The methodology for the formation of government and the organizing of mankind is generally known as politics, in a sense that it should be fair, honest and transparent enough to be relied on by the general public.

Politics, or political systems for that matter, has become an integral part of everyday life; people in democratic countries view it as an opportunity of selecting people to govern the state for a specified term based on their preferences. Human life viewed from the corridors of broad logic and the prism of intellect reveals to us something extraordinarily vital about how it moves on and what affects it the most.

Principle perspectives defining human existence tell us that there are three elements that can be regarded as there epitome for survival: namely religious, social and economic, all bonded directly or indirectly through politics, impacting human life.

The extent of the government’s power is naturally limited to economic and social matters among others, because democratic countries rely on pillars of secularism to erect the structure of a neutral state. Politics acts as primary parameter for people to make judgments on how society should be formed, expressed through voting and secondly because the preferences of people helps the government to satisfy the desire of individuals by bringing in new laws and principles in accordance to people’s preferences.

But contrary to its reputation, politics acts as a servant of society by revolving around the corner of human life. In simple terms, it is a system that depends on how people feel, being expressed through voting. This is because indirectly the whole of the political system is responsible for leading the society towards certain goals. For example, in the case of less-developed nations, the ultimate focus of the system will be on how to enhance the system of social justice, economic opportunities and social dignity for individuals.

In democratic countries, society acts as a center of the universe and politics just orbits around it; survival of an entire polity in a great degree is reciprocal of survival and the enrichment of society. In case of a multiparty democracy, the primary goal of all parties will always be achieving targets envisioned for making a country prosperous, but routes they follow may differ.

But in case of theocratic governance systems, the whole establishment of governance is based on scripture or philosophy, so there arises a question of political in-fighting for supremacy.

Politics minus dirty vote-maximizing and winning tricks can lead to a path of peace and consistent prosperity, but the onus of cleaning the dirt is with the public.

Thankfully, its development of political philosophy over the years served us with the different forms of governments and establishments of societies, ultimately leading towards an augmented governing system.

The article Orbit of Politics appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Few individuals possess more knowledge of the U.S. presidency and the people who comprise it than noted historian and author Doris Kearns Goodwin.  In sharing this knowledge with a packed audience at the UNF arena on October 17 at 7:30 p.m., she admitted with a chuckle that this knowledge may come back to haunt her.

“When I am dead, I fear that I may be confronted by all the presidents that I have studied, and they may all tell me that I said something wrong,” she said, to laughter from the audience.

Throughout the lecture, titled “Former U.S. Presidents and their Mark on the World,” Goodwin had nothing to fear from the audience, as they attentively listened to her personal experiences with noted former U.S. presidents, explaining the time that she spent with noted figures such as Lyndon Baines Johnson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

She started her speech by reminiscing about her time spent with LBJ, noting that he found her particularly interesting due to her “willingness to listen to his tall tales.” She then recalled a particularly humorous moment when he arranged to spend some private time with her at a lake. Here, he even provided wine and cheese, romantic trappings that initially led Goodwin to think that LBJ had other thoughts on his mind.

Those thoughts were immediately set aside once LBJ spoke to Goodwin.

“Doris, more than any other women I have ever met, you remind me of my mother,” recalled Kearns, to laughter from the audience.

That unusual moment aside, Goodwin expressed fondness for the time that she spent working under then-president Lyndon Baines Johnson.

“The older I have gotten, the more I realize what an incredible privilege it was to have spent so many hours with this aging lion of a man,” she said with pride, while also recalling some of his key legislative accomplishments, which included three great civil rights laws, as well as Medicare and aid to education.

“He opened up to me in ways that he never would have, had I known him at the height of his power,” she added.

Goodwin then pointed out to the audience that her experiences with LBJ inspired her to understand the person behind the presidency. This drive would lead her to learn about other presidents, and she focused throughout the event on Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, men that she praised for their leadership abilities during crisis periods in American history.

Goodwin noted that a key aspect of leadership is being able to motivate yourself in the face of frustration and being able to withstand adversity.

“The world breaks everyone, but afterward, many are strong in the broken places,” she said, quoting Ernest Hemmingway.

Referencing Abraham Lincoln, she praised his early love of learning and desire to read, qualities regarded as anathema in a time that emphasized physical labor and regarded such pursuits as laziness. Despite this, he loved reading and saw literature as an escape from the daily struggles of his life.

These struggles included him losing those closest to him, including his mom and first love; his mother’s final words simply emphasized that should would never return to him once she closed her eyes. It was this realization, Goodwin noted, that allowed Lincoln to realize that once a person’s life is finite and will mean nothing once they leave the earth. However, as he grew older, he tempered this thought to where he believed that if you could accomplish something greater, people would remember you for it.

This latter thought was the rationale that Lincoln took as he pursued public office; he simply wanted to leave the world in a better place than the way he found it.

When she referenced Franklin Delano Roosevelt, she spoke about the challenges he faced when dealing with polio, the fallout that reduced him to being a paraplegic.

“The paralysis crippled his body but expanded his mind and capabilities,” she noted.

This expansion, Goodwin noted, would allow him to better relate with others and empathize with their struggles.

“FDR now reached out to know people, to pick up their emotions, to put himself in their shoes. No longer belonging to his old world in the same way, he came to empathize with the poor and underprivileged, people to whom fate had also dealt an unkind hand,” she said.

These challenging times, Goodwin pointed out, helped in shaping the characters of both Lincoln and FDR and greatly influenced their leadership methods going forward.

Continuing this character study on these two former presidents, Goodwin also praised their emotional intelligence of both men, a trait that allowed them to set aside grudges and show willingness to accept praise and criticism with equal measure, as well as credit others even if the situation did not warrant it.

Goodwin noted that Lincoln always found a way to praise his Cabinet members, even if they did not always deserve any credit for their work.  This was also true for members of FDR’s cabinet as well; in fact, she noted how Francis Perkins, FDR’s Labor Secretary, praised him for renewed confidence after entering the meeting feeling overwhelmed about the responsibilities of her position.

As the event continued, she continued to praise the actions and exploits of these two individuals, before taking the time to answer questions about the event. In speaking with the audience, she expressed her interest in learning about the trials of Theodore Roosevelt, observing how many of the concerns that were a part of his era, such as workers’ rights and anti-trust suits, are now commonplace in our time as well.

As she concluded her speech, she emphasized the nobility of politics and that it is still a worthwhile endeavor, despite the polarization that is present in our current society.

“Politics is still an honorable vocation; as tough and rough as it may seem right now, I still think that there is nothing like it out there. The feeling that you have made people’s lives better and the curiosity of meeting so many people is unmatched,” she said.

Image Courtesy of  americanlibraries

The article Doris Kearns Goodwin Reflects on Her Observations of Presidents Past appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In the past weeks Muslims around the world have been offended, hurt and upset as a consequence of Westerners feeling the need to stress their freedom of expression — but for what reason?

Except for a few details, the recent incidences have had remarkable similarities with something we have seen before: the short film ‘Submission‘, made in 2004 by Theo van Goghon, a Dutch film director, and Somalia-born Ayaan Hirsi and the Mohammed Cartoons incident by a Danish newspaper in 2005, which caused the Arab world to boycott Danish-produced goods like dairy products. These are just a few of the examples to be mentioned.

Most Muslims in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world keep their feelings to themselves and their family and friends, or express them in a peaceful way – just like many Westerners fail to comprehend the purpose of publishing that type of material, time and again. However, it seems like a controversy that we, on both sides, are forced to witness again and again which makes it valuable to investigate some potential underlying dynamics for the recent incidents.

According to Politiken.dk, a feeling exists in the Arab world of differential treatment practiced by Western Governments; examples include that Western Governments support free will except in cases where Islamic parties win elections. They fight for human rights except in countries where the oppressor is a dictator who cooperates with the Western world; Western Governments support freedom of religion, except when it concerns Islam.

Additionally, Western politicians continuously make hostile comments about Muslims and Islam. This is reinforced by my research (to be published in Arab-West Report in April 2013) on the migration of Egyptians where Muslims indicate that they feel as second class citizens in their own country next to expats living there. At the same time they feel unwelcome in Western countries such as the U.S.A. and several European countries.

So while Western countries claim they are fighting for equal rights, freedom to be whoever you are, as well as the right to control your own life, it easily comes across as the exact opposite in the countries that are the target for that fight.

Politiken.dk continues that while the mentioned examples by people in the Arab World are perceived as differential treatment and interference, Western Governments understand it as isolated reactions to specific incidents. This could be related to what Charles Clay Lemert, Professor in Sociology, characterizes as ‘colonization’ in his book Sociale Forhold -En indføring i det sociologiske liv (2004), which he defines as the process where people with power and money get the idea that their theories and perspectives of the world gives them the right to take over other countries, their assets and sometimes even the soul of the native people, who rarely are in a position to defend themselves.

And it is all justified by the perception that the invasion will result in a better moral, a better political system, and in general a better way of living. But according to whom?

If the world is believed to be a social construction that only makes sense in relation to the society in which it exists, it makes sense that people around the world have not only different ways of living, but more importantly different perceptions of what ‘the better way of living’ is. No doubts that people in the Arab world are dreaming about a better world, as witnessed during the Arab Spring that last year permeated in several Arab countries. We are still, at the time of writing, witnessing how Syrians fight against the local regime, or how Palestinians continuously experience their rights to land reduced — but is this battle a cry for the Western world to free them from Islam, Islamist or Islamic values?

Without a doubt there is a perception in the Western world that politics and religion should be two separate entities in a modern society, anno 2012 — or is there? Maybe it is more the perception that politics and Islam should be separated? This leads back to the imagination of the world as a social construction: if we acknowledge that different people have different perceptions of ‘the better way of living’, it might again be reasonable to assume that different societies have different ways of structuring a democracy.

Can democratic values not be implemented in a religious society? It is true that according to the construction of democracy that exists in the Western world, it is difficult entities to unite, but Egypt and the rest of the Arab world have a different way of constructing their societies. In this light it might be fair to assume that the construction of a democracy, in these countries, would contain different elements than what we see in Western countries’ understanding of democracy -elements that focus less on freedom of expression and more on mutual respect and the right to practice your religion.

However, as Ahram Online writes in an article on their English website, the challenges may lay in the rapid development of technological tools that connect the world, crossing societies of different social constructions. This means that a film like that of the recent controversy can be made and distributed online in Western countries where legislation is developed in the context of Western social constructions, without repercussions. One such filmmaker, or a cartoonist for that matter, may be perceived as offensive to a group of people but cannot be indicted for a criminal act, because one segment of the world does not perceive it as such.

However, in the same breath it must be stressed that individual action, like the ones discussed here, does not represent perceptions, opinions or acts of neither entire populations nor every politicians. But because of societies based on different social constructions of what is legal and what is not, a Western politician cannot demand the person behind such material brought to trial. But does this mean that Western countries should consider reversing their understanding of democracy and put restrictions on what can be expressed and what cannot?

As one of the focal points for democracies in Western countries it is hard to see that happen. Being a Westerner, brought up in the social constructions of a Scandinavian country, it is believed that having the freedom to speak up against the current government, the practices of the church, or other societal institutions that are disagreed with, is a crucial fundamental right, which should neither be restricted nor jeopardized.

But does this give the people in Western countries the right to offend the values of people in countries where social constructions of societies are different?

With an economic crisis dominating most of the Western world, it might be time to start rethinking what used to be ‘the center of the world’ – to a growing extent, the Western world depends on countries and people around it. It may be worth considering if respecting other cultures’ way of life wouldn’t be more productive than upsetting them purposefully.

Image Courtesy of  arindambanerjee / Shutterstock.com

The article Reflections on Yet Another Mohammed Conflict appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

On the day that Paul Ryan was to give his acceptance speech for the nomination of Vice-President, Ryan knew he had to bring it. Not just because needed to excite the base. Nor was it because he needed to set the narrative in a way that combated the attacks he has already received since Mitt Romney selected him as his running mate. No, he needed to hit it out the park, because a day and half of the same message from different people had grown, if not tedious, certainly stale.

We Built It and We Can Do better may be the rallying cry, but it needed to be told in a fresh way something fierce. If there were any worries about Ryan’s ability to get the job done, they were unfounded.

Simply put, Ryan knocked the ball out of the park.

In a speech that interwove his personal story and beliefs with the plans of a Romney-Ryan ticket, Ryan effectively made the case for the plans and policies they are fighting to implement. Many have commented on Ryan’s likeability and personable manner. Both traits came through in both tone and demeanor. Stories about his family and calling his mother, “his role model” are flatly stock in trade items in politics, but there was an earnestness that permeated through Ryan. He is not just saying these things, they are true for him. This will go a long way for him in the campaign, and made the strong medicine he threw at Obama non offensive.

In a speech that had plenty of zingers in it, Ryan nonetheless never made the attacks personal. They were, in fact, not attacks, so much as critiques. What was different in his speech, in contrast to the attacks thus far from President Obama, is that Ryan focused on the results of the last three years. He zeroed in on facts, and figures, but personalized their consequences.

He made it personal as he talked about the GM factory in his hometown of Jamesville, Wisconsin, the people that he knew who used to work there, and the Obama administrations broken promise to keep it open. This was in contrast to the half a billion the President used in Solyndra. 

Ryan is known as a policy guy. For him its about the numbers, the policy and the results that follow. Ryan, however, was able to explain, keep the speech flowing, serve red meat, and do it with in a humorous way. His best zinger perhaps being the vivid image he conjured with this line: “Americans in their 20′s should not have to move home with their parents house, living in their old rooms, looking up at fading Obama posters and waiting for life to begin.”

A comment meant to target younger voters, but still managed to convey an important message to adults as well. Its a tactic that he used more than once. Throw a funny zinger like, “The President has said he has not communicated enough. That is his job to tell a story. In the last four years we have not suffered from a lack of words from the White House. What we are missing is leadership in the white house.”

Never in the speech did it become about Obama personally or about ideology. Just the results and what needs to be done to get better results. This is why the speech was a home run. Not because he could get applause lines, or get a standing ovation from the people in attendance. They are all going vote for Romney and him anyway. No the brilliance was delivering a speech that moderates, independents, and apathetic voters can understand. The message came through because it was a truthful one delivered at partisan event that did not sound at all partisan. Not in tone. And that is what Romney will need from Ryan during the campaign.

Image Courtesy of  PBS News Hour

The article Paul Ryan Needed to Bring It…and Delivered appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Stop Online Piracy Act led to the voluntary blackouts of websites like Reddit and Wikipedia, while the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act gained President Obama’s promise of a veto.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was originally introduced into the Senate on Feb. 12, “To enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States.” On July 19, Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) reintroduced a revised version of the legislation for consideration in the Senate, expected to reach the floor sometime this week.

The revised bill has been praised for addressing privacy concerns raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Democracy and Technology, such as the bill’s provisions that ensure information is passed onto civilian government agencies instead of military agencies. It also allows individuals to pursue litigation if the use of their information violates the law, a notably absent provision in CISPA.

The legislation also incorporates narrowed language regarding its provisions to create a National Cybersecurity Council from existing members of the Departments of Defense, Justice and Commerce in collaboration with members of the intelligence community and federal agencies. Authors of the bill also included a new section on “incentivizing the adoption of voluntary cybersecurity practices” by providing protection for “owners of critical infrastructure” who meet the standards of cybersecurity practices, as determined by the Council.

Unlike previous pieces of legislation geared towards cybersecurity, CSA has the White House’s approval. In a July 19 op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal, President Obama urged the U.S. Congress to pass the Act, citing a serious need for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation to avoid being compromised.

“It doesn’t take much to imagine the consequences of a successful cyber attack. In a future conflict, an adversary unable to match our military supremacy on the battlefield might seek to exploit our computer vulnerabilities here at home,” Mr. Obama wrote. “This is the future we have to avoid.”

However, organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation still have reservations about the bill’s language regarding monitoring and countermeasures. The EFF raises concerns that, “the bill specifically authorizes companies to use cybersecurity as an excuse for engaging in nearly unlimited monitoring of user data,” which the organization finds especially broad and susceptible to administrative abuse.

Similarly, the Heritage Foundation finds the revised legislation still provides, “far too great an intrusive federal role in defining cybersecurity standards.” Instead, Heritage calls for the legislation to prohibit, “any effort to create a new regulatory system for cybersecurity.”

With the bill reaching the Senate floor this week, the amendments in place may or may not remain in their current form, but will hopefully fulfill Mr. Obama’s words:

“It’s time to strengthen our defenses against growing danger.”

The article Cybersecurity Act of 2012: Revised and Revealed appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Following the Venezuelan independence day last Wednesday, US presidential nominee Mitt Romney issued a statement saying that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez “failed to honor the spirit of freedom with which Venezuela was established. Hugo Chávez is promoting ideas in Venezuela and other Latin American countries that run counter to freedom, prevent prosperity and expand tyranny.”

The statement is typical US discourse opposing Chavez, who has long been a hate figure in US media. The populist ideas Chavez is promoting have long been a concern for the US. This was illustrated by a similar statement by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, then reacting to Salvardo Allende’s election in Chile in 1970.

Chile was then on the verge of becoming an independent socialist state rather than a Soviet satellite, a development which, according to Kissinger, “would be far more dangerous… because its ‘model’ effect can be insidious… our main concern is the prospect that [Allende] can consolidate himself and the picture projected to the world will be his success.”

Washington’s greatest fear, far greater than communism or the rise of totalitarianism, is, and always has been, successful independent nationalism. That has currently become a reality across Latin America following the last ten year’s remarkable development known as the “pink tide.” This movement is characterized by the election of leftist governments (with notable examples such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Evo Morales in Bolivia, among others), increased government control over natural resources with new social reforms favoring the poor and former marginalized indigenous populations, and a region-wide opposition to Washington influence stretching from Venezuela to Argentina.

Venezuela has been on the forefront of this socialist movement, initiated by the 1999 election of Hugo Chavez.

Hugo Chavez was elected President following two decades of economic turmoil in Venezuela. Chavez, coming from poor conditions himself, immediately set out to introduce reforms specifically targeting the poor majority – a former invisible group in a Venezuela dominated by a small and wealthy elite with close ties to the US.

Today, Venezuela has free health care and free education, as well as some of the highest literacy rates in the region. In 2002, the disgruntled upper class, rendered powerless under the Chavez government, staged a coup with the help of Washington. The US had been channeling millions of dollars to the coup makers through US Aid and the National Endowment for democracy. Chavez was replaced by Pedro Carmona, a businessman who suspended all members of the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the National Electoral board and assumed dictatorial powers.

The IMF was not late to jump aboard; during a press briefing the day after the coup, Thomas C. Dawson, Director of the External Relations Department in the IMF, immediately pledged allegiance to the Carmona government, saying that “we stand ready to assist the new administration in whatever manner they find.”

All the while, official US spokesmen backed a phony story about Chavez supporters shooting innocent civilians. However, the poor masses were not going to accept being marginalized once again, and thus emerged with great numbers from the Barrios demanding Chavez reinstatement. As they approached the presidential palace, the army turned against the coup makers and reinstated Chavez, a mere 48 hours after his ousting.

Philip Agee, a former CIA agent operating in Latin America, explains why the US would back a coup overthrowing an elected government and replace it with a dictator: “In the CIA, we didn’t give a hoot about democracy. It was fine if a government was elected and would co-operate with us, but if it didn’t, then democracy didn’t mean a thing to us, and I don’t think it means a thing today.”

Venezuela is home to the largest oil reserves in the world outside of the Middle East, and is thus a country of vital strategic importance to the US. Detrimental to US designs, Chavez is forming close ties with China instead of Washington. Chavez is also cooperating closely with Cuba, Argentina and other South American nations under the premise of achieving a Latin American “grand unity,” in which Washington is not included.

The US often condemns Venezuela and its current form of democracy, while paradoxically praising and supporting the neighboring government of Colombia, a country with one of the worst human rights record in history. According to virtually unreported Latinobarometro polls, Venezuela is annually the highest ranking in all of South America when it comes to trust in democracy, assessment of the current and future economic situations, equality, justice, and education standards.

Venezuela has got its far share of problems, such as mounting inflation and continuous corruption, but compared to the pre-Chavez Venezuela, where the majority of the population were completely marginalized, the democratic development is nothing far from remarkable.

As Latin America is steadily slipping out of US control, Washington is waking up to a new multipolar world in which its powers are no longer taken for granted. The continent has seen a remarkable reversal of detrimental financial and social policies during the last ten years. The region, which contemptuously has been known as Americas “back yard,” is moving towards a future in which a bewildered Washington no longer has a place.

No wonder Mitt Romney is disgruntled.

Image COurtesy of   ¡Que comunismo!

The article A Dangerous Model: Venezuela and the Pink Tide appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

“If I’m fortunate enough to become the next president, it is my expectation that Fidel Castro will finally be taken off this planet,” Mitt Romney told to a group of Cuban exiled and political leaders in Miami on January. With this short sentence he showed the world that he is not willing to conceive of Cuba as a friend, as long as Raul and Fidel Castro are still alive.

It seems that Mitt Romney dreams of a free Cuba and is willing to make his dream come true. He also wants to be everything Obama isn’t, so in the Cuba issue he would follow the same plan. If Obama, at the beginning of his presidency, adopted an appeasement strategy, Romney in his campaign assured he would harden the sanctions against Cuba if he is elected president. His plans are clear: the embargo would come to an end when Cuba is free, and free means with the Castro’s out of sight. It is clear that he wants the Cuban community’s support for presidential election.

But in these hard economic times, this strategy may not attract as many Cuban voters as he expects. Cubans are decisive in a crucial state like Florida. Most politicians try to gain their support by criticizing Castro, because most of their ancestors escaped the island when the Castro regime started in 1959. But in this period of crisis, most Cuban voters just think about the economy as their priority. Maybe in a time of prosperity, the priority of the Cuban voters will be the position of the presidential candidate over their country, but not in these hard times.

But Mitt Romney has bigger plans than the Cuban community support. He wants the entire Latin community support; he reassured citizens that he is interested in Latin American issues and clearly expressed the route that he will follow, referring to the relations with the different Latin American governments, if he is elected president. Romney believes that Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela and declared enemy of the United States,  and Fidel  Castro are serious threats for the United States.

That leaves the country members of ALBA (The Bolivian Alliance for the People of Our America), an alliance proposed by Chavez as an alternative to the FTA (Free Trade Area of the Americas, proposed by the United States) without hope of having good relations with the United States in the nearby future.

But Romney may not be the biggest threat toward Chavez. His real enemy is his sickness.Although president Chavez real health condition is a mystery; the fact is, he hasn’t been present in Venezuela during the last months, and it is very difficult to run a country and win an election just by Twitter. Chavez’s health will be a crucial issue during the next months because it will condition the relationship between the United States and Latin America. Also, if Venezuela falls, it is almost certain that Cuba would fall, because Venezuela is the country’s stronger economic supporter.

The future of the United States and Latin America is a mystery. We still have many questions without an answer, like if Romney would be elected president or if Chavez’ health would make him able to compete in the October elections against Henrique Capriles. All these answers are crucial and would determine the future of the continent.

Image Courtesy of  Gage Skidmore

The article Mitt Romney, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

SUVA, Fiji – All five members of the Republic of Fiji’s Constitutional Commission are in place. The Constitutional Commission is comprised of two international experts, and three Fijian representatives, as outlined by Fijian Prime Minister Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama in March 2012. Now that the full commission has been named, for the first time in Fiji’s history there is a female majority in a representative body.

These five individuals will contribute their respective expertise and intimate knowledge of Fijian politics, life, and position in the region and world to properly lead the way to the creation of Fiji’s first truly representative constitution. As announced by the Fijian Government in March of this year, once feedback from all Fijians is collected, the Constitutional Commission will be responsible for drafting the new constitution. The draft will then be delivered to the Constituent Assembly for review near the end of this year or early next.

Biographies of the five members are as follows:

Professor Yash Ghai, Chairman of the Commission, is a world-renowned constitutional scholar, and has completed extensive research in the areas of human rights, sociology of law, and federalism and autonomy. Professor Ghai has taught and performed research in law at universities across the globe, including Yale Law School, the National University of Singapore, Harvard Law School, and the International Legal Center in New York.

From 2000 to 2004, Professor Ghai served as the Chairman of the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission, and throughout his career, has consulted NGOs on the legal framework around human rights matters.

From 2005-2008, Professor Ghai served as a Special Representative of the UN Secretary General in Cambodia on human rights, and between 2006-2008, he headed the UNDP Constitution Advisory Unit in Nepal. Professor Ghai’s publications include a number of books that address laws in different countries, including Africa and the South Pacific nations. Currently, he is UNDP adviser in Libya and advises the Constitutional Commission in South Sudan.

Professor Christina Murray is a human rights and constitutional expert; professor of constitutional and human rights law at the University of Cape Town; and the current Jennings Randolf Senior Fellow at the United States Institute for Peace in Washington, DC. Professor Murray has an extensive career spanning cultures outside the South Pacific region, having served as a member of the Kenyan Committee of Experts appointed by the Kenyan Parliament to draft a new Constitution of Kenya – approved and promulgated in August 2010.

For two years between 1995 and 1996, Professor Murray advised on the drafting of South Africa’s “final” Constitution – directly with the South African Constitutional Assembly. With a distinguished academic career, Professor Murray has taught and authored works that span a variety of subject areas – including human rights law; constitutional rights for women; violence against women; gender equality; international, and constitutional law.

Fijian member Penelope “Peni” Moore is a human rights expert, veteran of the civil society and NGO movement, and third appointed female member of the commission. Moore was trained in veterinary medicine and worked with the SPCA for four years before becoming the first coordinator for the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement from 1987 to 1993.

From there, Moore assumed the post as Creative Director at Women’s Action for Change (WAC) for the next 18 years, working to empower marginalized communities throughout Fiji. This includes mentoring at-risk juveniles; rehabilitating former prisoners; and empowering women to achieve economic independence. Also a commissioner in the Fiji Legal Aid Commission, Moore brings years of on-the-ground experience to this new position, as well as a broader understanding of the regional dynamics involved.

Fijian member Dr. Satendra Nandan is an academic, a writer, and former Member of Parliament. In 1969, Dr. Nandan joined the University of the South Pacific after being a schoolteacher for years prior. Dr. Nandan joined the House of Representatives in 1982, later winning the 1987 election on the Fiji Labour Party ticket, and served as the Minister of Health and Social Welfare.

Shortly thereafter, Dr. Nandan migrated to Australia to accept a position at the Australian National University in Canberra, where he is the Professor of Literature and Director of the Centre for Writing. Another of his current titles is Professor of Humanities and the Arts at the University of Fiji.

Fijian member Taufa Vakatale was the first female Fijian principal at Adi Cakobau School for girls, sharing a decorated history of experience in academia. Appointed Chief Education Officer in 1983, Vakatale was instrumental in driving curriculum innovations in secondary education, and establishing vocational centres.

From 1993 – 1995, Vakatale served as Fiji’s Minister of Education, Science, and Technology. Considered a pioneer in education, Vakatale’s intimate knowledge of the Fijian education system and extensive first-hand experience with various sides of education and political networks position her as a valuable resource in understanding how it all can be streamlined in such a way that will provide optimal and widespread benefits.

A member of the YWCA and other women’s organisations, Taufa Vakatale is a strong supporter of campaigns for justice and peace. Vakatale accepted the appointment as the first female Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji when in the SVT Rabuka Government from 1997 – 1999.

The article New Constitutional Commission for Fiji appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers adopted the 2012 plan of immediate measures concerning the country’s integration to the European Union. The document deals with internal reform issues (the likes of gas transporting system modernization, institutional reform in Ukraine, and hosting EURO 2012), as well as questions of deepening Ukraine-EU ties: visa liberalization, cooperation with EU police and justice offices, expanding trade cooperation, etc.

Besides the listed domestic reforms, the document stipulates measures to enhance regional development of the country, restructuring of the national gas managing company Naftogaz, as well as preparations to the Association Agreement implementation.

Ukraine also plans to enhance cooperation with the EU in the areas of nuclear safety, research and technology, defense, space exploration. Additionally, the new document sets the agenda for creating the common airspace with the EU. According to the plan, Ukraine intends to join the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity.

Ukraine and the EU share a 1,391 kilometer long border and have established close cooperation in a number of areas. Ukraine is EU’s strategic gas transit partner. Its gas transporting system services 70% of the Russian gas export to Europe. The EU is one of Ukraine’s key trade partners with the trade volume in 2011 constituting USD 44 billion and demonstrating a 36% growth.

European integration has been a long-term foreign policy goal for Ukraine. The country began negotiations with the EU in 1999. Various officials of the EU member states, including Czech Republic, Finland, and Lithuania, backed Ukraine’s European ambition.
By 2007 the sides agreed to eventually sign the Association Agreement. After 21 rounds of negotiations over the Association Agreement, Ukraine and the EU finalized the negotiating process on December 19, 2011.

The Association Agreement will regulate political cooperation of the partners, as well as introduce the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area between Ukraine and the EU. Initialing of the political and, partly, economical sections of the document took place in Brussels on March 30, 2012.

Currently the sides are working on the technical aspects of the document preparation for signing and further ratification. Meanwhile, the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych stated that Ukraine perceived the Association Agreement as comprehensive program of reforms.

The article Ukraine Adopts EU Integration Plan appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Late last week, German president Christian Wulff resigned in embarrassment and disgrace after his scandalous behavior came to light. The controversy caused the public to lose trust and faith in their president and turn on him.  Wulff, 52, had previously enjoyed high ratings. “The last few weeks have shown… my ability to be effective has suffered sustained damage,” said Wulff.

Although the German president is largely a ceremonial role, it is supposed to provide the people with a moral compass, and this scandal has greatly hurt the office. The news is a major blow to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who handpicked Wulff for the position in June 2010.

Allegations surfaced in December, when newspapers began to look into an improper home loan he received from a family friend before he became president. Wulff became increasingly irate over these investigations and left a voicemail for one of the editors of Germany’s best-selling tabloids, ‘Bild’, saying it would mean “war” if the paper published a story on his financial past. ‘Bild’ decided in favor of publishing the story, and Wulff apologized for his unruly behavior.

The media continued to scrutinize his past dealings in the wake of this incident, with news of him accepting free upgrades on planes and staying at various hotels and inns without charge during travels with his family. Last week, prosecutors asked Parliament to put a stop to Wulff’s legal immunity over claims that he had received favors. Trying to investigate a German president is without precedent, and the move had opponents calling for his departure from office.

Merkel had remained loyal and sympathetic to Wulff during the past months’ controversies. Both belong to the same political party, the conservative Christian Democratic Union. She said she regretted his decision, canceling a visit to Rome to quell the outrage in her homeland. Merkel’s popularity among the people has not been affected by the scandal, but the controversy has served as a diversion on which she and her party can focus.

Wulff is the second president to resign in two years. Horst Koehler, Wulff’s precursor, left office without warning in 2010 after receiving heat for remarks he had made about German military in Afghanistan. Merkel stated she would talk to her opposition over who would be the next candidate, unlike last time. Until a consensus is reached, Horst Seehofer, the governor of the state of Bavaria and leader of the upper house of Parliament, will fill the role of acting president.

Image Courtesy of    http://www.flickr.com/photos/d_b_u/

The article German President Resigns Amid Scandal appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

International conference calls for closer bilateral ties between Europe and Russia following the return of Vladimir Putin as President of the Russian Federation.

A panel of senior European and Russian politicians has said that the likely return of Vladimir Putin as President of the Russian Federation will ensure “positive stability”, at an international conference in Venice today. Despite recent protests in Moscow, and protests across the major cities of Russia expected in the lead up to the election, the panel said that Mr. Putin is still the most popular politician in Russia.

H.E. Hon. Franco Frattini, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Italy, said: “There is still some mistrust in Europe of Russia. But we should be the best friend that Russia has… Russia and Europe are too small to work individually. We must work together to have a global impact…Despite some critics the EU will be ready to recognize (Vladimir) Putin as leader.

Stability in Russia is an added value… Under the leadership of Putin Russia has moved forward. Further economic and political reforms are needed, but substantial progress has been made, especially if we compare the situation in Russia to 15 years ago”.

“The upcoming elections will mark an important time in our shared history. It will be a great opportunity to strengthen co-operation between EU states and Russia… I am confident that Mr Putin, the future President of Russia, will give the green light to a new agreement of partnership and co-operation. We must consider Russia not just a strategic partner, but a loyal friend.”

Speaking after Franco Frattini, Jose Maria Aznar, former Prime Minister of Spain, commented: “Russia is key for the stability of Europe. Russia will emerge strengthened from the upcoming elections… I believe Mr. Putin still has a project for Russia.”

The panel argued that of all the Presidential candidates Mr. Putin would be the most likely to bring “increased bi-lateral relations between Europe and Russia”, calling on further co-operation in the areas of economic and trade relations, energy security, international political relations and international security.

H.R. Yitzah Herzog MP, former Minister of Social Welfare, Israel, said: “We all ask ourselves what Russia will be like after the election. The answer is clear – stability is essential for the continuation of reform. Russia should adjust its position on the current key issues related to the Middle East.”

The panel called for the pace of discussions on bilateral relations to quicken, concluding that given the Eurozone crisis and the relative economic and political stability in Russia the Russian Federation has become an increasingly important neighbor and partner to Europe.

Helen Teplitskaia, President of the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, stated: “The increase in Europe-Russia trade shows that the two are coming closer together… However, the ghost of the Cold War still prevails for many in Europe. The more Russia is pushed away from the West, the closer it gets to China.”
“Russia’s WTO accession will be beneficial for Europe,” she added.

Organized by prominent Italian organization “Fondazione Alcide De Gaspari”, with the support of a Russian think tank “The Institute of International Integration Studies”, the conference, entitled ‘The Russian Presidential elections: European expectations’, was held at Isola di San Servolo, Venice.

Speakers at the conference included H.E. Hon. Franco Frattini, former Minister of Foreign Affairs; Jose Maria Aznar, former Prime Minister of Spain; Marino Zorzato, Member of the Italian Parliament; Alexander Babakov, Member of the Russian State Duma and deputy Co-Chairman of the Duma Inter-parliamentary.

Image Courtesy of  Alexey Kryuchkov / Shutterstock.com

The article Europe Predicts “Positive Stability” with Putin Re-Election appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

As President Obama starts his fourth year in office, people have many opinions of the job he has done so far and these opinions have changed over the past three years. In looking at fourteen different statements there are three that have changed fairly substantially over time.

In 2010, almost three in five Americans (57%) said President Obama made other countries feel better about the United States. That number dropped to 50% last year and is now even lower, at 43% this year.

Over half of U.S. adults (55%) agree that President Obama is not changing things fast enough and in 2010, 43% felt that way. Another large shift is in the speed of change. In 2010, less than two in five (38%) agreed the President was changing things too fast; this year one-quarter of Americans (26%) feel this way.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,016 adults surveyed online between January 16 and 23, 2012 by Harris Interactive .

Looking at some of the more positive statements, each shows a decline in the number of Americans who agree. While majorities believe that the President is trying to put the country back on track (57%), trying to bring about much needed change (54%) and is open, honest and trustworthy (50%), two years ago, in 2010 between 54% and 61% agreed with each statement and in 2011 between 53% and 59% agreed.

Looking at some of the more negative statements, more than three in five Americans say President Obama has not lived up to his campaign promises (63% up from 56% who said this last year) and that he spends too much time talking and there isn’t enough action (61% up from 56%). In 2010, three in five U.S. adults (61%) believed the President hadn’t done much for them yet and that dropped to 56% last year but is back up to 58% this year.

Other findings of this poll include:

• A few things haven’t changed too much since last year. About half of Americans agree President Obama does a good job of explaining issues to people (49%) and that he is working for the people’s best interests and doing the right thing (49%);
• Less than half of Americans (47%) believe the President provides a fresh outlook with new ideas, down from 52% last year and 56% in 2010;
• Three in five Americans (59%) say the President is spending too much and creating too much debt, which is down from 61% who said this in 2010 and up from 56% who agreed in 2011; and,
• Up from 41% last year, this year 45% of U.S. adults say President Obama doesn’t care about people like them.

Partisan Differences

As it has been in the past two years, it is not surprising that Democrats agree with more of the positive statements about the President, and Republicans agree with more of the negative ones.  There are, however, a few interesting similarities that came out in the data. For example:

• Majorities of Republicans (52%), Democrats (55%) and Independents (59%) say President Obama is not changing things fast enough;
• But, at the same time, two in five Republicans (40%), one-quarter of Independents (24%) and 14% of Democrats say the President is changing things too fast; and,
• While four in five Republicans (82%) and almost two-thirds of Independents (64%) say President Obama has not lived up to his campaign promises, so do almost half of Democrats (48%).

So What?

President Obama has had a complicated year. The economic indicators are improving, but Americans are only slowly coming around to that. He’s had some big national security wins, but with the focus on the economy and jobs, the President is not getting a lot of credit.

And, there is also the focus on the Republican candidates vying to challenge the President in the fall. All of this is something President Obama has to contend with and could help explain why Americans are a little conflicted about their feelings towards him at the moment. He has some time before he has to convince the American public to re-elect him, but in order to do that he will need to work diligently to alter some of these views.

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding; NA indicates not asked in that year

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding; NA indicates not asked in that year

Methodology

This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between January 16 to 23, 2012 among 2,016 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with non response, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments.

Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

The article The Harris Poll of President Obama’s Performance Shows Mixed Feelings appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Even as presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, readies for the South Carolina primary after soundly winning the New Hampshire primary, both the Obama reelection campaign and the Occupy Wall Street crowd he hopes to capitalize on are sharpening the knives of wealth envy.

As the 2011 year closed, the media remained obsessed with the Occupy Wall Street protests. Not a day went by without video of the protesters camping out, clashing with police, or some soft-peddled story on the merits of the protests. Absent are all the admonitions hurled toward the Tea Party for loudly denouncing the Obama Care Law or the president’s insistence on spending more and more money in debt to somehow magically create a positive economy.

Make no mistake, however, just as the Tea Party galvanized opposition against the policies of the Obama administration from fiscal conservatives, so too, does the president hope to utilize the Occupy movement in a similar fashion in the 2012 presidential election. The contrast between the two movements is stark.

There were hundreds of Tea Party rallies, marches, and protests throughout the country in 2010. Yet, not a single venue was trashed, the streets, avenues, and parks were left in pristine condition, and the only reported police arrest occurred in the beginning of the movement, when three white Union members attacked an African-American male in a wheelchair.

Occupy Wall Street, however, has had rapes, shootings, drug use, assaults, and have pretty much used the parks as their own private bathrooms. There has been violence in every city in which an Occupy movement has occurred, and the only word from the mainstream media has been the talking point of not unfairly assessing the Occupiers through the actions of a few bad apples. The hypocrisy is larger than the increase in the national debt, but is not even the worse problem.

There is no single overwhelming theme or idea from Occupy Wall Street, but the one thing they do seem to hate is what they consider to be income inequality. That they are the 99 percent versus the 1 percent has become the mantra, and the 1 percent are not paying their fair share. There is a call for a more even distribution of income and assets.

The ideas for this range from higher taxes to socialism and to out-right communism. What I find annoying is the idea that there should be income equality to begin with and the underlying idea that the rich have an unfair advantage. The reality, of course, is that life is not fair. We are not all given the same or equal attributes.

Some people are born ugly and others beautiful. Some people are born smart, others have average intelligence, and some people are just born dumb. Some are tall; some are small. And yes, some people are born rich, and some are born poor. It is a fact of life. What is also a fact, however, is that the vast majority of people in the top one percent of income earners were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

In the 1920′s, well over 80 percent of the wealth in the country was gained through inheritance. A person was born, and if they hit the cosmic lottery, their parents were a Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, or a Kennedy. In 2010, the percentage of wealth gained through inheritance is two percent. The vast majority of the people in the top income and asset brackets were not born that way. They earned it in their lifetimes.

They did this through opening businesses or obtaining professional degrees, like becoming doctors (doctors make up most of people in the top one percent), or by savvy and patient investment. Any way you cut it, they were not handed their incomes and wealth through some lotto ticket. However, the occupiers, which are more like ‘whiners’, act as if someone handed these millionaires and billionaires their money.

They never stop and ask themselves whether they are willing to do the things, make the sacrifices, risk their capital, their health, and or their marriage in pursuit of a business or profession that leads to wealth. The answer to that question is clearly no. If they were willing to do those things, they would not be camped out in a park, defecating in the street, and bitching about someone else’s money.

Yet, it is obvious from the calls for “income equality” that these people want the money that the one percent have. Thus far, none have given a single logical reason why they deserve it. Sure, the general idea of fairness can make many people sympathize with the protesters. After all, no one feels sorry for a billionaire.

However, what is fair about someone working 70 hours a week to start a business that takes ten years to build, having to shell over their money to a twenty-something or thirty-something year old that does not want to make the same sacrifices?  If you use a sports analogy, why would an NFL team with the worse record deserve a part of the Super Bowl trophy? We all know the answer is a that they do not deserve it. Yet, many are duped into thinking that they have some divine right to the fruits of someone else’s labors.

It is unimportant that the top 1 percent owns upwards of 25 percent of the wealth in the country. They deserve it, and they own it because when you “own” as opposed to being a worker bee, your wealth and income are magnified. The beauty of America is that if you do not like what you earn, you can do things to earn more. Nowhere else in this world is it so easy to move up in both income and class without the right political or social connections.

Can you do that in China, Cuba, Russia, or India? No! In America, you can, and the proof of that is the people who make up the one percent. Go back 10 or 15 years, and the people there today were not there back then.

If you are part of the 99 percent, then the question is, “What have you done today, this week, this month, and this year to increase your wealth? What have you done to affect your income level?” If the answer is nothing, then Herman Cain is right, and you are poor because of yourself. It is no one’s fault, but your own.

As we have seen over the last few years, personal accountability has become a lost value for many in this country, especially for the spoiled children of baby boomers who expected the world to give them a silver spoon- even if it means taking it by force from someone else.

Image Courtesy of    http://www.flickr.com/photos/atomische/

The article The Occupy Wall Street Lie appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Rev. Steven Baines takes pride in his affable personality, a trait emphasized through his ease in addressing the 100+ individuals at the Deerfield Beach Progressive Forum and in his sense of humor. However, when it came time to addressing the increasing role of religion in U.S. politics, his tone took on a much more serious edge.

“If we as Americans are going to be free, we must preserve the separation of church and state,” he said, “this is not a Liberal or Conservative issue, it is an American ideal.” Baines, the assistant field director for religious outreach at Americans United, emphasized that government should have limited say in religious affairs.

Regarding criticisms by members of the religious right that progressives wanted to remove all aspects of religion from daily life, he countered by stating that the Founding Fathers were Deistic and Unitarian in their beliefs, and that their decision to deemphasize religion in political affairs was something “that they got right.”

“The only reference to a deity that we have in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is the nebulous phrase of ‘being endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,’” he said. “When the Founders put their names to that Constitution, there is no mention of religion, God or Jesus because they knew that the proper role of religion was left to you and me.”

In order to maintain a strict separation of church and state, individuals must recognize and appreciate the First Amendment, which is, according to Baines, “the cornerstone of our republic.” “Unfortunately,” he said, “many people have forgotten the value of this amendment and the clear separation of church and state that this amendment spells out to us.”

Some of these individuals are found comprising the Republican primary landscape, noted Baines. As he spoke, he cast a critical eye on politicians who would choose to use the tenets of religion to benefit their own ends. “Nothing can be more destructive than choosing to favor one religion over another,” he pointed out. “In fact, government should be neutral on religion, neither favoring it, promoting it or prohibiting one from expressing it.”

Baines was especially critical toward politicians comprising the Republican Party; particularly members of the Tea Party whom he believes are out to create a theocracy rather than a democracy. “When an entire party proclaims that Sharia law has taken over Constitutional law in the United States of America, we have a crisis on our hands,” he said.

Baines also expressed amazement at the GOP candidates who believed that God had specifically chosen them to assume the presidential mantle. “Anderson Cooper should ask them at the next debate: which ones of you have really heard the voice of God, and which ones are listening to the crazy voices in your head,” he said, causing a roar of laughter in the audience.

He then wondered aloud if God was a betting deity, mainly because the candidates who God “endorsed” in the presidential race have since dropped out. “Cain and Bachmann are already gone, and Rick Perry is not far behind,” he observed. Baines found Bachmann’s concession speech particularly amusing, as she went from God calling her to run to believing that God has “other plans for her.”

A particular concern of Baines’, however, centered on faith-based programs that received government funding. While he admitted to having no personal objectives to these programs’ purposes, he made it clear that he found it unacceptable when these programs employ religious discrimination against those they deem undeserving.

As Baines moved toward concluding his speech, he read some words from an essay titled “An American Constitution: Is America a Christian Nation?” The essay noted that a “holy Constitution” would eventually result in Americans split into two separate groups. These groups would include those who allow religion to inform their decisions, and those who abide by reason to make their choices.

Ultimately, the essay said, God’s place is in our hearts rather than the Constitution. Reading those final words resulted in huge applause from his receptive audience. Lillian Steiner, a former teacher, greatly appreciated having the opportunity to hear Rev. Baines speak. “I agree with everything that he has said,” she said confidently.

Steiner also agreed with Baines’ humorous take on the GOP Presidential field. “I think that the choices present in the GOP field are just terrible,” she pointed out. Steven Handler, a board member of the Deerfield Progressive Forum, praised Baines’ clear and concise words. He liked that Baines pointed out that it was their responsibility to educate others. Rev. Baines certainly succeeded in that endeavor, much to the delight of those around him.

The article Religious Pastor Preaches Limited Political Piety appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

As the Republican primaries near, Zoosk, a romantic social network, recently surveyed more than 4,000 U.S. singles to gather their thoughts on the presidential candidates.  Questions ranged from which candidate has the best hairdo, to which contending couple would make for the best double date, and to who has the best sense of humor.  The survey findings resulted in the following:

Singles say the Obamas would be their first choice couple for a double date.

• 38% of singles say they would choose a double date with the Obamas over any of the other presidential candidate couples.
• 16% of singles would choose to enjoy an evening out with the Bachmanns for a double date.
• 9% of singles would pick the Pauls.  The Gingrichs, Perrys, and Romneys each received 8% of singles’ vote for double date companions.

Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney have the “best hairdos” among the Republican candidates.

• 35% of singles give Michele Bachmann their vote for best hairstyle. She is followed by Mitt Romney (21%) and Rick Perry (15%).
• Rick Santorum received the fewest votes for his “do,” nabbing just 4% of the vote.

Republican men prefer Newt Gingrich, while Republican women prefer Mitt Romney for the GOP nominee. When asked, “If you were to vote today, who would receive your vote?”…

• Republican men gravitated towards Newt Gingrich with 33% of men saying the former Speaker of the House is their top choice compared to 18% of men who would choose Romney.
• Republican women have a slight preference for Mitt Romney with the former Governor of Massachusetts gathering 25% of the Republican female votes compared to 24% of women who would chose Gingrich.

Who is the “sexiest” candidate?

• Clearly, Michele Bachmann gets the sexiest female candidate vote, but 41% of single women say President Obama is the sexiest candidate among the 2012 contenders.

Singles vote President Barack Obama as having the “best sense of humor” among the candidates.

• 30% of singles say President Obama has the best sense of humor among all the presidential candidates.
• 15% of singles prefer Newt Gingrich’s humor.
• Tied for third place with 12% each of the “best sense of humor” vote are Rick Perry and Ron Paul.

Singles wish Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were on the ballot.

• When asked who they wish were on the ballot in 2012, 57% of singles who identify themselves as Democrats and 30% of singles who identify themselves as Independents say Hillary Clinton.
• 30% of single Republicans say they wish Donald Trump were running for president in 2012.

More singles than ever plan to vote in the 2012 presidential election.

• Compared to 64% of Americans who voted in the 2008 presidential election, singles are a politically active group. An equal percentage of single men and women (87%) say they plan to vote next year.

The data for this report was conducted online in December 2011 and fielded 4,218 responses from singles in the U.S. who use Zoosk.  Respondents were equally divided among political parties with 30% being Democrat, 34% being Republican, and 36% being Independent.

The article Survey Finds Obamas Are America’s First Choice for a Double Date appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Herman Cain informed his aides on Tuesday that he was going to reassess his campaign for presidency after yet another woman stepped forward with allegations of improper sexual conduct. Cain said that the accusations created too much of a cloud around his campaign. He has acknowledged the turmoil the allegations have caused and will only stay on schedule for the next few days.

“If a decision is made, different than to plow ahead, you all will be the first to know,” Cain stated. This is the first time since accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct began that Cain has reconsidered being a part of the presidential race. On Tuesday morning, however, a spokesperson for the campaign explicitly said that Cain would not drop out of the race.

Ginger White, a Georgian woman, came forward with allegations of a 13 year extramarital affair with Cain. The potential presidential candidate denied this, just like he had denied previous accusations of sexual harassment from other women. “It was just a friendship relationship,” he claimed.

“That being said, obviously, this is a cause for reassessment.” Cain continued, “With this latest one, we have to do an assessment as to whether or not this is going to create too much of a cloud, in some people’s minds, as to whether or not they would be able to support us going forth.”

Claiming the firestorm caused by this episode has taken a toll on Cain and his family, he told his aides that the people will have to make a decision about whether or not to believe him or the women speaking out against him. Even though the fundraising for his campaign has begun to fall, as the public’s opinion of him has, Cain was still determined to continue with his bid for presidency.

However, in a conference call, he only said he would keep certain, imminent commitments. This includes delivering a speech regarding foreign policy at Hillsdale College in Michigan. Cain did cancel one previously planned event and withdrew from a party where he would meet with journalists, Matt Lauer and Barbara Walters.

Representative Scott Plakon, one of Cain’s Florida campaign chairmen, said the woman accusing him of having an affair should produce more evidence. Plakon said that if Cain did have an affair, Republican voters would be turned off. “That would be very problematic,” Plakon stated. “There’s the affair itself, and then there’s the truthful factor. He’s been so outspoken in these denials.”

Darren Brode / Shutterstock.com

The article Herman Cain Rethinks Campaign appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Contradicting Europe’s right-wing rise, the Danish Social Democrats have won the Danish Parliamentary election on September 15. The election have ended a decade of center-right majority in the Danish Parliament whilst electing their first female leader, Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

According to three polls released on the 14th September, voters were ready for a change as they prepared to cast their vote on the 15th, in order to elect the 179 members of Parliament. The Prime Minister in office Lars Loekke Rasmussen, who took over two years ago, replacing Anders Fogh Rasmussen who went on to be NATO Secretary General, was not taken too kindly by the Danish people as early voters cast their ballots and criticized his policies. Rasmussen lead a coalition composed of pro-market Liberals and Conservatives and was supported by the Danish People’s Party (DPP), a far-right and xenophobic party.

The election is expected to usher in the end of market reforms and strict border control, while the Socialist Democratic party will make a comeback as the majority leader in the Parliament, after 10 years in opposition.

Even though significant changes aren’t expected, Thorning-Schmidt, 44, hopes to protect the welfare system by raising taxes on banks and the rich and refrain from several austerity measures formulated by the government in order to avoid waves of contagion from debt-ridden countries. Altough Denmark did not hop on the Euro train, its economy relies on the export of national products to other European countries and its currency is subject to the uncertainty attached to the Eurozone.

According to a recent Associated Press interview, “We have a government that has believed that austerity was the right way to achieve more growth in Denmark,” Thorning-Schmidt said, “Austerity and tax cuts are not the right course for Denmark. What we want to achieve is to create more growth, kickstart the economy and then after that create the foundation for a new sustainable growth.”

The votes of Thurday’s election have been accounted for and resulted in a narrow win for the Social Democrats, with 92 seats, against the 87 seats won by Rasmussen’s coalition. Thorning-Schmidt must now manage a left-wing alliance consisted of former marxists, environmentalists, social democrats and liberals, who don’t see eye to eye in a small array of topics. There is some evidence of possible disagreement among the coalition parties. Margrethe Vestager, leader of the Socialist Liberal party, agreed to the austerity package presented by the previous government and is not backing away from that decision:

“We have made a deal which we believe is really good. It means that we will get more money in the chest and a sound economical starting point,” she said. Thorning-Schmidt’s toughest challenge has proved to be finding room in her Cabinet for the leaders of the Socialist Liberal Party and the Socialist People’s Party. According to political analyst Rune Stubager of the University of Aarhus “Her two coalition parties will try to almost tear her apart. The early retirement issue will be a big one for them to deal with.”

Hopefully, the election have created a turning point in immigration policy, as ten years of strict immigration and refugee legislation come to an end.

The article Denmark: The Right Step in the Left Direction appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

As the deadline for the debt ceiling draws near, the insane and pointless debate continues. Dragging out the inevitable raising of the debt ceiling is extremely dangerous. Never before has the U.S. economy come so close to reaching the debt ceiling. Never before have politicians played this game of chicken with the debt in order to get their way. The latest GOP plan asks for huge and immediate spending cuts in all discretionary spending in exchange for only a six-month debt ceiling increase.  That is insane by anyone’s measures.

Furthermore, spending cuts during a recession is asinine. Every other economic slump that America has been in has been solved by government spending. The government operates differently than a household budget so let’s stop making that comparison. Yes, if I am in debt I will reduce my spending. But, I am not responsible for 300 million citizens. I reduce my spending and it only affects me, my husband and pets. If American utilizes these big spending cuts that BOTH parties are now entertaining, it will increase unemployment further draining states’ economies.  When states cut services, as many already have, like unemployment and food stamps, people are homeless, hungry and aren’t spending money. The economic recession that we have been struggling to get out of for years quickly becomes a depression with spending cuts. When average families do not have money to spend, businesses will lay off people. Factories will close. The tax revenue that the United States gets will decrease even further as less and less people are working. Houses will not sell. The economy will come to a complete stand still. Don’t believe me? Nobel Prize winner economist Robert Reich states the same thing.

Not raising the debt ceiling is stupid. I cannot figure out why, in this fragile economy, the Republicans want to mess with this. The GOP was elected last November with their vague promises of creating “jobs, jobs jobs.” Nothing will cause jobs to disappear faster than this plan of raising the debt ceiling for six months while cutting spending and hurting average Americans. If the debt reduction is so important, there is no plausible explanation on why taxes aren’t being raised. I don’t want to pay more taxes, but if the GOP wants to reduce the deficit, you really have to increase taxes. It is just common sense. The Republicans state that raising taxes on the wealthy will somehow make the economy tank. But, that is the ass backwards trickle down crap that has never, ever worked. The rich people spend the same amount of money whether their tax rate is 35 percent or 50 percent. The average family though will not spend money if they are unemployed. But, they certainly will spend if they have money which will increase the economy leading business owners to hire. Business owners do not add employees just because they have extra money. THAT IS THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD. Employees are only hired if there is a DEMAND. No demand if people don’t have money. This is so simple it makes me want to scream.

Hopefully, the voters will figure out simple economics and encourage their representatives to take a crash course before the U.S. falls off the cliff. Once we default on our loans, there is no turning back. The end results will be disastrous for everyone involved.  We are in a barrel and Niagara Falls is coming up quickly.

The article Op-Ed: Raise the Freakin Debt Ceiling, You Morons appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Once again another one bites the dust…you see folks, twitter is not all fun and games. Twitter has started revolutions and has played a large role in social media all over the world but today it has caused the potential downfall of Congressman Anthony Weiner.

He admitted to having had relationships with several women outside his marriage which he characterized as a “deep personal failing.” As funny and unfortunate as this situation might be at first I must ask whether this is an offense that would require him to step down as Congressman.

I have laughed again and again at this man, although I may be the only one laughing at this point… but I think we must put this “personal failing” in context.  After lying repeatedly and continually putting his foot in his mouth, he has finally come clean.  I was beginning to think this story would never die considering the case of our favorite governor from California who has done a lot worst…but let me hold off judgment until the ethical issue is resolved and Weiner is proven to be just another horny politician.

He also stated emphatically that he will not resign his post.

That will prove to be very difficult especially being in New York and dealing will constant media questioning his every action. Let’s not forget the impact this will also have on his relationship with his colleagues in government whom he will need to be re elected or even mount an attempt to be Mayor of New York; which is where his trajectory was pointing before this brain fart.

By the way, who were these reporters? The level of questions being asked was very childish and somewhat unprofessional and unnecessary.

I may joke about this because of the way it occurred and the weeklong denial that provided some great sound bites, along with ex Governor Palin botching our history; but it is important to understand how insignificant this should be in terms of whether his constituents re elect him or not.

As his voice faded in and out and the emotion overwhelmed him, i couldn’t help think about his wife and what he must have been thinking while fumbling through lie after lie this past week.  Then again, it’s easy to be remorseful after it all goes downhill and ego doesn’t really serve any purpose at that point… but there’s no way to know for sure.

Yes  i’m still intrigued by this…simply put, this is big story for now because of who we are as consumers of daily television, but this is not to the level of other politicians who have lied, cheated on their wives and in some level cheated on the American people.  Step back for a moment, laugh (laugh a lot), let this die down and let this man fix his private situation with his family and get on with his career; whatever piece of his career is left .

The article Congressmen Anthony Weiner, Potential Death By Twitter appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In response to the big political and entertainment news of the past weeks, Time Magazine asks why powerful men cheat.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been ousted as a cheater having had a child with another woman while being married with his wife Maria Shriver.  Now there is constant debate on all news networks about why he did it, what does it mean and what will happen next.  If you ask me nothing, nothing should happen next.

A useless question like why men of power cheat does nothing to help political discourse or aid in helping people understand the real reason why we as Americans do what we do.

I often hear people say that Men in powerful positions feel as though they can get away with doing unethical things simply because they can, their arrogance blind them and at the same time shield them from the potential consequences of their actions.

Great psycho analysis but let’s leave the bubble of the political world and think about this objectively and not get caught in fancy titles.

Men in powerful positions cheat for the same reasons men all over the world cheat.  A leader of a fortune five hundred company cheats for the same reasons a person struggling with college debts cheats.

We make a big deal about these men because they are villianized by the media and we see them and feel as though we know them but that is not their fault… it is the nature of the business they are in.  In fact in us being naive, we do ourselves a disservice in electing our politicians.

The question should be why do men cheat in general, ask why did Tiger Woods cheat on his wife then we can ask why did a person like President Bill Clinton cheat or why Presidential candidate John Edwards cheated on his wife.

9819811We say we want our politicians to be one of us and we want to feel as though we can relate to them, so why when the topic of cheating on a spouse comes up we expect them to be different or above us.  Somehow they should only represent the best in us; if that is it then we are being naive.

I don’t want to come off as excusing the action of cheating on your spouse or getting another woman pregnant while being married, but we must find a way to separate the personal lives of our politicians and their service to us as politicians.  Should you be fired or reprimanded from your job because you cheated on your husband or wife? I don’t think so.

I understand it becomes complicated when the issue of tax payer money is involved and when we determine the legality of actions by certain politicians then and only then should it matter what they do in their private lives.

So what does this scandal mean?  Does it mean Governor Schwarzenegger should not be governor, just like Edwards most likely will never be president for this and other reasons?  Must he apologize to us; in fact I’m kind of tired of hearing politicians say sorry to the American people for their integrations.

In a country where the divorce rate is between 40 and 50 percent, why are we still surprise about stories like this, why do we still care… oh yeah I know why, because it shows a lot about a person’s ethics and we don’t want unethical leaders; yeah that’s it.

In reality that is just a cop out and we avoid the real questions and the real answers.

Ask yourself this question, who you consider a better president, the president who was a “compassionate conservative” or the president who cheated on his wife. In other words who was a better leader George Bush the son or Bill Clinton?

We shouldn’t forget about our values and have our president parade around with different model girlfriends on their arms like European Presidents often do, but let’s ask the right questions and disregard the double standards we place on our politicians.

Politicians are flawed men but they are men none the less, we must accept them just like you accept your husbands and boyfriends with their many flaws.

Joe Seer / Shutterstock.com

The article Arnold Schwarzenegger, Men Cheat, Not Just Politicians appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.