that Solomon's rule later became close to tyrannical. His son Rehoboam inherited his power, and when the people begged for relief from Solomon's "heavy yoke," and instigated a full-scale crackdown: "My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions."
To be wise and prudent is not characteristics of rulers. In fact, it is very dangerous to hope that they may be. If we set out to find such a person, and have fantastic power available to him when we believe he has arrived, we have set up the framework for tyranny. The founders knew that no man can be trusted with power. They attempted to construct a system that presumed that men were corruptible, and that there would be some means to dislodge them when their corruption showed.
Still, today many people long for the Solomonic State as a means of dispensing justice. Unlike the Samaritan model, the goal here is not charity but the just wielding of the sword on behalf of the right and true. Thus should we seek out righteous men of learning and moral character who know what evil is and have the courage to stand up to it and destroy it. This model is what inspires this mentality.
There are many problems with this model. One man might be very wise, even the wisest of all men. But as F.A. Hayek might remind us, all the accumulated knowledge in the head of one person is still infinitesimal as compared with the wisdom that emerges through social cooperation on the marketplace. We can consider the price of any good on the market as it stands right now, and know that this one price results from the accumulated decisions of millions of people across thousands and thousands of sectors of economic activity spread throughout the world. The knowledge is dispersed in a million directions and results from small decisions and actions by economic actors. But the result is a single indicator that assists in allocating resources better than any single mind could ever do.
The model of the Solomonic State also imagines that somehow the social order we see around us cannot possibly have come about without a single will operating in society, some firm hand that has designed the order and keeps it running smoothly. People who think this way imagine that in the absence of this firm hand, there would be nothing but a Hobbesian state of nature, where society is a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short.
Our age is notably lacking in the likes of Solomon, and so those who fear the Hobbesian state of nature turn to the managerial state to act wisely in the interest of justice and order, at home and abroad. They might not always like what the rulers do, but they consider the alternative to despotism more fearsome. They warn about the dread results of anarchism and liberty, where people senselessly kill and rob without consequence. They fear this liberty more than they fear the abuses of power.
This, I submit, is the mentality of many conservatives and many on the Right. We see it in the affections they have for Bush, the Patriot Act, the war on terror, and how quickly people fall for any leader who uses Manichean rhetoric in defense of the latest nationalistic crusade.
What these people need more than anything else is a familiarity with the insights of the old liberal tradition as represented by Jefferson, Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. They need to come to see how order is not the mother of liberty but its daughter. They need to see how society is harmonious not because of the state but because of the prevalence of human cooperation in the marketplace, where people work to trade to their own mutual betterment.
People who fail to understand this become the unwitting servants of tyranny, particularly in the modern age when it is so obviously not wise but stupid and violent and presumptuous. They imagine that the state can posses godlike powers and bring justice and order, but they end up only empowering the worst elements in society, bringing injustice, and chaos.
Now, you might say that the old liberal view of society is naïve. It might be in people's interest to learn to trade rather than steal but we live in a fallen world. If not for some overarching controlling force, people would loot each other unrelentingly and kill for fun. Now, to this I can say that it is true that some societies have not learned to make trading and peace significantly more prevalent than violence and killing. History is strewn with examples.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether a society that fails to learn the art of civilization will erect and sustain a state that will impose civilization on the people. I submit that history also teaches that when a people are brutal and uncivilized, the state is even more so. The state is rarely and maybe never better than the people it rules; in fact, it is almost always worse.
Rationale Number Three: Log-Rolling. Given these two very different conceptions of the state, one favoring the welfare state and the other favoring a warfare state, why don't the visions cancel each other out? So intense is the desire of one group to have the state that it wants that it is willing to put up with another group's desire for its conception of the state. The two conceptions decide to cooperate and erect a state that purports to behave both like Solomon and like the Samaritan. That is the origin of the guns-and-butter state, or the welfare-warfare state, or the modern state as we know it, one that purports to meet every need.
We see how this log-rolling works every day on Capitol Hill. One group wants more money for tanks and weaponry, and the other wants more for Medicaid and education. If both agree that politics is the art of compromise, they will put up with the other group's priorities in order that their own vision can be fulfilled.
On the Right, we find that the love for the police power is more intense than the hatred of redistribution. On the Left, we find that the love of redistribution is more intense than the hatred of war and leviathan. They therefore work together to erect a massive and ever-growing executive. They are similarly unwilling to oppose the state in total. They fear that in doing so, the state as an institution will be discredited, and their conception of what the state should do along with it. Neither side particularly loves big government but both sides agree that it is better than the alternative of letting people alone. So they log-roll to support the public sector above all else, even when it means that they must sleep with their ostensible political enemies.
Rationale Number Four: The Inflationary State. Now we come to the reason this system is able to perpetuate itself. And there is something of a mystery to explain here. No people anywhere will put up with a leviathan that grows and grows forever. At some point, the problem of funding state expansion will result in too much violence against property, and the people will revolt. Indeed, if the federal government had to collect all its revenue through a tax of any kind, leveled right now against the public, I submit to you that it would spark a tax revolt on a scale never before seen in modern history.
Thus do we have the central bank to create money for the state. Thus do we have paper money that can be created in unlimited quantities. Thus do we have deposit insurance to make banks failure proof, so that the masses will never doubt that the credit pyramid is immortal. Thus do we have the Fed's power to manipulate interest rates and control the flow of credit to the system.
An economist at Lehman Brothers sent us an interesting chart the other day. It compares the level of price increases across many Fed regimes. Under the first Fed governor Charles Hamlin, the dollar declined 8% in value. Under Thomas B. McCabe from the late forties, it declined 7.2%. Under Arthur Burns, wholly owned by Nixon, the dollar declined 42% in value. Under Volcker, Mr. Tight Money, it fell 40%. And under Greenspan, who has a reputation as a great inflation fighter, the value of the dollar in terms of goods and services fell fully 44%!
Inflation serves the cause of the state by giving it room to run up debts without limit and fund its activities without making the people cough up more revenue. Indeed, that is the primary purpose of the inflationary state. People often say to me that a gold standard is impractical. In fact, that is not the case. It is very practical. It is the free-market answer. The state doesn't need to produce money any more than it needs to produce shoes or shirts or clocks. The problem is that we lack the political will to stop the inflation monster.
Rationale Number Five: The Propaganda State. In every society control of educational institutions increases in tandem with the rise of the state. This is because the state needs these institutions to inculcate the civic religion of loving the public enterprise, and also because the less people know about the idea of liberty the more the state is provided the room to grow.
Consider the Department of Education. Ever since its creation, every Republican administration has come to power with an intention to abolish it. But once they get in power, they find that bureaucracy has its uses. Instead of cutting or abolishing it, they increase the agency and give it more to do. The more the state does, the more the state sees the need to control public opinion by controlling the schools.
Now, there is a point of optimism here. If any state could rule without propaganda, it would surely do so. Why then do states find educational control and the propagation of the civic religion in their interest? Because at some level, every state, in all times and places, is required to seek the tacit consent of those it governs. No state can control a society by use of the sword only and alone. It must also seek some degree of ideological conformity with its own goals. Otherwise its rule becomes threatened and destabilized.
The other side of the coin is that states can indeed be destabilized by the ultimate counterrevolutionary tactic of providing alternative sources of education. As Mises said, all of history is a battle of ideas. Where the ideas of freedom are triumphant, liberty prevails. Where the ideas of freedom are buried and suppressed, despotism prevails.
Our pathway is clear. It is a choice of the Mises Institute not to mix in the mire of a political system that is wholly owned or attempt to seek favor from influential opinion makers. Our path is one of education, pursued with high-minded ideals, advanced using the most modern methods, and animated by the spirit of guerilla warfare. There are Misesians and Rothbardians strewn throughout the academic world, financial and banking houses, law firms, and in every walk of life, not only in this country but all over the world.
We have worked for nearly a quarter of a century on a very radical project of advancing economic science and logic. We have pushed to keep the fire of freedom burning brightly. We have sought to teach anyone and everyone about the workings and benefits of liberty. We have come under pressure from left, right, and center. Yet the attention given to this body of ideas grows by the day.
We can prevail against the Propaganda State. So long as we are free to do so and have the means available, we will continue to do so. This is our weapon against power. It is the most effective weapon anyone could ever possess. If we win this victory, we win all others.
We thank you for supporting education for liberty, and for being part of the revolutionary vanguard that sees through the errors of our day and imagines a brighter future of freedom, private property, and peace. : Mises Institute

Your question is too long. Learn to be succinct.

powered by Yahoo Answers

Segregation warning as whites face being minority in cities
David Leppard

WHITES will soon become a minority in Birmingham and other major British cities, posing a “critical” challenge to social stability, Britain’s race relations watchdog has warned.
Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), says “tough decisions” will have to be made as Leicester then Birmingham, Oldham and Bradford become “plural cities” where no one race holds a demographic majority.

The warning comes as government statistics show that white and ethnic minority communities are becoming increasingly segregated by growing population movement and immigration.

Phillips will highlight the issue this week at a conference in Leicester, which the CRE predicts will become a plural city by 2011, with the others crossing the threshold by 2016.

“We have some tough decisions to make, but events across Europe have shown how segregation breeds mistrust and fracture,” said Phillips. “The benefits of plural cities can be great, but we need to look at the future and act responsibly.”

The CRE points to last year’s race riots in Birmingham, the disorder in France and the Muslim cartoon protests across Europe to warn of the dangers. But Keith Vaz, Labour MP for Leicester East, said the city was a “model of integration”.

However, Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Muslim Forum in the East Midlands, fears a backlash. “I think the indigenous white people would resent the fact they are in the minority,” he said.

Mohammed Naseem, chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque, said: “It could increase the risk of conflict and hostility. However, perhaps a more likely possibility is that with greater integration there will come better understanding and tolerance of different communities.”

There are now seven London boroughs in which whites are in a minority, up from three in 2001. Brent in northwest London has the highest proportion of non-whites, 69%.

Nigel Harris, emeritus professor at University College London, played down the risks: “We have had a wonderfully diverse society for a very long time. To collapse this into an issue about black versus white seems bizarre.”

My opinion is that you should stop using multiple accounts to push your far right agenda.
Whether you are still with the BNP or the independent nationalists now Roy, you are still breaking Yahoo guidelines. Using big words won't make things right.

powered by Yahoo Answers