During the 2016 election there was lots of talk about jobs, mostly lost jobs to crumbled industries. Sectors of our economy which were once strong and vibrant, but we traded them away to other nations is bad trade deals. Donald Trump is correct most of the major trade deals we’ve made haven’t been good for our economy in the long-term, sure they may have won us brownie points on the international stage and helped us out ‘client nation’ other former super powers and slowed down an emerging super power – but to what avail if we don’t have decent jobs for our own citizens?

You should see the destruction we’ve done in the mining sector for no real reason, today we have incredible mining technologies to prevent environmental damage, but good luck trying to get that going again. How can we compete with manufacturing when the entire supply chain from resources to the finished automobiles has been trashed? We are so much better than this.

We’ve allowed our industrial capabilities to be crushed, and we have politicians pandering to the vocal minority and incited media rather than by reason and reality. It should not cost $50 million dollars in EIR work and lawyers to get a refinery approved or a new strategy to add clean-coal technology to an existing coal-fired energy generation plant that has existed burning coal for power for 50-years. I thought we wanted clean and cheap energy?

No, apparently we want to hijack the fossil fuel industry to divert the wealth of the industry to new unproven alternative energy folks who are friends or relatives of Pelosi, Reid, or donated big bucks to the Obama Administration’s elections. And it isn’t just the Democrats joining the crony-capitalist feeding frenzy, because when the money flows in politics, people line up and throw their politics out, they just want to get rich, problem is we the taxpayers get screwed, and now we pay again in higher energy costs for the subsidies, and inefficiencies.

Our companies are less competitive with higher costs in energy for manufacturing, industry, mining, and thus it is even harder to compete on top of the four items I previously mentioned. Of course, I digress again. The point is bad policies, cronyism and attacks on our corporations from unions, class-action lawyers, over regulation, and foreign influences have us running at 1500 RPM when we redline at 5,000 RPM. Think on this, because it is fixable.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted Wednesday to ban federal funding of abortions. While Republicans are cheering their leadership in passing the bill that is supported by current public opinion, the Democrats and the White House are portraying this as evidence of an extreme social agenda, limiting women’s rights to reproductive health.

Lost in the midst of the arguments between choosing life and choosing abortion is the often-forgotten third choice of adoption.

Adoption provides a woman with the right to choose not to parent a child she is not ready to. It provides an opportunity for infertile couples who may not otherwise ever have the ability to become parents of a baby. And most importantly, it provides a clear possibility of a life filled with choices for the child, apart from the moral debate on abortion.

“It is disheartening that adoption is lost in the whole pro-choice and pro-life debate. Especially when it is a choice that can provide everyone involved with a positive outcome,” says Mardie Caldwell, C.O.A.P. “I still speak to teens today who have never heard about the choices they have with open adoption. It’s amazing that they are aware of all types of birth control, morning after pills, and sexually transmitted diseases but have no clue about the realities of adoption.”

The open adoption choices Caldwell refers to are the opportunities that women have to customize their own adoption plan. “Nowadays they can choose the family for their child and even meet and speak with them. They can choose how things go at the hospital. And they can choose to have ongoing contact through email, letters, visits, SKYPE, texting… the possibilities are endless! The result is an adoption triad made up of the birth family, the adoptive family, and the child who are all connected for one purpose – the best interest of the child.”

Caldwell expects that President Obama will step forward to veto the ban if it passes the Senate, even though he has voted for similar bans when he was a senator. She remains hopeful, however, that somehow open adoption will enter the debate.

“You only have to look at the abortion statistics and the number of families waiting to adopt in this country to see that if only a fraction of those women made different choices, it would make a difference to so many,” Caldwell says. “We’ve come so far in so many areas of women’s health, it saddens me as both an adoption professional and adoptive mother that we aren’t sharing the truth and possibilities about open adoption as a pregnancy option.”

While critics point to the number of children languishing in the foster care system, Caldwell sees that as yet another strong argument for her case.

“Had these parents had the option of adoption explained to them, many may have chosen it prior to the involvement of Child Protective Services. Adoption centers receive many calls each month from women who have had children removed and are interested in making a permanent adoption plan for their children. However once the government is involved, mothers often have little say or ability to make these decisions,” she reports.

“I just want women to know and understand what adoption is and what it isn’t. It isn’t right for everyone,” she admits, “but just having the knowledge is a powerful step in ensuring the debate surrounding this issue takes adoption into account as a viable option for an unplanned pregnancy.”

During Abraham Lincoln’s 1864 run for a second term as president, Andrew Johnson (1808-1875) was his vice-presidential running mate. At this time during the Civil War, Lincoln was an unpopular president and Andrew Johnson, a southern War Democrat and Governor of Tennessee, would give the Republican ticket broader appeal to the important border states. On the Democrat ticket opposing Lincoln and Johnson in the 1864 election were George B. McClellan (the former Union general) and his running mate, George Hunt Pendleton. Abraham Lincoln won the election, but it was not a landslide victory. Lincoln won 55 percent of the total popular vote to McClellan’s 45 percent. Following President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, Johnson took the oath of office as president on April 15, 1865.

Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural on March 4, 1865 was held on a miserable, windy, rainy, and muddy day in Washington, D.C. The inaugural ceremonies were planned to be held outside, but were moved inside to the Senate chamber because the weather was so bad. Vice President Hannibal Hamlin was retiring, and Tennessee Democrat Andrew Johnson would now be inaugurated as Abraham Lincoln’s vice-president. The Senate chamber’s 1800s ventilation system was poor and it could not handle the added moisture from the wet and soaked clothes of the people attending the ceremony. The Senate chamber was muggy and sticky, it was a very uncomfortable place to be on this poor-weather inaugural day in Washington, D.C.

Andrew Johnson had been suffering from typhoid fever and generally was in poor health, during the weeks before the inaugural. Johnson’s travel to Washington, D.C. from Nashville did not help his physical condition, and he didn’t feel well shortly before the inauguration. He downed three glasses of “medicinal” whiskey before entering the uncomfortable Senate chamber. As Andrew Johnson walked into the Senate chamber he appeared to be unsteady, and he was leaning on Hannibal Hamlin’s arm.

Usually the vice-president’s inaugural speech is a brief formality on inauguration day. It became obvious to all that the new vice-president was three sheets to the wind as he began his vice-presidential inauguration speech. The stewed Johnson rambled on and on, speaking for seventeen minutes instead of the expected seven. Hannibal Hamlin finally gave a tug on Johnson’s coat-tail, and only then did Johnson end his alcohol-impaired inaugural speech.

Andrew Johnson’s sottish inauguration festivities and formalities were not yet complete. As he took the oath of office (which took more time than needed because Johnson drunkenly rambled with incoherent and slurred speech), Johnson put his hand on the Bible and said in a loud voice; “I kiss this Book in the face of my nation the United States.”

Johnson then gave the Bible a tipsy kiss. As the now freshly inaugurated vice-president, it was Johnson’s job to swear-in the new senators. Vice President Andrew Johnson was too drunk and confused for this, so instead a Senate clerk performed swearing-in of the new senators.

After the drunken Andrew Johnson had been inaugurated indoors as vice-president, the nasty weather began to clear and improve. Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address could now be given outside as was originally planned. As Lincoln witnessed the soused Andrew Johnson’s Bible kiss, he said to Senator John B. Henderson, who was the marshal for the inauguration; “Do not let Johnson speak outside.”

Later, President Lincoln remarked regarding Vice President Johnson’s inaugural drunkenness;

“It has been a severe lesson for Andy, but I do not think he will do it again.”

Lincoln had known Johnson for years and they were friends. To answer concerns expressed by some about Johnson, Lincoln further explained;

“I have known Andrew Johnson for many years. He made a slip the other day, but you need not be scared; Andy ain’t a drunkard.”

“The inauguration went off very well except that the Vice President Elect was too drunk to perform his duties & disgraced himself & the Senate by making a drunken foolish speech. I was never so mortified in my life, had I been able to find a hole I would have dropped through it out of sight.”

– Senator Zachariah Chandler.

Plato is the famous Greek Philosopher, along with Socrates and Aristotle. In the book written as a dialogue, Socrates discusses the themes of Justice, whether a man is happier as a just man or as an unjust one. The book also discusses the theory of forms and the immortality of the soul. The dialogue also discusses a city state ruled by a philosopher king.

Book 1

In the book Socrates asks his colleagues a definition of justice and they say that Justice is the art to do good to friends and bad to enemies. One of them describes justice as the interest of the stronger. Socrates upturns their definitions by saying that it is your advantage to be just and it’s your disadvantage to be unjust. At this juncture I would like to reiterate that Socrates is beating around the bush. A postmodernist would ask questions like whether justice is based on strength or doing good to friends and befriending the enemy. In a democratic society justice is based on Rousseau’s Social Contract where freedom is consensual proclivity. A democracy ensures equal opportunities for all and there is freedom and liberty. Of course a modern day democracy falls short of a Utopia. The question to be asked in postmodernism, will there be a just society without wars and fanaticism. Will the other be understood as one’s own self in poetic subjectivity? When will democracy shun force and coercion and foster the spirit of dialogue. There is no perfect paradigm of justice and justice is in the process of evolution.

Book 2

The young companions of Socrates argue that the origin of justice lies in a Social Contract. This is true to a certain extent as democratic principles are framed on the inclusive well being of all individuals. The second argument is flawed as it says that those who practice justice do so in order of fear of punishment. There are individuals who are just because they are peaceful and they don’t want to disturb the ethos of the society. Yes, justice is enforced by the rule of law. When a crime is committed, the laws of the super ego intervene and thwart the individual to be condemned.

Book 3

This book is a dialogue about education. They proceed to dissect that education should be based on three virtues: wisdom, courage and temperance. To think and dialogue about wisdom is a philosophical problem. Wisdom is a hyperbolic, semantic solipsism. Who is wise? If we look at the question from the standpoint of existentialism we come to a being and nothingness. Is Wisdom found in perfection? From the standpoint of courage I would like to ponder it philosophically: is it wrong to be weak? Is it wrong to be frail? Are martyrs courageous? Why should terrorists be considered as courageous? To pin point courage into an epistemology would be a philosophical problem. Again the body is an Epicurean brothel of desires. How can the ID exercise temperance? Morals are a weak point for existential philosophers. That’s why Sartre said: man is condemned to be free. The clever deify the ID, defy the Ego and subvert the super ego.

Book 4

Book 4 is also a repetition of justice as encompassing the three cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage and temperance. Hedonism, Epicurean-ism Existentialism and Postmodernism break up these virtues and promote a synthesis of unrestrained freedom. There is creative catharsis in anarchy and chaos.

Book 5

I agree with the thesis that all individuals irrespective of gender should receive the same education. The Greeks have gone a long way in emphasizing gender equality. The second argument is rather specious as it advocates that all offspring should be looked after by the state and should be ignorant of their biological parents. The family is the basic unit of the society. The parents play major role in the upbringing of their wards.

Book 6

In this book Socrates states that the Philosopher king should be intelligent, reliable and willing to lead a simple life. One of the flaws of a modern democracy is that leaders live an ostentatious life. They are flamboyant globe trotters. Most of them live in the gluttony of corruption. Postmodernism asks the question: when will philosophers become rulers. Again there’s the argument that truth comes from goodness. Truth has been deconstructed as semantic misnomer. Truth is preferential.

Book 7

Book 7 enunciates the allegory of the cave. There are people in a cave and there is a wall separating them from which they can see a chasm of light. Plato was trying to explicate the theory of forms. Beyond the sensible world there is an ideal world of forms. Here Plato is indulging in a metaphysical abracadabra. How can one separate matter and be an ideal as a form?

Book 8

This book discusses the four states of govt. through which every society will pass and they are timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Timocracy is the rule of property owners. Such a type of society is unjust and power becomes a privileged signifier. Next comes the rule of the Oligarchs, a rule of the rich and the powerful. Such a society is also one of privilege and marginalization. Democracy is the ideal form of govt. though we can truthfully murmur that there is no ideal democracy. Democracy has to evolve from coercive democracies to consensual democracies. I do not adhere to the view of Socrates that democratic societies would degenerate into tyranny. I would like to say that democratic societies are evolving. I would like to say that theocratic societies have degenerated into rabid, tyrannical fanaticism.

INTRODUCTION: September 28 is celebrated internationally as right to know Day. In spite of the fact that India has won its battle of independence in 1947 making democracy its weapon, unfortunately, the truth was something else. The power was handed over to the politicians and democrats, not to the common man then. In India, following a nationwide campaign led by grassroots and civil society organizations, the Government passed a landmark Right To Information Act in 2005. It is an Act ” to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens “. RTI mandates timely response to citizens’ requests for Government information. It is a initiative taken by Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions to provide a RTI portal Gateway to citizens for quick search of information.

The idea that Government withhold information for the public has become outdated. During the last decade, many countries have enacted legislations on freedom of information. In India, the Official Secrets Act 1923 was enacted to protect the official secrets. The new law intend to disclose information replacing the ‘ culture of secrecy ‘. It will promote public accountability which will trim the malpractices, mismanagement, abuse of discretion and bribery etc.

OBJECTIVES: The object of RTI is to empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government. The Act is a big step towards making the citizens informed about the activities of the Government. Social Activist Aruna Roy has described India’s RTI as ” the most fundamental law this country has seen.”

EFFECT OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION: While the debate on corruption in the country rages on, the RTI Act is fast growing as an effective anti- corruption tool.

Jan Lok Pal Bill gained tremendous public support with citizens coming out on the streets of Delhi, Bangalore and other cities to voice their anger over corruption. Where RTI has been used by journalists and the media, the law has a broad base of users. Earlier right to freedom of speech and expression is granted under Article 19(1) of Constitution, but it requires fair and efficient procedure to make the freedom of information work. In the first three years, 2 million RTI requests were filed. The first and well known movement was by Mazdoor Kissan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan for the access to village accounts. Case studies and media reports shows that RTI is being used to redress individual grievances, access entitlements such as Ration Cards and pension. The RTI has paved way for informed citizenry which would strengthen the democratic Government of India. With this Act, we can use our right to speech and expressions and control the Government activities effectively. The idea of open Government is becoming a reality with the implementation of RTI Act. The RTI can be called a success only if the bureaucracy accepts that they have constitutional to serve into.

PROVISIONS OF RTI: Section 3 says all citizens shall have right to information. The Act enforces a duty upon the public authorities to disclosed all information. In V.S.Lee V. State of Kerala.. the remedy provided by Parliament is that wherever there is substantial financial support, the People, have the right to know or information. Section 4(2) states that every public authority shall take constant steps to provide information suo moto to the public. Thus, the authorities have to give information voluntarily so that the public have minimum resort to use this Act. The public authorities also have to disseminate (making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broad casts, internet and inspection of offices of public authority) information widely in any form which is easily accessible to the public. Information can be obtained by request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in official language of the area U/S 6. Here, the person has to give fees, and if request can’t be made in writing, the Central PIO and State PIO shall render all assistance to make request in writing form. If the information has been provided correctly or within time, it may be made available by appeal or complaint to the Information Commission U/S (8(a) 1). In The Registrar General V. K.U. Rajasekar, it was held that Section 8 of RTI specially deals with the cases of exemption from disclosure or information when such information affects prejudicially the sovereignty and security of India etc. Section 5 says every public authority shall within 100 days of enactment of the Act, designate as many as officers as the Central Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers.

Section 6 permits person to obtain information in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area from the designated officers. The person need not to give any reason for the request. Section 7 requires the request to be disposed of within 30 days provided where information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within 48 hours. Section 7(7) before taking any decision for furnishing the information, the designated officer shall take into consideration the representation made by the third party U/S 11. Section 7(9) exempts granting information where it would divert the

Resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety and preservation of the record in record. U/S 8,it is important to note that the Act specifies that intelligence and security organisations are exempted from the application of the Act. However, it is provided that in case the demand for information pertains to allegation of corruption and human rights violations, the Act shall apply even to such institutions.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT: The RTI is a fundamental right as in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is now a well settled proposition. It has been discussed by Supreme Court in Number of cases, it has been read into Article 14.(Right to equality), 19(1)(a) freedom of speech and expression and Article 21 (Right to life) through cases such as Bennet Coleman V. Union Of India, Tata Press Ltd. V. Maharashtra Telephone Nigam Ltd. Etc. The same Articles were also interpreted in Kharak Singh V. State of U.P., Govind V. State of M.P. ETC. to include within their scope a right to privacy.

A plain reading of Section 11 suggests that for the section to apply the following three conditions must be satisfied (I) if the PIO is considering disclosing the information (ii) the information relates to the third party (iii) the third party treated the information to be confidential, the third party to be consulted and a notice to be sent to that party. Section 19 provides two tier system of appeals- First appeal and Second appeal. Any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the Central PIO and State PIO within 30 days can prefer First appeal before the First Appellate Authority. This authority shall be an officer who is senior in rank to the Central PIO and State PIO. An appeal can also be made by third party. The Second appeal lies before the State or Central Information Commission against the decision of the First Appellate Authority. It has to be filed within 90 days. As per Section 19(7), decision of Central or State Information Commission is final. The Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media and governance. In Nirmal Singh Dhiman V. Financial Commissioner Revenue, Section 23 says that no court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order and no order shall be called in question, otherwise than by way of an appeal. In case, the complainant was aggrieved against the non-supply of information by the Public Information Officer.

CRITICISM: The Act has been criticized on several grounds. It provides for information on demand, but does not sufficiently stress information on matters related to food, water, environment and other survival needs. It does not emphasize active intervention in educating people about their rights to access information. Another thing is allowing for file notings except those related to social and development projects to be exempted. File notings are very important when it comes to the policy making of the Government.

CONCLUSION: By enacting the RTI, India has moved from opaque and arbitrary system of Government to the beginning of an era where there will be greater transparency and to a system where the citizen will be empowered. The real Swaraj will come not by the acquition of authority by a few but by the acquition of capacity by all to resist authority when abused.

“KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, INFORMATION IS POWER, THE SECRETING OF INFORMATION MAY BE AN ACT OF TYRANNY CAMOUFLAGED AS HUMILITY.”

Few parents of students in grade school, high school or college would disagree if you said; we need to teach basic economics and financial literacy as mandatory parts of our education system, and yet, we don’t? Why – well, that was the question recently put forth at our think tank. What might we teach the kids?

How about how to balance a checkbook, how to calculate simple interest and amortization, and how about personal budgeting and credit card debt issues? How about the tradeoffs of student loans for college tuition – whoops? Is that one taboo – sorry, but why not, why should anything be off-limits. Let’s talk shall we.

You see, one think tank type agreed with me stating that he liked the principle and was amazed it wasn’t already part of the curriculum. Of course, he also told me that my ideas of ‘balancing a checkbook’ were a little archaic stating; “Seriously? How many people still use checks – haven’t written one this decade.”

Okay, I concede that point, still the principles of looking at a bank statement are of value. Interestingly enough, I’ve only written a handful of checks this year myself come to think of it.

Another couple of points – in the USA we see 1.3 Trillion Dollars in outstanding tuition debt – 40% over 90-days in the rears, most of those students will default eventually, worse either way they are economically enslaved as that debt cannot be discharged by bankruptcy, at least not yet, Democrats want to forgive and eventually give free college tuition, still those loans were taken out unwisely.

Another challenge Auto Loans, zero interest, zero payments until next year and loans to those who have very substandard credit, that’s another sign of bad decision making. What if those folks had better knowledge about interest, loans, and money?

When people took out ARM Home Loans during the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, many said they didn’t understand what they were signing. Maybe they did, but used that as an excuse, either way, they should have known what they were signing and getting themselves into.

Why are we in such a hurry to economically enslave the next generation with debt? They get out of college and cannot buy a car, start a business, or buy a home, how does that help our economy moving forward? Something is amiss, and it is something that we can fix by simply teaching financial literacy, which is just as important for success in life as math, science, reading and writing. Please consider this.

In the same way, we often witness, evolving stories, etc, in how, our political leaders articulate their version of circumstances (especially, those, unfavorable to their personal/ political agenda, and self – interest), the current, ongoing, Ukraine investigation/ inquiry, has demonstrated, the administration of the President, to resort to some degree of distortion, etc, and President Trump, engaging in what appears as, a 5 – stage method, of presenting his perspective of the facts. This ever – changing, set of messages, creates an atmosphere, where our nation, is becoming increasingly, polarized/ divided, and his supporters, seem, to either, not care about the truth, or, believe everything, he proclaims, while his opponents, have come to automatically, mistrust, his proclamations. With that in mind, this article will attempt to, briefly, consider, examine, review, and discuss, the 5 phases/ stages, and pattern, generally followed, specifically, regarding this Ukraine scandal.

1. Nothing happened: Who doesn’t remember, President Donald Trump, referring to his phone call, with the Ukrainian President, as, a perfect call? After releasing, what he referred to, as a transcript of the call (although, the document, clearly states, it was not), he attempted to transform it, to his alternate reality, using the slogan, and campaign merchandize, stating, Read the Transcript. However, just as, after the Mueller Report, and the declaration, of, no collusion, no obstruction (although, a thorough reading of the redacted report, stated somewhat, differently), the present occupant of the White House, and his apparent enablers, originally, presented their version, of reality, instead!

2. No quid pro quo: Quid pro quo, is generally, defined, as a favor, or advantage, granted, or expected, in return for something. Despite the President’s constant denial of anything occurring, which indicated that, there couldn’t have been that, because nothing was asked, or delivered, most people, reading the transcript, felt/ believed, believe it, showed, otherwise! However, when we withheld funds, and Trump, asked, a favor, it certainly, seems, otherwise!

3. Even if there was, and there wasn’t, it would have been OK: Proclaiming, because the President, is entitled to taking actions, others could not, it would have been, acceptable, even if, he did. Of course, although, the transcript appears to prove, otherwise, this appears to be, the usual, third – step, in his standard – operating – procedure, when it comes to addressing criticisms, etc!

4. Nothing resulted – They got their money, so how could there have been a crime: The argument, since Ukraine received their money, without doing anything, in return, is, at best, a distortion! This mindset, is similar, to saying, because the shot missed, there was no crime!

5. Blame/ complain, about the Democrats, whistle – blower, and calling the process, a hoax, scam, and fake – news: The final step, appears to be, resorting to calling himself, a victim, and blaming, and complaining, about others, rather than taking any degree of personal responsibility! Some of his major focus, seems to be, blaming the Democrats, demanding to face the whistle – blower, and calling, the whole thing, a hoax, scam, and fake – news.

I believe, if you accept, the President’s version, despite the testimony of so many individuals, I may have a bridge, to sell, to you! Different people, are entitled to their own opinions, but not, their own version of the facts!

When I heard the news yesterday, I nearly fell off my chair, not because it’s a bad idea, but the timing in my humble opinion could not be worse. The Treasury Secretary is studying the ramifications of reducing capital gains taxes on investments like stocks, bonds and real estate, by taking into account inflation before levying taxes on investors selling those assets. Capital gains currently are figured by subtracting original asset purchase prices from current sale prices without adjusting for inflation. Obviously, such a move would be seen as favoring the rich who have more assets to sell and would thereby benefit most from such a proposal. In addition, at least in the short run, naysayers contend that the move would further increase our already obscene and growing Government debt, which nobody thinks is a good idea. However, proponents of the proposal would argue that reducing capital gains would in the medium to longer term increase economic activity and ultimately lead to an increase in tax collections by the Government.

Notwithstanding the economic merits of such a proposal, the politics of doing this and doing it now seem to be ill-advised. The Democrats already depict this administration as favoring the rich, there’s all the noise about Russia, world trade and tariffs, immigration, not to mention there’s a midterm election coming in a few months. Why would the GOP propose something like this, that is likely to inflame the media and has NO chance of happening any time soon? It would seem like a bone-headed move, right?

Or perhaps it’s a stroke of pure genius. Stock market followers sensing pending doom in the markets for months may now believe that the recent tanking of market stalwarts like Netflix and Facebook is signaling the imminence of a market correction. If history is any guide, August is a good time for a stock market sell-off. The GOP knows that the only hope of sustaining the heady economic growth recently reported (and give them a fighting chance in the midterm elections) is to delay a stock market sell-off until at least next year. What better way to keep folks from selling their stocks now, but by holding out even the possibility that if they wait until next year, their tax bills will be lower? The genius part of the move is that such a “bluff,” if you will, won’t cost taxpayers a dime and isn’t that a better idea than spending trillions propping up the market by getting the Fed to lower interest rates, print money or restarting quantitative easing again?

Team Supervision – Here is an area that needs addressed in the worst way. One of the fastest routes to pure practice misery of which I am aware is to try to rule your practice by yourself. Usually, one of two extreme government types is employed by the owner dentist. Either the dentist will take the stance of the iron-fisted dictator or the loveable, liberal, wishy-washy, democrat. Note that when I say democrat, I say it with no positive or negative connotation toward the Democratic National Party in these here United States. Think more like the forums in ancient Greece. I’m talking about a doctor who thinks he or she should take a vote of the entire staff before making any real decision in the office.

This form of decision making can range from just the major decisions all the way down to what kind of drinks to stock in the staff room. I was once a victim of the democratic dental office system myself. I would put everything to a vote. One day, I realized it had gotten out of hand when the staff almost came to blows over a decision about what kind of food to bring in for one of our staff meetings. I knew after that day that I had taken a wrong turn. The tricky part is taking back control and authority from your employees once they have gotten a little taste of that power.

You’ll sure wish you had been more of a dictator before that process is over, trust me. Of course, as far as owner/employee arrangements are concerned, the dictator model isn’t all that bad for the owner. If the right guy or gal is the dictator, it’s a pretty good gig for anyone, actually. Just think, one person with total authority who is just, true, wise, and can leap tall buildings in a single bound. If a pure hearted person could take over that job and run it correctly, the Napoleon method might work.

Two problems with that theory. First off, that person is very hard to find, even if looking in the mirror. Secondly, you really don’t want that system in place to begin with. Sure, it’s great to feel like the man and make all those big time decisions, but you are killing your productivity to play the big doctor. When it all boils down, we in the United States don’t have far to look for a great model. The Representative Democracy with ultimate veto power by the Executive Branch is the way to go for the dentist office. Let me explain that one and please forgive the comparison if you are a civics major. You know how, in the U.S., we have senators and congressmen representing different states that have the authority and responsibility of making decisions for their people and also governing them? Well, in our practice, we set up Team Leaders to supervise their respective departments. This could be set up as the old school single office manager, a new style team leader, or with multiple team leaders depending on the size and scope of your office. I’ll give you an example of how it works in my office.

It has been well documented by me that I was once the victim of Overmeeting Syndrome. Once upon a time I had meetings in my office that added up to 356 hours a year. YIKES! That’s nearly 10 weeks of missed production time a year. Is it any wonder that my overhead percentages were out of whack and I couldn’t produce the big numbers I wanted? Now, I meet 1 hour each quarter with my 2 team leaders, Lupita and Connie. One represents the back office and one represents the front office. I call them my Clinical and Clerical Team Leaders. If there is any question, gripe, concern, suggestion, or problem of any kind, I do NOT allow the individual team member to come directly to me.

Maybe I could solve the problem in a superior fashion like the wannabe dictator that I am. But, that’s not the point. The point is that I want the practice to run smoothly with a chain of command without me doing all the deciding. The team member with a question/concern goes to one of the team leaders to pose that. I not only give the team leaders the authority to solve the problem on the spot, I implore them to do that without even mentioning it to me. I don’t want to know. Of course, each team leader has the right to consult with me and sometimes it is necessary, but 99.9% of the time I expect them to handle it themselves.

This has been a wonderful thing for me and my family and has freed up countless hours of my time for other, more enjoyable things. The whole 3 Day concept wouldn’t have been possible without a move in this direction.

In this the 21st century we still have to remember lessons learned from history are valuable tools to secure the future. Too often though mankind hasn’t learned many of the lessons that history is supposed to teach us. Many empires that have risen fall by it’s failure to negate the inner divides of it’s people. Questions now arise about the future of the United States considering the enormity of division in the US today. Is the United States going to be the next nation to join histories long list of nations that fail to heed Lincoln’s immortal words ” A nation divided against itself cannot stand”?

Today, the United States is indeed in a quagmire of division. The deep divides that exist have crippled America’s ability to stop this nations decline into history. This past mid-term election cycle is a prime example of how deeply divided the United States really is. The prominent two party system have pitted Republicans against Democrats to the extent that compromise on any one issue is impossible. Just maybe we are seeing the last days of America as we know it. Then again by 2020 could there be that ray of hope that a unity of purpose so great people will come together? Something this nation hasn’t had since 1941 when we entered World War II and in President Kennedy’s time. That unity of purpose this time is a definitive plan of direction that closes the deep divides which is ripping this nation apart.

All across the nation there are multitudes living in acute poverty where homelessness and hunger abound. A nation where the cries of the impoverished millions continue to fall on deaf ears of government. A government that is incapable of not just understanding but unwilling to do anything to ease their plight. It has become necessary now in order to save this nation and preserve it’s heritage we have to realize that only a concise unilateral and united plan of direction will succeed. A plan of direction that bridges the gaps that have only accelerated America’s decline.

Now, is the time for using the political process of our democracy to come together and look back in our history where President Kennedy laid down the gauntlet in outlying a definitive plan of direction for this nation. What he started made us reach for the stars and put a man on the moon. Sure we had divisions then but we came together as a nation. We need that type of unity of purpose now. The wheels of government since have turned away from the American public as was the case in our involvement in Vietnam. The divisions of this nation have only gotten wider. We have never been able to close those gaps since.

A definitive plan of direction is outlined in National Economic Reform’s Ten Articles of Confederation. Understanding how these ten articles work is essential in closing the gaping divides that exist in our society today. That unity of purpose, that plan of direction and that ray of hope exists now. All that is needed is for the political process to use National Economic Reform’s Ten Articles of Confederation as the rallying cry of a nation that continues to flounder in troubled waters. Like President Kennedy before the gauntlet is now thrown for a national movement in 2020 to pick up the gauntlet and implement National Economic Reform’s Ten Articles of Confederation to save us all. If we don’t the United States will sooner than later join histories long list of nations that have failed.