So Donald J. Trump, has been elected as the 45th President of the United States of America. Being at the helm of the most powerful country on earth, Trump stands to greatly influence the global economy, politics, and environmental situation.
That he scored this victory at this juncture in world history will be talked about in the coming decades. But right now, environmentalists like myself are encouraged to take a closer look at how a Trump presidency will have strong and long-standing impact on arguably the most urgent issue of our times: Climate change.
Trump is a known climate change denier. How he could not grasp the entire science behind it perhaps warrants another post, but for now, we can say that he is not even alone in this. Perhaps he is truly unaware, but perhaps he is also feigning innocence, so that, like many others in the Republican party, they can continue entering lucrative ventures and be in business-as-usual mode, and thus also continue to wreak havoc on the environment.
Here are parts of his plan of action for his first 100 days in office. It should make us shudder (if his very election has not accomplished that for us):
"FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward."
Both are about generating domestic employment, which were his major campaign pitch to the disgruntled working-class Americans who lamented the offshoring practices of many businesses, which left them jobless. But at what cost?
Now, Trump is promising to push for these ventures that will simply add to the planet's climate woes. "Shale, oil, natural gas, and clean coal." We are not so sure about the latter, but we do know that at this stage, renewable is the way to go. We are one of the world's largest economies, and if we do not pay serious attention to finding a more sustainable way to fuel our activities, then all of the growth we are expecting will be for naught.
We will most likely suffer more extreme weather events, and witness another Hurricane Katrina that will devastate more communities. And of course, as we pursue this course of unsustainable development, our brothers and sisters from the more vulnerable parts of the globe will suffer. Do we want this?
Author's Note: This is a guest blog post by Richard A. Kimball, a California native who enjoys writing and blogging about the environment. To read more of his work, you can visit his blog, Google+ or LinkedIn.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Friday, November 11, 2016
Donald Trump and climate change
As I have argued in a previous post, a Trump presidency will reverberate across the globe, and too, with important implications on the world environmental situation. This time, I would like to specifically link it with a deeply disturbing news.
In a report published on The Independent, climatologists warned that it could be “game over” for humanity soon. Within a lifetime, we may see global temperatures rise by over 7 degrees Celsius, as we continue to pump an increasing amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Part of the report reads, “According to the current best estimate, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if humans carry on with a “business as usual” approach using large amounts of fossil fuels, the Earth’s average temperature will rise by between 2.6 and 4.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100.”
The trajectory of things happening is easy to imagine from here: Polar ice caps will melt, facilitating flooding in low-lying areas even after what is previously tagged as normal rainfall. We will experience harsher winters and hotter summers – a tragedy for those whose livelihoods depend on a more balanced ecological conditions: Farming, fishing, to name a few. When this happens, our peasants and fisherfolk are set to harvest way less produce than ever before.
Here in the United States, our farmers are relatively more moneyed and equipped with technologies, and also benefit from government subsidies. In less developed parts of the world, the impacts of climate change can only mean hunger in poor farming and fishing communities that have no financial means to deal with less water for irrigation, and long, dry spells. We might see the emergence of new diseases, too.
The fact is, we need to pour more investments towards climate change programs not just for our country but throughout the world. Unfortunately, Trump’s campaign has promised to do exactly the opposite.
Within his first 100 days, he said that he will “cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure.” The United States might also pull out from the Paris treaty, under Trump.
These are not the things we need in what has already described been described by scientists as an emergency situation. Surely, there is a need for all of us to campaign, and campaign hard, for a more sensible response from the government to this important issue.
Author's Note: This is a guest blog post by Richard A. Kimball, a California native who enjoys writing and blogging about the environment. To read more of his work, you can visit his blog, Facebook or Twitter.
In a report published on The Independent, climatologists warned that it could be “game over” for humanity soon. Within a lifetime, we may see global temperatures rise by over 7 degrees Celsius, as we continue to pump an increasing amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Part of the report reads, “According to the current best estimate, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if humans carry on with a “business as usual” approach using large amounts of fossil fuels, the Earth’s average temperature will rise by between 2.6 and 4.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100.”
The trajectory of things happening is easy to imagine from here: Polar ice caps will melt, facilitating flooding in low-lying areas even after what is previously tagged as normal rainfall. We will experience harsher winters and hotter summers – a tragedy for those whose livelihoods depend on a more balanced ecological conditions: Farming, fishing, to name a few. When this happens, our peasants and fisherfolk are set to harvest way less produce than ever before.
Here in the United States, our farmers are relatively more moneyed and equipped with technologies, and also benefit from government subsidies. In less developed parts of the world, the impacts of climate change can only mean hunger in poor farming and fishing communities that have no financial means to deal with less water for irrigation, and long, dry spells. We might see the emergence of new diseases, too.
The fact is, we need to pour more investments towards climate change programs not just for our country but throughout the world. Unfortunately, Trump’s campaign has promised to do exactly the opposite.
Within his first 100 days, he said that he will “cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure.” The United States might also pull out from the Paris treaty, under Trump.
These are not the things we need in what has already described been described by scientists as an emergency situation. Surely, there is a need for all of us to campaign, and campaign hard, for a more sensible response from the government to this important issue.
Author's Note: This is a guest blog post by Richard A. Kimball, a California native who enjoys writing and blogging about the environment. To read more of his work, you can visit his blog, Facebook or Twitter.
Monday, October 3, 2016
Media in Society
Last night I saw a debate on television about what role the media is to play in our society. I found one speaker to be somewhat appalling. This person argued against the involvement of media in our societal discussion on issues that matter. Well sir, you are dead wrong...
Now if you happen to be on the right you’d be saying, "Well there is an obvious liberal bias in most of the media we receive and hear." I agree with you to a certain extent. Media in its purest form was designed as a tool people can use to provide a forum or platform for the issues we publicly debate. This would be an admirable role in a perfect society, but what it does not take into consideration is the human element. Our ability to modify the perceptions of others through the media in order to achieve political gain has hit the liberal bias peak. The inevitable backlash on the media monopoly I sense is coming to an end. The market of information is efficient and fair only when there are alternatives for people to chose. Can we blame Democrats who using the tools at hand to the fullest extent? Of course not.
It was inevitable.
Democratic candidates and leaders obtained the urban vote where media centers are controlled in most part by the majority of left-leaning civilians who work and live among its domain. Yes. This was the fate, seduction, and role media was to play on behalf of the Democratic Party for many decades.
However, imbalances eventually lead to balance. The old truths and myths of a liberal media are rapidly declining. Sure there has been a recent surge in popularity among the left media, but it is only because the country was fed up with a Republican held congress and presidency that failed to serve the interests of the public. In the long-term, I expect an equal following to build and continue amongst the supporters of the right media to provide the balance and difference in opinion that our country needs. It pushes elected officials to compromise and allow people to digest information from both sides in order to make effective electoral decisions based on their beliefs.
Now, take a step back and look try to imagine the big picture. Most would agree that media needs balance, but why? Let’s view this angle from the perspective of polarization and nationalism. In my estimation, media needs to ask tough questions, report on unethical behavior, and to provide an independent voice that serves as a check and balance to government. However, if media were to play the role of polarization and bias too well, then our nation would drift apart and stoke a fire of bitterness toward each other. Sure we have our differences, but in reality we share much more in common with each other. So, how can we work together with those that we have a hatred for? For example, how long must we see the election map showing red states and blue states when we are in fact a sea of purple swayed by moderate group of independent voters? Political parties must have a way to differentiate themselves, but occasionally the media does push the envelope, resulting in uncomfortable ramifications.
On the other hand, media also must be a spirit free of government control. If media casts its opinion with the government without any checks, it is likely that an unhealthy state of nationalism may take hold and shortly thereafter promote imperialistic tendencies. I can only imagine a state made op of a single-minded society where group think suffocates the ability of people to think freely. Would those of an opposing view be subjected to secrecy and casted away from society? Would new ideas be lost forever? Would an opposing political party have a voice or even cease to exist? It is certainly possible.
Think of a scenario where the media was used to promote the activities of government in a negative way. I believe this is the descriptive label for propaganda. A tool used to control and persuade the masses for better or worse. World War II is a perfect example. The good and honest people of Germany were lead to believe that their ideas and opinions should be forced on the rest of the world because the propaganda machine said they were a superior race. The civilian population for the most part bought into these lies. This is the absolute opposite end of the spectrum in the role that media has to play in society and we must be careful to learn the lessons that history has to teach us.
Media does have a role to play, but I would suggest that it strive to create balance and avoid extreme nationalistic and polarized political outlooks.
What of the present and future of media? Some say the internet is the next layer catalyst for fair and balanced opinions, news, and research. I couldn’t agree more. It is the wild card that few saw coming in the early 1990s and has proved to be a tidal wave of new found power that gives back to the people. Bloggers all over the United States and the world are spreading ideas and providing a balance of opinion far greater than anyone could have imagined. The blog world is the champion of the individual and protector of free speech. It will not eliminate old media, but instead provide an added channel or source of information and empower the individual like never before.
Now if you happen to be on the right you’d be saying, "Well there is an obvious liberal bias in most of the media we receive and hear." I agree with you to a certain extent. Media in its purest form was designed as a tool people can use to provide a forum or platform for the issues we publicly debate. This would be an admirable role in a perfect society, but what it does not take into consideration is the human element. Our ability to modify the perceptions of others through the media in order to achieve political gain has hit the liberal bias peak. The inevitable backlash on the media monopoly I sense is coming to an end. The market of information is efficient and fair only when there are alternatives for people to chose. Can we blame Democrats who using the tools at hand to the fullest extent? Of course not.
It was inevitable.
Democratic candidates and leaders obtained the urban vote where media centers are controlled in most part by the majority of left-leaning civilians who work and live among its domain. Yes. This was the fate, seduction, and role media was to play on behalf of the Democratic Party for many decades.
However, imbalances eventually lead to balance. The old truths and myths of a liberal media are rapidly declining. Sure there has been a recent surge in popularity among the left media, but it is only because the country was fed up with a Republican held congress and presidency that failed to serve the interests of the public. In the long-term, I expect an equal following to build and continue amongst the supporters of the right media to provide the balance and difference in opinion that our country needs. It pushes elected officials to compromise and allow people to digest information from both sides in order to make effective electoral decisions based on their beliefs.
Now, take a step back and look try to imagine the big picture. Most would agree that media needs balance, but why? Let’s view this angle from the perspective of polarization and nationalism. In my estimation, media needs to ask tough questions, report on unethical behavior, and to provide an independent voice that serves as a check and balance to government. However, if media were to play the role of polarization and bias too well, then our nation would drift apart and stoke a fire of bitterness toward each other. Sure we have our differences, but in reality we share much more in common with each other. So, how can we work together with those that we have a hatred for? For example, how long must we see the election map showing red states and blue states when we are in fact a sea of purple swayed by moderate group of independent voters? Political parties must have a way to differentiate themselves, but occasionally the media does push the envelope, resulting in uncomfortable ramifications.
On the other hand, media also must be a spirit free of government control. If media casts its opinion with the government without any checks, it is likely that an unhealthy state of nationalism may take hold and shortly thereafter promote imperialistic tendencies. I can only imagine a state made op of a single-minded society where group think suffocates the ability of people to think freely. Would those of an opposing view be subjected to secrecy and casted away from society? Would new ideas be lost forever? Would an opposing political party have a voice or even cease to exist? It is certainly possible.
Think of a scenario where the media was used to promote the activities of government in a negative way. I believe this is the descriptive label for propaganda. A tool used to control and persuade the masses for better or worse. World War II is a perfect example. The good and honest people of Germany were lead to believe that their ideas and opinions should be forced on the rest of the world because the propaganda machine said they were a superior race. The civilian population for the most part bought into these lies. This is the absolute opposite end of the spectrum in the role that media has to play in society and we must be careful to learn the lessons that history has to teach us.
Media does have a role to play, but I would suggest that it strive to create balance and avoid extreme nationalistic and polarized political outlooks.
What of the present and future of media? Some say the internet is the next layer catalyst for fair and balanced opinions, news, and research. I couldn’t agree more. It is the wild card that few saw coming in the early 1990s and has proved to be a tidal wave of new found power that gives back to the people. Bloggers all over the United States and the world are spreading ideas and providing a balance of opinion far greater than anyone could have imagined. The blog world is the champion of the individual and protector of free speech. It will not eliminate old media, but instead provide an added channel or source of information and empower the individual like never before.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
North Korea: A Nuclear Player
The days of a non-nuclear Korean peninsula are over. With troops from the United States bogged down in Iraq and ineffective multilateral talks with North Korea, the world is on track for another major disaster.
So, what can be done to confront this nuclear threat?
The current situation can not be addressed by the United States alone. It is my fear that the Republican majority in all branches of U.S. government will continue with the typical and ineffective go-it-alone strategy that has not won us the key support needed in protect our international interests. The international community is the only body capable of effectively handling the North Korean situation which has now developed into a global problem.
Global issues need to be met by the global community. This does not mean that the United States can not lead the way. Obviously, there will always be the need for someone to take the initiative, but it has to be done in a way that does not isolate us from the other global players and delay effective resolution.
First, in a global economy, it is necessary for voters in the upcoming election to cast their votes to bring a more Democratic balance into the make-up of our current govenment. Democrats would be more effective in diplomacy and can speak the international tongue. Whether you agree with their policies and beliefs or not, they are more likely to restore trust and a sense of humanity to our foreign agenda.
Second, if the international community is the channel of tough sanctions, China is the key. The country of China is an emerging dominate player in the Asian region and is also responsible for trade that equates to roughly 50% of North Korea’s energy and food imports. If China does not accept its new international role in a responsible fashion, then the world will continue in its struggle to suppress renegade dictatorships.
Finally, North Korea has already been warned in their efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, but apparently decided not to listen. I believe we should impose the toughest of sanctions and work with our allies to allow for massive refugee transportation out of North Korea. At this point, deadlines should be drawn up for an international force to work together in removing this dictator from power if president Kim Jong-il does not comply and agree to dismantle his nuclear program.
If you do not believe that a solution similar to the one I have just discussed then I would invite you to focus more on the consequences of not taking action. Iran is watching world events very carefully right now. If they seek weak international resolve and come away from this scenario with the conclusion that North Korea has in fact strengthened its global position, then what is to stop them from developing nuclear weapons? Iran would probably target Israel and North Korea would likely make a hit on South Korea.
In regards to a potential North Korean attack on South Korea, we already know that underground tunnels have been discovered to be dug deep into South Korean territory. The scary thing to note is that millions of people live in the capital of Seoul, South Korea, which is not very from the border with the north. If it is already assumed that some tunnels have not yet been discovered, what is to stop North Korea from detonating a nuclear weapon right under the heels of a major South Korean city such as Seoul? This would cause millions of people to suffer a horrific death. Another possibility to ponder is North Korea’s capability to transport weapons of mass destruction to our enemies whether it is Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, etc.
Right now, the United States needs to continue its focus on immediate action in line with the international community, while at the same time researching preventative technologies that could strengthen our defenses within our own national borders. We have been warned, not the next question is whether or not we have what it takes to lead the international community and finally get something right.
So, what can be done to confront this nuclear threat?
The current situation can not be addressed by the United States alone. It is my fear that the Republican majority in all branches of U.S. government will continue with the typical and ineffective go-it-alone strategy that has not won us the key support needed in protect our international interests. The international community is the only body capable of effectively handling the North Korean situation which has now developed into a global problem.
Global issues need to be met by the global community. This does not mean that the United States can not lead the way. Obviously, there will always be the need for someone to take the initiative, but it has to be done in a way that does not isolate us from the other global players and delay effective resolution.
First, in a global economy, it is necessary for voters in the upcoming election to cast their votes to bring a more Democratic balance into the make-up of our current govenment. Democrats would be more effective in diplomacy and can speak the international tongue. Whether you agree with their policies and beliefs or not, they are more likely to restore trust and a sense of humanity to our foreign agenda.
Second, if the international community is the channel of tough sanctions, China is the key. The country of China is an emerging dominate player in the Asian region and is also responsible for trade that equates to roughly 50% of North Korea’s energy and food imports. If China does not accept its new international role in a responsible fashion, then the world will continue in its struggle to suppress renegade dictatorships.
Finally, North Korea has already been warned in their efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, but apparently decided not to listen. I believe we should impose the toughest of sanctions and work with our allies to allow for massive refugee transportation out of North Korea. At this point, deadlines should be drawn up for an international force to work together in removing this dictator from power if president Kim Jong-il does not comply and agree to dismantle his nuclear program.
If you do not believe that a solution similar to the one I have just discussed then I would invite you to focus more on the consequences of not taking action. Iran is watching world events very carefully right now. If they seek weak international resolve and come away from this scenario with the conclusion that North Korea has in fact strengthened its global position, then what is to stop them from developing nuclear weapons? Iran would probably target Israel and North Korea would likely make a hit on South Korea.
In regards to a potential North Korean attack on South Korea, we already know that underground tunnels have been discovered to be dug deep into South Korean territory. The scary thing to note is that millions of people live in the capital of Seoul, South Korea, which is not very from the border with the north. If it is already assumed that some tunnels have not yet been discovered, what is to stop North Korea from detonating a nuclear weapon right under the heels of a major South Korean city such as Seoul? This would cause millions of people to suffer a horrific death. Another possibility to ponder is North Korea’s capability to transport weapons of mass destruction to our enemies whether it is Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, etc.
Right now, the United States needs to continue its focus on immediate action in line with the international community, while at the same time researching preventative technologies that could strengthen our defenses within our own national borders. We have been warned, not the next question is whether or not we have what it takes to lead the international community and finally get something right.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Police Brutality - How to Fight Back
Ever since the Rodney King incident, the world at large has become increasingly aware of police brutality. One would presume that mass public awareness would stem such aggressive behavior from law enforcement officers, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Police officers, if anything, have only become more careful in how they verbally and physically abuse the general public.
Most U.S. residents don’t realize there is a simple method to combat such abuse. In fact, this particular expression of public-power can immobilize an officer’s career and, in extreme cases, bring an abrupt end to the officer’s employment; yes, you can get a police officer fired if you so desire.
If an officer is unnecessarily rough with you or is verbally abusive, you only need to do one thing: file a complaint.
Complaints are easy to file. Simply show up at the officer’s department, walk up to the front desk, and ask to file a complaint against an officer. The front desk must file the complaint; it is not the receptionist’s responsibility to validate your claim. You should then proceed to calmly and rationally fill out the paperwork and submit it.
If the receptionist refuses to assist you (which they will do almost every time), then you must ask to speak with the Watch Commander on duty. If the Watch Commander has any sense of responsibility, he or she will file the complaint without resistance. However, if he or she does not wish to file the complaint, then you must keep going up the chain of command until you reach the Chief of Police.
Once filed at the department, a complaint becomes a permanent record on the officer’s file. If an officer receives too many, he or she will get suspended or moved to a position that does not require public interaction. If enough complaints have been filed, the department may choose to fire the officer rather than risk having to explain why a troubled officer was allowed to continue serving the public.
Filing a complaint against an officer is extremely powerful. It has a lifetime effect on the officer’s career. It can prevent an officer from being promoted and can definitely cause problems whenever an officer attempts to lateral to a new department.
It is not only your right to file a complaint against an abusive police officer; you should look at it as your responsibility. Such behavior in a law enforcement officer is unacceptable. If you don’t file a complaint, the abusive behavior will only continue and could possibly escalate.
Filing a complaint against a police officer is one instance where the pen is truly mightier than the sword – or in this case, the gun.
Most U.S. residents don’t realize there is a simple method to combat such abuse. In fact, this particular expression of public-power can immobilize an officer’s career and, in extreme cases, bring an abrupt end to the officer’s employment; yes, you can get a police officer fired if you so desire.
If an officer is unnecessarily rough with you or is verbally abusive, you only need to do one thing: file a complaint.
Complaints are easy to file. Simply show up at the officer’s department, walk up to the front desk, and ask to file a complaint against an officer. The front desk must file the complaint; it is not the receptionist’s responsibility to validate your claim. You should then proceed to calmly and rationally fill out the paperwork and submit it.
If the receptionist refuses to assist you (which they will do almost every time), then you must ask to speak with the Watch Commander on duty. If the Watch Commander has any sense of responsibility, he or she will file the complaint without resistance. However, if he or she does not wish to file the complaint, then you must keep going up the chain of command until you reach the Chief of Police.
Once filed at the department, a complaint becomes a permanent record on the officer’s file. If an officer receives too many, he or she will get suspended or moved to a position that does not require public interaction. If enough complaints have been filed, the department may choose to fire the officer rather than risk having to explain why a troubled officer was allowed to continue serving the public.
Filing a complaint against an officer is extremely powerful. It has a lifetime effect on the officer’s career. It can prevent an officer from being promoted and can definitely cause problems whenever an officer attempts to lateral to a new department.
It is not only your right to file a complaint against an abusive police officer; you should look at it as your responsibility. Such behavior in a law enforcement officer is unacceptable. If you don’t file a complaint, the abusive behavior will only continue and could possibly escalate.
Filing a complaint against a police officer is one instance where the pen is truly mightier than the sword – or in this case, the gun.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Environment- Maintaining the Delicate Balance!
What exactly do we mean when we speak of the "environment"? It is more complecxt than saying it is only our surrounding. The environment is a delicate equilibrium between every ingredient in our surroundings called the ecosystem. Our ecosystem contains the interaction between organisms and nature.
Man has been chiefly responsible for disturbing this delicate equilibrium by exploiting the natural resources to his end. In fact the resources in the past have faced uninhibited exploitation on all accounts and reckless usage leading them to their current depleted stage. An unchecked release of the pollutants in the air has resulted in the greenhouse effect resulting in the ozone layer getting depleted. This has resulted in global warming which has had many disastrous effects like the rising levels of the water bodies. All this has also resulted in more ecological imbalances occurring than ever before. The ecosystem has also suffered on account of the careless mistakes of various industries and certain individuals who want to save on the cost at the expense of damaging the ecosystem. In fact there is no aspect of the ecosystem that has been left untouched by these perils as you have air pollution affecting the air you take in, water pollution, land pollution affecting the crops.
There are many organizations that make it their agenda to education people and corporations on conserve the environment. They are stressing the development of alternative green sources as an answer to the non-renewable sources of energy, preserving the endangered species, setting up of goals for the reduction of pollution, establishment of natural reserves and the protection of biodiversity upon which the delicate balance of the ecosystems hangs.
There is now international awareness towards these ecological problems. Countries have come in together to solve the environment issues plaguing them. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) that was established in the year 1991 supports many projects related to environment such as the climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants.
The UN had gotten into the act and developed World Environment Day celebrated on June 5 every year. It is one of the chief vehicles that are used to promote the awareness on the environment. It is an important step in launching this campaign for environmental awareness since the environment can be saved if it's a large-scale effort involving people across the globe.
Man has been chiefly responsible for disturbing this delicate equilibrium by exploiting the natural resources to his end. In fact the resources in the past have faced uninhibited exploitation on all accounts and reckless usage leading them to their current depleted stage. An unchecked release of the pollutants in the air has resulted in the greenhouse effect resulting in the ozone layer getting depleted. This has resulted in global warming which has had many disastrous effects like the rising levels of the water bodies. All this has also resulted in more ecological imbalances occurring than ever before. The ecosystem has also suffered on account of the careless mistakes of various industries and certain individuals who want to save on the cost at the expense of damaging the ecosystem. In fact there is no aspect of the ecosystem that has been left untouched by these perils as you have air pollution affecting the air you take in, water pollution, land pollution affecting the crops.
There are many organizations that make it their agenda to education people and corporations on conserve the environment. They are stressing the development of alternative green sources as an answer to the non-renewable sources of energy, preserving the endangered species, setting up of goals for the reduction of pollution, establishment of natural reserves and the protection of biodiversity upon which the delicate balance of the ecosystems hangs.
There is now international awareness towards these ecological problems. Countries have come in together to solve the environment issues plaguing them. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) that was established in the year 1991 supports many projects related to environment such as the climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants.
The UN had gotten into the act and developed World Environment Day celebrated on June 5 every year. It is one of the chief vehicles that are used to promote the awareness on the environment. It is an important step in launching this campaign for environmental awareness since the environment can be saved if it's a large-scale effort involving people across the globe.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Local Government and Politics - Meetings are the Challenge
There are a couple of problems that exist, which hinder local government from being the best it can be.
One problem that prevents some citizens from attending local government meetings, is the fear of the local elected officials. They are strangers. We don't know them, therefore, we avoid them.
Who is a local elected government official? Let me tell you.
* They are someone who ran for local office, for one reason or another. They give up an enormous amount of time for their “public service.” They truly want to do a good job.
* They are someone just like you. They have the same family, professional, and money problems that you have.
* They have good days and they have bad days.
* Many of them ran un-opposed. The voters decided that they were better than “nobody.”
* They are not “experts” in the field of local government. In extremely small units of government they operate without any “professional” expertise.
* Their options for solving problems is the “lesser of two evils.” If you have two good or excellent choices as solutions, you have an opportunity, not a problem. When you have a problem, your choice for solving it, is the “lesser of two evils.”
* They are amateurs. As amateurs, they make mistakes. They make lots of mistakes. Everyone in public service makes mistakes.
Every good elected official I have ever known, all agree that they would be able to do a better job if more citizens attended meetings and gave their input. Yet, citizens fail to do that, unless and until it is almost too late.
A common complaint of local officials is the the “public” does not pay attention to issues until the research is far into the process. Public Information Meetings are held. Nobody shows up. The Press reports on the Public Information Meeting and nobody reads the article. Months of Committee Meetings are held discussing possible options and solutions, and nobody listens.
When the issue finally comes to vote, opponents come out of the woodwork claiming the proposal is being “shoved down their throat.” Tempers flare.
A second reason some citizens won't go to meetings is the fear of not being “listened” to. There is a big difference between not being listened to and not having local officials agree with you.
* If you play by the rules of the meeting, speak at the appropriate time and have a well prepared statement, you will be listened to. You will be respected.
* If you speak appropriately, and the local officials do not agree with you, that does not mean you were not listened to. What it means is they have a difference of opinion with you. There is a big difference between not being listened to, and not agreeing with you.
So, here are a four suggestions if you wish to become more politically involved at the local level.
1) Attend some meetings just to learn the rules, procedures and players in the local political game. You do not speak at these meetings. You simply learn by observation. You begin to take away the “fear factor” of not knowing who are local officials.
2) If you believe an issue is important, get involved in the issue at the earliest possible meeting and discussion. The longer you wait to get involved, the less your chance of helping to determine the outcome.
3) When it is time for you to speak on an issue, make sure you know before the meeting, the rules of when to speak, how long you will be allowed to speak and then follow those rules.
4) Write out and PRACTICE your speech. You won't be sorry you did, and neither will the audience who listens to you.
These simple suggestions can go a long way in helping you to become more aware and respected at the local political level.
One problem that prevents some citizens from attending local government meetings, is the fear of the local elected officials. They are strangers. We don't know them, therefore, we avoid them.
Who is a local elected government official? Let me tell you.
* They are someone who ran for local office, for one reason or another. They give up an enormous amount of time for their “public service.” They truly want to do a good job.
* They are someone just like you. They have the same family, professional, and money problems that you have.
* They have good days and they have bad days.
* Many of them ran un-opposed. The voters decided that they were better than “nobody.”
* They are not “experts” in the field of local government. In extremely small units of government they operate without any “professional” expertise.
* Their options for solving problems is the “lesser of two evils.” If you have two good or excellent choices as solutions, you have an opportunity, not a problem. When you have a problem, your choice for solving it, is the “lesser of two evils.”
* They are amateurs. As amateurs, they make mistakes. They make lots of mistakes. Everyone in public service makes mistakes.
Every good elected official I have ever known, all agree that they would be able to do a better job if more citizens attended meetings and gave their input. Yet, citizens fail to do that, unless and until it is almost too late.
A common complaint of local officials is the the “public” does not pay attention to issues until the research is far into the process. Public Information Meetings are held. Nobody shows up. The Press reports on the Public Information Meeting and nobody reads the article. Months of Committee Meetings are held discussing possible options and solutions, and nobody listens.
When the issue finally comes to vote, opponents come out of the woodwork claiming the proposal is being “shoved down their throat.” Tempers flare.
A second reason some citizens won't go to meetings is the fear of not being “listened” to. There is a big difference between not being listened to and not having local officials agree with you.
* If you play by the rules of the meeting, speak at the appropriate time and have a well prepared statement, you will be listened to. You will be respected.
* If you speak appropriately, and the local officials do not agree with you, that does not mean you were not listened to. What it means is they have a difference of opinion with you. There is a big difference between not being listened to, and not agreeing with you.
So, here are a four suggestions if you wish to become more politically involved at the local level.
1) Attend some meetings just to learn the rules, procedures and players in the local political game. You do not speak at these meetings. You simply learn by observation. You begin to take away the “fear factor” of not knowing who are local officials.
2) If you believe an issue is important, get involved in the issue at the earliest possible meeting and discussion. The longer you wait to get involved, the less your chance of helping to determine the outcome.
3) When it is time for you to speak on an issue, make sure you know before the meeting, the rules of when to speak, how long you will be allowed to speak and then follow those rules.
4) Write out and PRACTICE your speech. You won't be sorry you did, and neither will the audience who listens to you.
These simple suggestions can go a long way in helping you to become more aware and respected at the local political level.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
The Canadian Political System
The Canadian political system as it is known today was first drafted by the "Fathers of Confederation" at the Quebec conference of 1864. This then became law when the constitution act was passed in 1867. This act gave the formal executive authority to Queen Victoria (Queen of Great Britain) which made Canada a sovereign democracy. The Canadian political system is therefore loosely based on the British system.
Now, Canada is an independent Federal state with the Queen still the head of state. Her powers are extremely limited however, as the Parliament passes the laws which the Queen gives the "Royal Assent" as the final step. The Governor General of Canada is the Queens representative in Canada and carries out all the Royal obligations when the Queen is not in Canada. The Governor is always a Canadian chosen by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. The length of office is normally five years for the Governor General.
The Houses of Parliament (housing the Federal Government) are located in Canada's capital city, Ottawa. There are 3 main sections to the Canadian Parliament. The Queen as the Head of state; the Senate (appointed on the Prime Minister's recommendations) and the elected House of Commons.
The Federal Government has the power to "make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada" which includes International policies, Defence, Immigration, Criminal Law, Customs and Border control.
The Senate
The Senate is made up of 105 Senators who are appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. These Senators are men and women from all of the Provinces and from a wide variety of backgrounds. They can serve on the Senate up until age 75 and have to be a Canadian citizen, over age 30, own $4,000 of equity in land in their home Province, have over $4,000 as personal net worth and live in the province represented. Each Province or Territory has a set number of Senators - 24 each from the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario, 6 each from Alberta, BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 6 from Newfoundland and Labrador and a further 1 each from the three Territories.
The main role of the Senate is to read over and examine the "Bills" sent from the House of Commons though they can also initiate Bills. This process ensures that no rogue bills will become law, though only rarely do the Senate reject a Bill - sending it back to the House for amendment. The Bills are subjected to the full legislative process by the Senate and if passed will be given to the Governor General for Royal Assent and thus become Law.
House of Commons
The real power is held by the House of Commons. Here, the members of Parliament (MP's) are elected by the general public during a Federal election - normally every 5 years. The country is split up into constituencies (total 308 by population size) and whichever candidate has the most votes wins the right to represent that constituency and take their "seat" in the Parliament.
Each Most candidates represent a particular political party and the party with the most "seats" takes over as the Government. The main parties in Canada are Paul Martins Liberals (ruling), Stephen Harpers Conservatives, Jack Layton's New Democratic Party, The Bloc Quebecois and The Green Party to name the largest.
The leader of the political party that wins the election becomes the Prime Minister of Canada (currently Paul Martin of the Liberals). The Prime Minister effectively runs the country with the support and advice of his Cabinet. The Cabinet is made up of "Ministers" chosen by the Prime Minister to be responsible for certain areas of the Government. There are ministers of Health, Finance, Defence and Immigration to name a few. These areas of responsibility are called "Portfolio's" and each minister will have a large team of civil servants (normally the experts in that field) working for him/her. Only the ministers change during an election - not the civil servants.
Though the MP's represent their local constituency, their main duties are debating the laws to be made and, depending on their Party, either supporting or opposing the Government. The opposition is the political party with the second most seats in the House and their main job is to hold the government accountable for their decisions.
A Government with a lot of seats in the House will be strong and able to pass most laws they want through Parliament. Conversely, a weak Government (such as now) doesn't have the majority of the seats and has to rely on the support of another party to form an effective Government.
After each election, the Senate and the House of Commons either elect (House) or appoint (Senate) a Speaker. The Speaker is in charge of proceedings and has to be impartial, enforcing the rules of the House/Senate during debates and votes. The Speaker presides over the House from a raised chair with the Government MP's om the right and the opposition on the Left.
Making the Laws
To start with, the House of Commons members introduce a "Bill" (legislative proposal). The details of the Bill are read in the House without debate and then the Bill is printed (the first reading).
During the second reading the principles of the Bill are debated followed by a vote. If successful, the Bill is then sent to the Committee stage.
A committee will listen to testimony, examine the Bill and then submits a report to the House recommending it as it is, with amendments or scrapped. From here it goes to the report stage.
In the report phase, any amendments are debated and voted on. Then it will pass to the third reading. This is where the House finally debates and votes on the final draft - if it passes the vote it is sent to the Senate.
The Senate put the Bill through the same process as the House - if it comes through all that (normally does!) it is given Royal Assent and becomes Canadian Law!
Now, Canada is an independent Federal state with the Queen still the head of state. Her powers are extremely limited however, as the Parliament passes the laws which the Queen gives the "Royal Assent" as the final step. The Governor General of Canada is the Queens representative in Canada and carries out all the Royal obligations when the Queen is not in Canada. The Governor is always a Canadian chosen by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. The length of office is normally five years for the Governor General.
The Houses of Parliament (housing the Federal Government) are located in Canada's capital city, Ottawa. There are 3 main sections to the Canadian Parliament. The Queen as the Head of state; the Senate (appointed on the Prime Minister's recommendations) and the elected House of Commons.
The Federal Government has the power to "make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada" which includes International policies, Defence, Immigration, Criminal Law, Customs and Border control.
The Senate
The Senate is made up of 105 Senators who are appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. These Senators are men and women from all of the Provinces and from a wide variety of backgrounds. They can serve on the Senate up until age 75 and have to be a Canadian citizen, over age 30, own $4,000 of equity in land in their home Province, have over $4,000 as personal net worth and live in the province represented. Each Province or Territory has a set number of Senators - 24 each from the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario, 6 each from Alberta, BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 6 from Newfoundland and Labrador and a further 1 each from the three Territories.
The main role of the Senate is to read over and examine the "Bills" sent from the House of Commons though they can also initiate Bills. This process ensures that no rogue bills will become law, though only rarely do the Senate reject a Bill - sending it back to the House for amendment. The Bills are subjected to the full legislative process by the Senate and if passed will be given to the Governor General for Royal Assent and thus become Law.
House of Commons
The real power is held by the House of Commons. Here, the members of Parliament (MP's) are elected by the general public during a Federal election - normally every 5 years. The country is split up into constituencies (total 308 by population size) and whichever candidate has the most votes wins the right to represent that constituency and take their "seat" in the Parliament.
Each Most candidates represent a particular political party and the party with the most "seats" takes over as the Government. The main parties in Canada are Paul Martins Liberals (ruling), Stephen Harpers Conservatives, Jack Layton's New Democratic Party, The Bloc Quebecois and The Green Party to name the largest.
The leader of the political party that wins the election becomes the Prime Minister of Canada (currently Paul Martin of the Liberals). The Prime Minister effectively runs the country with the support and advice of his Cabinet. The Cabinet is made up of "Ministers" chosen by the Prime Minister to be responsible for certain areas of the Government. There are ministers of Health, Finance, Defence and Immigration to name a few. These areas of responsibility are called "Portfolio's" and each minister will have a large team of civil servants (normally the experts in that field) working for him/her. Only the ministers change during an election - not the civil servants.
Though the MP's represent their local constituency, their main duties are debating the laws to be made and, depending on their Party, either supporting or opposing the Government. The opposition is the political party with the second most seats in the House and their main job is to hold the government accountable for their decisions.
A Government with a lot of seats in the House will be strong and able to pass most laws they want through Parliament. Conversely, a weak Government (such as now) doesn't have the majority of the seats and has to rely on the support of another party to form an effective Government.
After each election, the Senate and the House of Commons either elect (House) or appoint (Senate) a Speaker. The Speaker is in charge of proceedings and has to be impartial, enforcing the rules of the House/Senate during debates and votes. The Speaker presides over the House from a raised chair with the Government MP's om the right and the opposition on the Left.
Making the Laws
To start with, the House of Commons members introduce a "Bill" (legislative proposal). The details of the Bill are read in the House without debate and then the Bill is printed (the first reading).
During the second reading the principles of the Bill are debated followed by a vote. If successful, the Bill is then sent to the Committee stage.
A committee will listen to testimony, examine the Bill and then submits a report to the House recommending it as it is, with amendments or scrapped. From here it goes to the report stage.
In the report phase, any amendments are debated and voted on. Then it will pass to the third reading. This is where the House finally debates and votes on the final draft - if it passes the vote it is sent to the Senate.
The Senate put the Bill through the same process as the House - if it comes through all that (normally does!) it is given Royal Assent and becomes Canadian Law!
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Mistreatment And Misgovernment Of The Poor In Developed Countries
Misgoverning the poor.
The poor in developed countries like the USA and UK, honest and dishonest alike, are handled only by the non-street-wise middle class who run government departments and other bodies - ensuring that the poor are generally badly mistreated and misgoverned.
Of course the poor in developed countries are a minority so that democratic political parties may easily see their votes as unneccessary, yet the poor are a socially significant minority whose misgovernment can seriously undermine society.
Mishousing the poor.
Often the poor are housed badly as when new social housing is produced in areas of severe affordable housing shortage like London, it is often produced in the form of very big estates with hundreds or even thousands of rented homes - generally with a view to hopefully making some scale cost savings, although that does not always result. Such big social housing renting estates easily incline to being tenanted badly and managed badly. Like private slums (and they do tend to become social housing slums over time), they often concentrate problem households including criminals in excluded sub-societies. The large numbers of children and youths brought together will tend to forming gangs that may be a mere nuisance or become more seriously criminal. Of course these problems are not confined only to big estates, wherever there are concentrations of poor families then children with little indoors will take to the streets and form street-gang sub-cultures.
Developed countries' social exclusion policies, by government and by social housing landlords and other bodies, will hence often need to especially address areas housing large numbers of low-income families. However, those expected to produce such social inclusion policies will generally be educated professionals with little or no experience of living in social exclusion housing, and they may commonly have correct general theories but often be missing the correct practical detail needed. Consultation with less educated low-incomed renters themselves is likely to help only to a limited extent, and those dealing with social exclusion housing need to find the tiny handful of street-wise affordable housing professionals who somehow do happen to have substantial experience of themselves living in and raising a family in such low-income housing.
The UK is now making some limited attempts to copy the equally limited US Hope VI scheme to convert big bad estate areas to a mix of the unemployed, low-income earners and the better-off. But this sort of housing inclusion move needs other non-housing inclusion policies to be also addressed at the same time or they are doomed to failure. The poor will have some good ideas on practical solutions, but poor housing areas are also likely to have an occasional housing professional resident. It is undoubtedly preferable if all big new housing developments are tenanted more reasonably, as by including a mix of some affordable rent units, some sale units and some market rent or near market rent units. Existing big social housing renting estates will often need to be made mixed tenure and often also need to have the proportion of unemployed households reduced.
The management and policing of poor housing areas is often inappropriate, basically taking them as no-go areas, and it also often attracts inappropriate solutions. Some support heavy police presence and/or continuous CCTV camera use, while others oppose both police presence and CCTV cameras as 'police-state' intrusion. But most tenants in such areas favour a practical position of both being always available but with just sufficient police presence when needed and with CCTV cameras to be used only some of the time as needed. On both police and CCTV cameras, the extremes of 100% and 0% are generally not acceptable - the right balanced uses of both is what is wanted and needed.
Tenants can easily feel stuck in a big bad poor housing estate, especially bad for children, if there is a local shortage of affordable housing as in London. A transfer request may get the reply "in about 30 years time", and they may be unemployed and/or unskilled. Realistic transfer alternatives really need to be found in these circumstances. And a family with young children having to , or deciding to, stay on a big poor housing estate should be advised to try to avoid their children making friends with other local children, as by not using the local schools.
Miseducating the poor.
Governments tend to treating older children like adults for school attendance, bad behaviour and crime - but treating them completely as babies for state money. Older children will act adult whatever governments want, and poor children often take over the streets and most schools - and they increasingly teach successfully a pro-crime anti-learning anti-government lifestyle that will threaten democracy if not properly addressed soon. Older children need a much more consistent set of policies from governments, treating secondary school children more like adults for everything and one MUST is some pay for school attendance - if necessary taking it from other family welfare payouts. This will most directly affect poor children especially, but will be better for all.
The many unneccessary problems of the honest poor may also include eg having only black-and-white TV with few channels - for which the UK has a mandatory license fee and not buying that brings criminal prosecution (for being poor and not dishonest ?) - and even those having such license are still harassed 'as possible-evaders of the dearer colour TV license'. And eg if the honest poor's children have no passports because they are expensive then they cannot accept an offer of a free foreign holiday.
Policing of the poor is often unhelpful to them rearing their children to become honest citizens, with a real need for police to greatly increase catch-rates for the main crimes of their young children - street vandalism and shoplifting. Even a big improvement in one of those would be a great help. Of course street vandalism needs many more police on the streets. And shoplifting needs an extensive police-run shop CCTV system for smaller stores. It is catching child crimes early that needs big improvement, not necessarily jailing children or parents.
Attempts at inclusion of the poor.
Many non-street-wise middle-class professional 'experts' may claim that poverty is fine for children as long as they have love - but poverty and social exclusion always do some damage and good government should try to help minimise it if possible. But affluent country governments have been increasing legal constraints and sticks to beat poor children and poor parents - as towards making parents smacking their children illegal. It is largely poor parents who smack their children for misbehaving mostly over having no money to buy treats to reward good child behaviour ?! Increasing sticks for poor parents on parenting, looks like a plan to take away all their children and put them in government 'care' - a disaster tried and failed before in many countries ! But middle-class run governments just cannot understand how to best deal with the poor.
In developed countries like the USA and UK, the poor and other minorities may effectively be excluded from obtaining reasonable work, education, or holidays etcetera or generally equal opportunity and fair treatment - and at the extreme a society may treat some minorities as social Lepers and/or social or political Scapegoats. This sort of social exclusion harms those concerned, and making them anti-social also harms all of society greatly. But can middle-class run governments ever learn how to best deal with the poor ? Increasing their oppression only fires increasing backlashes, but democratic political parties in affluent countries mostly continue to ignore these major issues.
If developed middle-class government cannot find a way to better govern the poor and other minorities, then maybe modern government needs less middle-class officials. Maybe a third of politicians should not be elected, but instead be randomly selected from elector lists - but can any middle-class politician such a constitutional change that might cost them their very profitable job?
The poor in developed countries like the USA and UK, honest and dishonest alike, are handled only by the non-street-wise middle class who run government departments and other bodies - ensuring that the poor are generally badly mistreated and misgoverned.
Of course the poor in developed countries are a minority so that democratic political parties may easily see their votes as unneccessary, yet the poor are a socially significant minority whose misgovernment can seriously undermine society.
Mishousing the poor.
Often the poor are housed badly as when new social housing is produced in areas of severe affordable housing shortage like London, it is often produced in the form of very big estates with hundreds or even thousands of rented homes - generally with a view to hopefully making some scale cost savings, although that does not always result. Such big social housing renting estates easily incline to being tenanted badly and managed badly. Like private slums (and they do tend to become social housing slums over time), they often concentrate problem households including criminals in excluded sub-societies. The large numbers of children and youths brought together will tend to forming gangs that may be a mere nuisance or become more seriously criminal. Of course these problems are not confined only to big estates, wherever there are concentrations of poor families then children with little indoors will take to the streets and form street-gang sub-cultures.
Developed countries' social exclusion policies, by government and by social housing landlords and other bodies, will hence often need to especially address areas housing large numbers of low-income families. However, those expected to produce such social inclusion policies will generally be educated professionals with little or no experience of living in social exclusion housing, and they may commonly have correct general theories but often be missing the correct practical detail needed. Consultation with less educated low-incomed renters themselves is likely to help only to a limited extent, and those dealing with social exclusion housing need to find the tiny handful of street-wise affordable housing professionals who somehow do happen to have substantial experience of themselves living in and raising a family in such low-income housing.
The UK is now making some limited attempts to copy the equally limited US Hope VI scheme to convert big bad estate areas to a mix of the unemployed, low-income earners and the better-off. But this sort of housing inclusion move needs other non-housing inclusion policies to be also addressed at the same time or they are doomed to failure. The poor will have some good ideas on practical solutions, but poor housing areas are also likely to have an occasional housing professional resident. It is undoubtedly preferable if all big new housing developments are tenanted more reasonably, as by including a mix of some affordable rent units, some sale units and some market rent or near market rent units. Existing big social housing renting estates will often need to be made mixed tenure and often also need to have the proportion of unemployed households reduced.
The management and policing of poor housing areas is often inappropriate, basically taking them as no-go areas, and it also often attracts inappropriate solutions. Some support heavy police presence and/or continuous CCTV camera use, while others oppose both police presence and CCTV cameras as 'police-state' intrusion. But most tenants in such areas favour a practical position of both being always available but with just sufficient police presence when needed and with CCTV cameras to be used only some of the time as needed. On both police and CCTV cameras, the extremes of 100% and 0% are generally not acceptable - the right balanced uses of both is what is wanted and needed.
Tenants can easily feel stuck in a big bad poor housing estate, especially bad for children, if there is a local shortage of affordable housing as in London. A transfer request may get the reply "in about 30 years time", and they may be unemployed and/or unskilled. Realistic transfer alternatives really need to be found in these circumstances. And a family with young children having to , or deciding to, stay on a big poor housing estate should be advised to try to avoid their children making friends with other local children, as by not using the local schools.
Miseducating the poor.
Governments tend to treating older children like adults for school attendance, bad behaviour and crime - but treating them completely as babies for state money. Older children will act adult whatever governments want, and poor children often take over the streets and most schools - and they increasingly teach successfully a pro-crime anti-learning anti-government lifestyle that will threaten democracy if not properly addressed soon. Older children need a much more consistent set of policies from governments, treating secondary school children more like adults for everything and one MUST is some pay for school attendance - if necessary taking it from other family welfare payouts. This will most directly affect poor children especially, but will be better for all.
The many unneccessary problems of the honest poor may also include eg having only black-and-white TV with few channels - for which the UK has a mandatory license fee and not buying that brings criminal prosecution (for being poor and not dishonest ?) - and even those having such license are still harassed 'as possible-evaders of the dearer colour TV license'. And eg if the honest poor's children have no passports because they are expensive then they cannot accept an offer of a free foreign holiday.
Policing of the poor is often unhelpful to them rearing their children to become honest citizens, with a real need for police to greatly increase catch-rates for the main crimes of their young children - street vandalism and shoplifting. Even a big improvement in one of those would be a great help. Of course street vandalism needs many more police on the streets. And shoplifting needs an extensive police-run shop CCTV system for smaller stores. It is catching child crimes early that needs big improvement, not necessarily jailing children or parents.
Attempts at inclusion of the poor.
Many non-street-wise middle-class professional 'experts' may claim that poverty is fine for children as long as they have love - but poverty and social exclusion always do some damage and good government should try to help minimise it if possible. But affluent country governments have been increasing legal constraints and sticks to beat poor children and poor parents - as towards making parents smacking their children illegal. It is largely poor parents who smack their children for misbehaving mostly over having no money to buy treats to reward good child behaviour ?! Increasing sticks for poor parents on parenting, looks like a plan to take away all their children and put them in government 'care' - a disaster tried and failed before in many countries ! But middle-class run governments just cannot understand how to best deal with the poor.
In developed countries like the USA and UK, the poor and other minorities may effectively be excluded from obtaining reasonable work, education, or holidays etcetera or generally equal opportunity and fair treatment - and at the extreme a society may treat some minorities as social Lepers and/or social or political Scapegoats. This sort of social exclusion harms those concerned, and making them anti-social also harms all of society greatly. But can middle-class run governments ever learn how to best deal with the poor ? Increasing their oppression only fires increasing backlashes, but democratic political parties in affluent countries mostly continue to ignore these major issues.
If developed middle-class government cannot find a way to better govern the poor and other minorities, then maybe modern government needs less middle-class officials. Maybe a third of politicians should not be elected, but instead be randomly selected from elector lists - but can any middle-class politician such a constitutional change that might cost them their very profitable job?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)