So it begins. Preparation for a recession that was generally considered highly unlikely last summer is now considered by most economists to be more than likely. Of course, a recession was always likely, because recession and growth are two fundamental components of the economic cycle. The word recession carries a huge emotional burden, much like the words cancer and bankruptcy. What we don’t understand we fear. But the word recession can be used in the same paragraph as the words optimism and health. Let’s explore what this could mean to us as individuals and business owners, because our personal responsibilities and our economic responsibilities are potentially in conflict during this time.

Our young country and economy have done a generally admirable job of understanding and ultimately managing the economic cycle, particularly when one considers how much the world has changed in 250 years. Yes, we failed to mitigate the economic meltdown that led to the Great Depression in the early 20th century. Until then, corrections had been allowed to go deep enough to rid the system of all excesses of the prior growth period, and that had been a successful formula. The increasingly global nature of economics by the 1920s introduced new risk, and global poverty was the result. Our country’s economic and financial management skills improved dramatically as a result of those lessons, and we can be reasonably sure that history will not repeat itself.

Since the end of World War II we have been in an era of economic management that allows the economy to experience the necessary booms and busts (i.e., growth and correction), but with controls. Each upswing of the economic cycle is associated with some form of speculation that eventually builds to excess. In the 1980s it was junk bonds, in the 1990s it was tech stocks, and in the 2000s it has been real estate. What will it be next? Watch emerging market equities and resources like alternative energy — good candidates for our next phase of excessive growth. Though the roots of the next phase of excess are being planted now, first we must deal with the necessary correction phase, which given the recent rounds of government intervention, will likely be preceded by one more uptick in growth.

The tax rebate and spending program just announced is generally responsible. Theoretical debates aside (Democrats want more unemployment and safety net benefits, Republicans want to lock in Bush’s tax cuts beyond 2010), getting consumers to spend more freely will have a positive impact on the contracting economy, which will delay and soften the oncoming recession. But from another perspective, the individual responsibility to save and prepare for the future, this approach smacks of immoderation. Which one is correct? Both perspectives are correct.

In an ideal world, consumers would all have paid off credit card debt, increased home equity, and put money into retirement savings and short-term liquidity accounts during the past six years of economic growth. That type of fiscal prudence at the individual level would have reduced the economic growth we experienced and it would have reduced some excess in the system.

The US government will provide incentives for consumers to spend more money, starting in May when US citizens below certain income levels receive their rebates. The mere anticipation of the rebates will motivate many people to spend now, so the benefits of economic stimulation will begin almost immediately.

How do individuals reconcile the need to demonstrate fiscal responsibility with the overall economy’s need for spending? Depending on your perspective, this may seem a moot point. Those who have been mindful of future recessions are savings minded. Those who have not started taking savings seriously are not likely to begin now. But this is a serious personal philosophical question with which serious people should grapple.

Start by understanding that all debt is not bad. The savings-minded have a tendency to be debt averse. Extreme debt aversion is what prolonged the Great Depression long past the point when the economy should have recovered. As long as the debt incurred provides greater return than savings alone would yield, debt is an intelligent choice. Debt is bad when it fuels consumption that has no long-term benefit. Even with the housing market continuing its correction, housing remains an intelligent debt. This correction will end, the next growth cycle will begin, and smart investments in real estate will continue to pay off.

Recent economic anxiety and fear of changing government administration in 2009 has caused businesses to batten the hatches, slightly increasing unemployment for the first time in a few years. But an interesting trifecta — the government’s new financial incentives for business to invest in infrastructure, the weak dollar creating export growth, and the emerging baby-boomer retirement wave — should contribute to earnings growth for American workers.

This adds up to one more opportunity to improve individual financial positions without the cumulative effect of short-term contraction of the economy. If individuals were not spending so much money servicing credit card debt, those dollars would be available for consumption that has no long-term economic benefit, giving individuals rewards such as vacations while providing the economy with cash flow. Now is a very good time to invest in homes, commercial real estate, and reasonable-return infrastructure for businesses. It is time to pay down short-term debt in order to be financially healthy when the correction occurs. If increased wages pan out, consumers will have money to both spend and save. The discipline is to ensure that saving is a well-considered part of that equation.

(c) 2008. Andrea M. HIll.

In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, his entire political philosophy hinges upon the fact that humans are moral equals and thus unable to legitimately govern or impose rules upon another without that other person’s consent. For Locke, the perfect answer to this is entitled express consent. According to Locke, “[n]o body doubts but an express consent, of any man entering into any society, makes him a perfect member of that society, a subject of that government” (Locke 64). Express consent is the perfect way to bind the original members together. This however, raises many difficulties for Locke once critics begin to question how someone can consent to a system of government for which they never expressly consented or gave their agreement; simply stated, they were not the founding members, and thus how can it be argued that they are legitimately ruled by the government? Locke’s rebuttal is tacit consent, a method by which any man “that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent” to be ruled by that government (64). Though this seems to be a sound remedy, further holes can be exposed using a hypothetical, but very plausible, situation to demonstrate. The situation is as outlined below:

An adult citizen who was born in this country (and thus never had to take an oath of citizenship) was disgruntled about the lack of funding for education and began protesting on the steps of a government building. Shortly thereafter, a police officer confronts her and informs her that she has broken the law by protesting within 100 feet of the public building without a permit. He attempts to arrest her but she explains that, as a moral equal, she never consented to join the body politic and thus these laws do not apply to her.

Using the above situation, it becomes simple to apply Locke’s response, tacit consent. However, to fully understand this issue, a counter argument by the protestor must be offered and tacit consent must be adjusted to include her arguments such that she is still bound by the national law.

Assuming that the police officer is an educated man and familiar with his political philosophy, specializing in Lockean philosophy, his response would be a classic example of tacit consent applied to life. He would start with the beginning – at one point in time, a group of citizens joined together to form a body politic and institute a government on the land now called the United States of America. For the sake of simplifying the situation, one of her direct relatives was amongst these first founders.

The police officer, his name badge proudly displaying his name, Darryl Worley, looked the protestor in the eye. “Look here,” he said, taking out his copy of Second Treatise he kept in his pocket, “this relative took an oath to bind his land to the authority of this government; ergo, he showed his express consent, for he both knew to what he was consenting and was voluntarily agreeing.” He assumed that the woman knew her philosophy as well, but might not be as versed as he in Locke.

Because this protestor owned land in the state which was handed down from her ancestor, one of the country’s founders, she was, according to Locke, a subject of the government as a result. As Locke states, a person who “enjoys any part of the land […] under the government of that common-wealth, must take it with the condition it is under; that is, of submitting to the government of the common-wealth” (64). Furthermore, because this woman is partaking in the services offered by the government, she is giving her tacit consent to be ruled by that government. For Locke, even “lodging only for a week” in a country is a satisfactory condition under which tacit consent may be derived (64). Because she is an adult and a citizen, it is safe to assume that she has used the public roads, post office, or other public services before and at the time of her first use, she gave her tacit consent.

Darryl looked up at the woman. He continued to explain to her why she was violating the law. “Is that your car over there?” he asked. She nodded. “Well, I know you used the public road system to get here and you even deposited money into the meter. Because these are provided by the government, you used the government’s services and gave your tacit consent. Locke says it right here,” he stated, pointing halfway down page 64 in his book. “No one forced you to use the road system to get here, nor did they force you to pay for the meter. You did that voluntarily. You knew to what you were consenting when you used these goods. I am sorry, but you are in violation of a law that very much applies to you.”

Despite these solid conditions upon which Locke builds his concept of tacit consent, there are flaws that can be exploited in some situations. In addition, Locke does not give clear provisions for revoking one’s consent, only conditions in which one’s consent contract is nullified. One of the many possible flaws of tacit consent would be if she did not know the full extent to what she was consenting. Another flaw along this line would be if she did not know she was consenting; both are sufficient, once proved to be true, to show that she did not and would not have consented to the government if given a chance. If she wanted to leave the country but did not have the funds available to do so, she would be in effect withdrawing her express consent and therefore one cannot assume that she had indeed consented if she expressly did not.

Jill, the woman, looked at Darryl and sighed. “Like everyone else, aren’t you? Too caught up in what Locke says to understand that there are critical flaws. I have no money right now but I want to leave this country as soon as I am able to. I furthermore, here and now, renounce my consent to be ruled by this government. I am out of here as soon as possible,” Jill stated, stomping her foot for emphasis. She turned to leave, but Darryl stopped her. “Let me go!” she exclaimed. “As a moral equal to you, you have no right to impose your laws on me. I do not consent to be governed by your state or you. As a moral equal, I demand that you let me go,” Jill said, twisting her arm free of Darryl’s grasp.

Because Locke does not seem to give much thought to citizens renouncing their consent, there is not much textual evidence for the process through which this is done. However, it is possible to surmise, by reversing the express consent process that one can knowingly and voluntarily remove their consent to be governed by the body politic. However, the protestor could bring up a critical point to which Locke does not seem to have ever imagined would happen. If a citizen wishes to leave the state, but does not have the money to do so, what would happen if the citizen renounced their consent? Locke lauds his monetary system as allowing for people to take what is needed and to diffuse the moderate scarcity in the world. However, it appears that Locke did not consider what would happen in a fully monetized economy – it would be impossible to take anything because everything would already be claimed by some other citizen mixing their labor with it. If, like in this case, the citizen had no money at all, they would be unable to partake of this rationing system devised and would be essentially forced to stay where they were. Thus, a catch-22 arises – the citizen does not want to stay and cannot use the system in place because they do not consent, but they cannot leave because the only mode to leave requires using the system by paying money. Indeed, it gives the impression that Locke’s consent system has an insurmountable flaw in it, an inherent catch-22 to keep people locked in the system even though it deprives them of their right as moral equals to not be governed by a law to which they did not voluntarily submit.

Darryl grabbed the woman again and told her that she would be resisting arrest if she attempted to leave a second time. “You obviously didn’t read the latest edition of Philosophy Illustrated, did you?” he questioned. “If you had, you would know about hypothetical consent. If you leave now, turn the corner, and get robbed, would you prefer me to chase down the robber and protect you or would you prefer that I stand by and chuckle at your misfortune? Of course you would prefer me to protect you! It makes sense; it is reasonable under those circumstances to assume that you would want protection,” Darryl said, gasping for a breath after his monologue. “And that, right there, is hypothetical consent.”

Though hypothetical consent is never directly mentioned in Locke’s work, it is easy to derive from his argument of tacit consent, specifically from the notion that the state of nature, though humane, is not as good as a body politic; because it is better to be part of a body politic than not, it is plausible to assume that a person would consent to be ruled by a body politic and gain the benefits thereof rather than not. Hypothetical consent is the notion that it is reasonable to treat a person as if they had given their consent because it is the most reasonable course of action that all people would do if they knew they could, were able to consent, and were reasonable. It is important to note that this hinges on an assumption and it is not a form of actual consent. In the case of the protestor, it makes sense that she would submit herself to the laws of the government and, in return, reap the reward of protected rights to life and property, ensured liberty, and access to better healthcare, thus improving her right to health. Because of the obvious benefits that outweigh any small negative side effects, it is not possible, for Locke, to understand why she would not consent to this government. Furthermore, one cannot argue that she does not possess a right state of mind to consent. As an adult In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, his entire political philosophy hinges upon the fact that humans are moral equals and thus unable to legitimately govern or impose rules upon another without that other person’s consent. For Locke, the perfect answer to this is entitled express consent. According to Locke, “[n]o body doubts but an express consent, of any man entering into any society, makes him a perfect member of that society, a subject of that government” (Locke 64). Express consent is the perfect way to bind the original members together. This however, raises many difficulties for Locke once critics begin to question how someone can consent to a system of government for which they never expressly consented or gave their agreement; simply stated, they were not the founding members, and thus how can it be argued that they are legitimately ruled by the government? Locke’s rebuttal is tacit consent, a method by which any man “that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent” to be ruled by that government (64). Though this seems to be a sound remedy, further holes can be exposed using a hypothetical, but very plausible, situation to demonstrate. The situation is as outlined below:

An adult citizen who was born in this country (and thus never had to take an oath of citizenship) was disgruntled about the lack of funding for education and began protesting on the steps of a government building. Shortly thereafter, a police officer confronts her and informs her that she has broken the law by protesting within 100 feet of the public building without a permit. He attempts to arrest her but she explains that, as a moral equal, she never consented to join the body politic and thus these laws do not apply to her.

Using the above situation, it becomes simple to apply Locke’s response, tacit consent. However, to fully understand this issue, a counter argument by the protestor must be offered and tacit consent must be adjusted to include her arguments such that she is still bound by the national law.

Assuming that the police officer is an educated man and familiar with his political philosophy, specializing in Lockean philosophy, his response would be a classic example of tacit consent applied to life. He would start with the beginning – at one point in time, a group of citizens joined together to form a body politic and institute a government on the land now called the United States of America. For the sake of simplifying the situation, one of her direct relatives was amongst these first founders.

The police officer, his name badge proudly displaying his name, Darryl Worley, looked the protestor in the eye. “Look here,” he said, taking out his copy of Second Treatise he kept in his pocket, “this relative took an oath to bind his land to the authority of this government; ergo, he showed his express consent, for he both knew to what he was consenting and was voluntarily agreeing.” He assumed that the woman knew her philosophy as well, but might not be as versed as he in Locke.

Because this protestor owned land in the state which was handed down from her ancestor, one of the country’s founders, she was, according to Locke, a subject of the government as a result. As Locke states, a person who “enjoys any part of the land […] under the government of that common-wealth, must take it with the condition it is under; that is, of submitting to the government of the common-wealth” (64). Furthermore, because this woman is partaking in the services offered by the government, she is giving her tacit consent to be ruled by that government. For Locke, even “lodging only for a week” in a country is a satisfactory condition under which tacit consent may be derived (64). Because she is an adult and a citizen, it is safe to assume that she has used the public roads, post office, or other public services before and at the time of her first use, she gave her tacit consent.

Darryl looked up at the woman. He continued to explain to her why she was violating the law. “Is that your car over there?” he asked. She nodded. “Well, I know you used the public road system to get here and you even deposited money into the meter. Because these are provided by the government, you used the government’s services and gave your tacit consent. Locke says it right here,” he stated, pointing halfway down page 64 in his book. “No one forced you to use the road system to get here, nor did they force you to pay for the meter. You did that voluntarily. You knew to what you were consenting when you used these goods. I am sorry, but you are in violation of a law that very much applies to you.”

Despite these solid conditions upon which Locke builds his concept of tacit consent, there are flaws that can be exploited in some situations. In addition, Locke does not give clear provisions for revoking one’s consent, only conditions in which one’s consent contract is nullified. One of the many possible flaws of tacit consent would be if she did not know the full extent to what she was consenting. Another flaw along this line would be if she did not know she was consenting; both are sufficient, once proved to be true, to show that she did not and would not have consented to the government if given a chance. If she wanted to leave the country but did not have the funds available to do so, she would be in effect withdrawing her express consent and therefore one cannot assume that she had indeed consented if she expressly did not.

Jill, the woman, looked at Darryl and sighed. “Like everyone else, aren’t you? Too caught up in what Locke says to understand that there are critical flaws. I have no money right now but I want to leave this country as soon as I am able to. I furthermore, here and now, renounce my consent to be ruled by this government. I am out of here as soon as possible,” Jill stated, stomping her foot for emphasis. She turned to leave, but Darryl stopped her. “Let me go!” she exclaimed. “As a moral equal to you, you have no right to impose your laws on me. I do not consent to be governed by your state or you. As a moral equal, I demand that you let me go,” Jill said, twisting her arm free of Darryl’s grasp.

Because Locke does not seem to give much thought to citizens renouncing their consent, there is not much textual evidence for the process through which this is done. However, it is possible to surmise, by reversing the express consent process that one can knowingly and voluntarily remove their consent to be governed by the body politic. However, the protestor could bring up a critical point to which Locke does not seem to have ever imagined would happen. If a citizen wishes to leave the state, but does not have the money to do so, what would happen if the citizen renounced their consent? Locke lauds his monetary system as allowing for people to take what is needed and to diffuse the moderate scarcity in the world. However, it appears that Locke did not consider what would happen in a fully monetized economy – it would be impossible to take anything because everything would already be claimed by some other citizen mixing their labor with it. If, like in this case, the citizen had no money at all, they would be unable to partake of this rationing system devised and would be essentially forced to stay where they were. Thus, a catch-22 arises – the citizen does not want to stay and cannot use the system in place because they do not consent, but they cannot leave because the only mode to leave requires using the system by paying money. Indeed, it gives the impression that Locke’s consent system has an insurmountable flaw in it, an inherent catch-22 to keep people locked in the system even though it deprives them of their right as moral equals to not be governed by a law to which they did not voluntarily submit.

Darryl grabbed the woman again and told her that she would be resisting arrest if she attempted to leave a second time. “You obviously didn’t read the latest edition of Philosophy Illustrated, did you?” he questioned. “If you had, you would know about hypothetical consent. If you leave now, turn the corner, and get robbed, would you prefer me to chase down the robber and protect you or would you prefer that I stand by and chuckle at your misfortune? Of course you would prefer me to protect you! It makes sense; it is reasonable under those circumstances to assume that you would want protection,” Darryl said, gasping for a breath after his monologue. “And that, right there, is hypothetical consent.”

Though hypothetical consent is never directly mentioned in Locke’s work, it is easy to derive from his argument of tacit consent, specifically from the notion that the state of nature, though humane, is not as good as a body politic; because it is better to be part of a body politic than not, it is plausible to assume that a person would consent to be ruled by a body politic and gain the benefits thereof rather than not. Hypothetical consent is the notion that it is reasonable to treat a person as if they had given their consent because it is the most reasonable course of action that all people would do if they knew they could, were able to consent, and were reasonable. It is important to note that this hinges on an assumption and it is not a form of actual consent. In the case of the protestor, it makes sense that she would submit herself to the laws of the government and, in return, reap the reward of protected rights to life and property, ensured liberty, and access to better healthcare, thus improving her right to health. Because of the obvious benefits that outweigh any small negative side effects, it is not possible, for Locke, to understand why she would not consent to this government. Furthermore, one cannot argue that she does not possess a right state of mind to consent. As an adult protesting a situation, it is plausible to conclude that she is educated to some degree and would give her consent to better protect her natural rights. Additionally, because she is an adult and not mentally handicapped, an assumption based on the fact that she is taking an active role as an outspoken citizen, she is able to consent. Finally, because she is able to reason with the police officer, she must be a reasonable person and therefore fulfills the final stipulation for hypothetical consent.

Locke fashions a strong system for consent and with the addition of hypothetical consent, it becomes nearly impossible for a sane person to argue that they are not bound to obey the laws of a state in which they are living. Though some would argue that this presents problems with withdrawing consent, Locke makes it clear that dissenting opinions should be expressed through the legal channels made available with the creation of the government. Whether express, tacit, or hypothetical, it is clear that Locke leaves no excuse for not consenting available to citizens. The body politic is better than a state of nature; all must realize this and agree.

Darryl took Jill by the arm and escorted her into the back of his squad car. “I’m sorry for this, but you are bound by our laws. You seem like a smart person, hopefully you will find a way to communicate your problems legally once you pay the penalty for breaking the law,” Darryl said, closing the back door of his squad car. He drove the two of them towards the police station, smiling that he was actually able to apply his recent philosophy course to his job.protesting a situation, it is plausible to conclude that she is educated to some degree and would give her consent to better protect her natural rights. Additionally, because she is an adult and not mentally handicapped, an assumption based on the fact that she is taking an active role as an outspoken citizen, she is able to consent. Finally, because she is able to reason with the police officer, she must be a reasonable person and therefore fulfills the final stipulation for hypothetical consent.

Locke fashions a strong system for consent and with the addition of hypothetical consent, it becomes nearly impossible for a sane person to argue that they are not bound to obey the laws of a state in which they are living. Though some would argue that this presents problems with withdrawing consent, Locke makes it clear that dissenting opinions should be expressed through the legal channels made available with the creation of the government. Whether express, tacit, or hypothetical, it is clear that Locke leaves no excuse for not consenting available to citizens. The body politic is better than a state of nature; all must realize this and agree.

Darryl took Jill by the arm and escorted her into the back of his squad car. “I’m sorry for this, but you are bound by our laws. You seem like a smart person, hopefully you will find a way to communicate your problems legally once you pay the penalty for breaking the law,” Darryl said, closing the back door of his squad car. He drove the two of them towards the police station, smiling that he was actually able to apply his recent philosophy course to his job.

Have you ever found yourself searching for someone? Have you tried to find someone that hasn't been a part of your life for a very long time, perhaps a lost relative, college friend, or trying to trace back your family tree? Unfortunately, if you're trying to find someone who you haven't seen for awhile, you should prepare yourself for the possibility that they are no longer alive. What many people find, however, is that they don't know if the person is alive or not. While entire databases exist to be able to search public death records, not many people know exactly where these are and how they can access them …

There are basically two ways you can search for deceased people. The first one is by using death records. These records are an official recording of a person's death and can contain some very important information, especially if you are performing some research and trying to find out who a person is. This includes the names of the surviving kin, the name of their spouse, date and time of birth, and the official cause of death. It will also contain their last official address, something that can help you find the next most important record of the person's death.

An obituary is something that is completely unofficial. It is typically a recount of the person's life and is written by someone who is very close to the person who passed away, typically a close friend or family member. In some circumstances, especially with people who have been sick for a very long time, the deceased person will actually write their own obituary. It can be an incredible resource if you want to take a look into the person's personal life. You'll learn who they are and what they've accomplished throughout their life. They'll also provide a list of surviving relatives, some of whom may be left off of the official death record due to divorce or other legal circumstances.

As you may imagine, there is no specific place that is designated for obituaries. They are typically published in the local newspaper, but which one is variable. Sometimes they are published in the paper where the person was born and in others they publish it in the paper that is local to where the person lived last. Either way, it is near impossible to say for sure where it will be published.

Luckily, there are sites that keep a record of both of these types of records and you can search them for free.

We are on the cusp of a movement. We are aggressively steering away from what traditional government has been, revamping our customer service strategy, and leading the nation with an innovative approach. By incorporating private sector methods, and platforms, to better the customer experience, we have been working to revolutionize the way government operates.

Here are a few things that are changing city government, and in a very big way.

1. The Customer. Understanding that the citizen is the customer, and using those terms as synonyms, has reoriented our general framework. The customers are unique because they are citizens! The citizens’ customer experience expands beyond providing city services. Every improvement we make for the customer affects their quality of life.

2. Executive sponsorship from the City’s Mayor and Administration. Having people who share your desire to create a city environment of customer excellence, has been imperative to the process.

3. Citywide Senior Leadership follows suit in understanding and supporting the movement towards a progressive and transparent city government. Support from senior leadership influences and facilitates change in every step of the journey. These folks are more than okaying improvements, they are standing by them, and pushing them to the next level.

4. The City’s Customer Experience strategic goal: “Government Efficiency and Effectiveness.” A focus on efficiency and effectiveness is imperative for city government, and the Mayor’s goal is a constant reminder of what type of experience we should be crafting for our customers. Keeping this in mind, sets a mindset of progress.

5. The Innovation Lab meeting space. The Innovation Lab encourages creativity and provides a designated space for employees and citizens to generate new ideas. The Lab is another extension of how the city is bringing the customer further into the conversation, and also helping them lead the conversation.

6. The Neighborhood Liaison Community Engagement Program. A community engagement program is just one example of programming a City implemented to give their customers self sustainable tools. In the last year the program has doubled in size from 600 to 1,200 contributors. This increase demonstrates an increase in trust towards city government. Citizens are seeing results and relying on cities more and more.

7. Having A Staff That Cares. Public servants should always there for the citizens, and realize that they are a direct reflection of the city they work for and love. Understanding our common objective, fosters a motivated and caring internal environment.

8. Customer Service Officers. Customer service is no longer limited to City Hall. With people like Customer Service Officers, they are out in the internal city agencies and departments and impacting people where it counts.

9. Partnering In And Outside Of The City. Especially with the implementation of the new customer relationship management system (CRM), private partners have played a significant role in helping government move towards their goals this year.

10. Taking Notes from business and tech communities. Paying attention to what private sector companies are doing, and translating them into our own practices, sets cities a head of the curve.

The list could easily go on, and will as 2015 unfolds. I am excited about the future and so are the citizens in cities across America.

Regardless of one’s personal/ political preferences, self – interest, focus, beliefs, priorities, etc, we all must agree, what we’ve witnessed, in these last 30 months, isn’t normal, or like, anything, we’ve observed, in recent memory! Many, including me, believe, we have come to a point, in time, when the essence and future of our nation, is at a juncture, when we will either, reject the politics of hate, and division, or, accept, a different type of nation, and a rejection (abandonment) of prioritizing all the freedoms, justice, and liberty, for all, many believe our Constitution demands! The current occupant of the White House, was elected, by expertly dissecting the electorate, and winning the Electoral College, although, losing the popular vote! He ran a campaign, based on a considerable amount of empty rhetoric/ vitriol, promises, a focus on the perception of the good – old – days, and, at least in the perceptions of his most loyal supporters, a nationalistic agenda. Many have complained, about, his focus, agenda, rhetoric, and actions/ priorities, since he was elected, but President Trump, has plodded along, on his personal/ political path! Complaining, and blaming, does not make changes in direction, and, if the Democratic Party, does not clearly articulate a policy, and process, which inspires and motivates others, to support them, we will have four more years, of what we have witnessed! With that in mind, this article will attempt to, briefly, consider, examine, review, and discuss, 7 issues, which Democrats must emphasize, if they hope to gain control.

1. Emphasize bread – basket issues: They must emphasize bread – basket issues, specifically, jobs/ employments, infrastructure, health costs, and overall security. They must contrast viable solutions, and priorities, versus what has been happening! Beware, because, if the Democrats, remain over – confident, because polls show, President Trump, lacks popularity, we will witness, a further diminishing, of the rights, we have taken for granted, for generations!

2. Sane immigration policy: Our President has expertly motivated his supporters, by appealing to their fears, and emphasized, a Southern Wall, even though, most experts, proclaim, it is an ineffective, expensive approach! He has attempted to pinhole his political opponents, as weak on border security, in order to motivate his base! Democrats must clearly articulate their alternative, viable approach, and solution, or lose this battle!

3. Avoid scaring potential voters: They must be careful, to avoid, being perceived, by the needed, necessary, independent and moderate voters, as safe, and reliable! This requires pursuing a pragmatic, idealist, approach, which proceeds forward, in a step – by – step, manner, or will be accused, by Trump, of being un – American, socialists (whatever that means)!

4. Avoid being trapped/ pigeon – holed, into political positions: In their quest to become the nominee, many candidates have articulated, a program, which, this President, will easily oppose, simply by creating the perception, it is dangerous, and will cost taxpayers! Regardless of one’s personal preferences, if the goal, is to make a difference, while stopping the insanity, they must realize, issues like Medicare – For – All, will scare – off, many potential voters, because they don’t trust government, or perceive, the approach, will significantly, raise their taxes.

5. Middle Class Needs: Emphasize the needs, priorities, and perceptions of the middle class, by contrasting, Trump’s tax reform legislation, with one, focused on helping, and serving most Americans. Since the law, benefited the wealthiest, and the larger corporations, although, Donald Trump, stated it would focus on the middle class, shouldn’t this be a focus of the campaign?

6. Education costs: Most Americans realize, educational costs, have over – burdened many! A viable solution, and making this an emphasis, would attract support!

7. Remember – it’s an Electoral College: It’s not enough, to simply, win the popular votes, because, Republican candidates, were elected, in 2000, and 2016, although they lost the popular vote! Democrats must avoid being smug, and over – confident, and must, put, a concerted effort, into winning, certain states, they need to win, if they hope to be elected, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, etc, while maintaining their margins, in states, they have, historically, dominated!

No change of direction, will occur, unless/ until, Democrats regain control of the White House, and the Senate. If you don’t like, what you’ve witnessed, get involved, vote, and avoid apathy. It does make a difference!

I recently took a trip out to California to visit with my family. It just so worked out that the best / cheapest flights were early in the morning. Problem is, I am not a morning person.

On my return flight, I had to get up around 5:30 and was just exhausted by the time I boarded. I hadn't had any coffee yet because my plan was to sleep on the plane. But my plans changed when I ended up sitting next to a very interesting character. Probably the most interesting person I have met so far on my wild adventures via public transportation. She began with, "I brought my service dog on the plane. I hope you don't mind."

"No, not at all." I said trying to be polite. She piped up again, "She's a chihuahua."

"Ah, good deal. What's her name?" My eyelids started to droop, and I felt terrible that I must have look disengaged, I just wanted to sleep! Problem is, I am too polite. I didn't want to be abrupt or rude. She continued talking and mentioned Swami's and Cardiff so I continued the conversation. "I was up there yesterday for a walk. The waves were huge!"

But … how do you respond to the following statement:

"You know the government controls the weather. My dad used to work for NASA and the government hides all sorts of secrets from the public."

That was only the beginning … Somehow by the end of the flight I learned all about the Annunaki and the 12th planet. From what I understood, the Annunaki are alien deities from Mesopotamia that are somehow connected with chapters in the bible. Specifically she kept mentioning Noah's arc. I guess humans were brought to Earth by the Annunaki to mine gold (or something like that).

"Here, let me give you some websites to check out." I gave her a piece of paper and pen and she described each site as she wrote them down. She kept repeating over and over, "I can't believe I'm telling you all of this, but there must be some reason I sat next to someone so nice."

In a previous article I posted, I mentioned that I am a shy person and I typically rely on a couple conversation starters when using the bus. To add on to that piece here are a couple of tips when engaging in a conversation about aliens.

Even though I had no idea what the woman beside me was talking about I made a point of asking lots of conversations. It kept the conversation going and made it less awkward. She seemed very passionate about the subject and who am I to judge.

It is so important to smile when making conversation with a stranger. Most of the trip home I spent smiling and nodding. If you ever find yourself talking about an alien race, a smile goes a long way.

Be sure to introduce yourself and be kind with who you are speaking with. Before I got off the plane I shook her hand and introduced myself. "It was a pleasure talking to you," I said.

When I did know what she was talking about, like the beach or her dog, I brought up anything and everything I could say. It helped to steer the conversation away from aliens for a bit.

One thing that really did seem like "fate" was that one of the things she mentioned in her 2 hour and 21 minute conversation was that her daughter trained service dogs for people who needed them, "like someone with epilepsy," she said. I kid you not, that was the first condition she brought up! "The dogs help someone who is having a seizure by pulling them up and alerting someone close by." She also gave me the name of her daughter's business, Karma Dog Training.

What are the odds I sit next to someone where one of the first thing she mentions is epilepsy?

The truth is out there …

I am going to briefly recap on the past concepts that I have covered in my Psychoterrestrial Hypothesis in which the Human Collective Subconscious Mind rubs or touches or has forgotten its connection to Gaia or Universal Consciousness and thus at those places of rubbing or connection or Touchpoints, phenomena manifest in the form of the various and sundry fear-based archetypes lying dormant in our collective subconscious until enacted upon by Consciousness itself. In other words, we, in a collective subconscious state, may be co-manifesting the various anomalous activities we are witnessing and as such become frustrated when we seek out these phantoms and find precious scant evidence as the Observer has not yet realized Itself as the Source.

In order for my theory to work, we must look at the egoic aspects of belief, fear and expectation as the source of the anomalous manifestations. First, we as a society have certain, generally accepted archetypes deeply ingrained in our subconscious mind. I will use Western society as an example. When we think of aliens, we have a tendency to quietly agree upon the stereotypical Gray being with its disproportionately large head and equally large and vacuous, black eyes mounted precariously on top of a stunted and emaciatedly spindled body that is usually genderless, pale and cold in appearance. Too, is the notion of a ghost or spirit that is of a transparent nature with the familiar human attributes of clothing and anatomical design that can be allegedly and stereotypically found in older architecture, burial grounds or places of historically violent unrest such as the battlefields of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

So, these examples can be seen as a fear element and the fear element is the kissing cousin of belief. It seems when a human being fears a thing, it is often highly detailed and exaggerated in nature. It becomes phantom-like in our subconscious where it is ingrained or imprinted upon and then and when in times of fear, in the throes of an adrenaline rush, the images seem to often fill in the blanks of the questionable occurrences in our observation that may be otherwise innocuous and nonthreatening in reality. This leads to expectation. This can be triggered perhaps, by a mish-mash of stereotypes and embedded culturally-based archetypal imagery.

Let us say that you are going to a place of purported disturbances such as a cemetery or an old mansion and lucky for you, for some reason you are going to be spending the night .., alone. It doesn't take the mind very long to start translating the settling ticks and odd bumps in the house as phantoms, ghouls and ghosts. Now there is fear. But what if the fear is like a beacon to the rest of Awakened Consciousness not acting or reacting as it were, from a subconscious state? Consciousness perhaps, senses this fearful projecting and interprets it as a reaching out or a calling of sorts. It answers by accessing those otherwise latent and dormant archetypal images in your sleeping subconscious and shows them to you in all of their exaggerated and horrific glory. And why did you see that phantom or ghoul or ET by the strange lights? Because that is what you subconsciously expected to see in this type of environment that you have been raised to believe that this kind of thing can occur while in it. Voila! Fear mixed with subconscious belief, goaded by expectation, equals manifested terror.

Now, on a lesser scale of terror, but more dramatic in impact at a societal level, is perhaps a variation of this same sort of process when it comes to society's interpretation of its elected governing bodies. Could our collective subconscious possibly be affecting what we see and hear and get from our Governments? How many common citizens are actually privy to what is going on behind closed doors in those big government buildings? How many average folk can tell you what the processes are that occur day in and day out in say, The Pentagon? I would say close to none. It is all guesswork unless they actively do a bit of research which would then place them squarely out of the average category, but all in all it is mostly supposition. But rumors run rampant in this environment. It is hard to know what is truth or what is a lie and the human doesn't seem to like blank spaces. Fear rears its ugly head in the form of paranoia and once again fills in the empty blanks with exaggerated imagery and then fulfills them almost without fail through expectation and co-created manifestation.

If only we as a society could have this kind of faith in ourselves at a conscious level instead of constantly engaging in fear-based, knee-jerk and reactionary responses. What would the world look like if we all collectively just "acted" from a conscious place of non-fear? What would the world look like if we were all consciously creating instead of subconsciously destroying in a seemingly non-stop reaction of self preservation. The domain of the ego. The domain of the Trickster.

I think we as a society are some if not all of the very monsters we fear because we haven't learned to trust the process of non-process. We haven't learned to just be collectively present in the safety of the moment and so as a result, we fear our governments perhaps because we have projected our own collective fear-based expectations upon them. How could these governing bodies possibly be expected to operate any other way what with all of the negative thoughts, archetypes and fearful beliefs constantly projected on them?

This is only my theory and as it is set up, it is also a two-way street. I imagine our governing officials, human as they are, have their own projected fears and expectations surrounding us, their expectant citizenry, with their own inaccuracies and exaggerations. The implications of this convoluted crossfire of negative thoughts of society fear its government and government fear its society are mind boggling. Unless we collectively decide to wake up as a whole, one can only further speculate how it will all come to a head and come to a head it will.

The Trickster of our collective subconscious seems to be currently experiencing a field day of running unabated and unchecked all the while dancing around gleefully in our periphery while wreaking havoc on ourselves through ourselves in ourselves in our communities, in our societies and in our global associations simply because we don't pay attention to its source. Us.

When are we going to start pointing the finger of blame at the guy in the mirror?

Cheers,

Erik

As our country is growing day by day there are many resources people are getting habituated towards for existing their own life and they do not have time to think about the government which is playing a back-end role in their life. Generally, no one has an idea about how it exactly works and when asked what they feel about the Indian government, many have different kind of opinions.

India was formed by central, national and state level government where a lot of things has to be handled and many departments have to work cooperatively to bring out the growth in our country. There are many departments who take the help of technology in one or the other ways like we can see e-government, Online Banking, online bookings and many new features through which people feel flexible. Now it’s time for a new technology that can cut the stress in collaboration among various departments, which is a major part in forming a collaborative government.

As every department will have to discuss and plan the work of solving various issues to form a better government, every department will have to attend meetings and interact with the higher official to discuss and make decisions. But this is a time-consuming process of traveling to different places and gather at one place. And to shorten this stress we have a new technology like Video Conferencing Software which can easily collaborate with many people on one screen without any effort of traveling.

There are many departments starting from agriculture to research & development who have a lot of sub departments and as a whole work under one government to make the better society for people. In this process all these departments have to collaborate at one or other point to take the best decisions in solving the public issues where Video Conferencing plays a very vital role in reducing the stress for many sectors.

Implementation of Video Conferencing For Government can improve situational awareness, productivity and efficiency of work, collaborate among different geographical locations for fast and effective communication at the time of emergencies. Recently as a new step, the Government has allowed video conferencing for Annual General Meetings and board meetings for a flexible communication and to solve effectively the public issues on time without making delays. This must be taken as a good step that helps in developing our country to reach heights and form a better society to live for everyone.

Tax debt is the amount of taxes that you owe to the government in a certain tax period. These taxes must be paid by a certain amount of time, otherwise you may be charged with tax evasion which is punishable by law with a sentence of up to 5 years and/or a pretty hefty fine; sometimes it can get up to $100,000. Filing a false return can get you in hot water as well with a prison sentence of up to 3 years and/or a fine of up to $100,000. Failing to file a tax return can result in a fine of $25,000 per year you don’t file as well as a maximum of a 1 year sentence in prison. So now that you know what it is and the penalties for trying to avoid it, what is the quickest way that you can pay it off and not have to deal with having a felony on your record?

Getting rid of the tax debt you can be very difficult, especially if you are not currently involved with a professional that deals with taxes. If you are $10,000 or below in debt, you are probably capable enough to solve this problem on your own without getting into any tax pro jazz. $10,000 and above, you should probably think about talking to one because of how difficult and stressful it can be to do it without a professional opinion. If you are doing it on your own, there are about 5 strategies that you can talk to the IRS about: Installment agreement, partial payment installment agreement, offer in compromise, not currently collectible (system in which the IRS agrees not to collect on the debt for a year), and filing bankruptcy. These are really the only ways that you can get it out of your hair.

So how would you go about getting out of tax debt fast? Well let’s start with saying that bankruptcy will get rid of all your tax payments. That is a myth. It has its own qualifications and stipulations. The best way to get rid of tax debt quickly is getting a professional tell you what the best course of action for you is. Depending on your financial situation, it could be entirely different from your next door neighbor. Make sure to talk to him/her about the 5 ways to pay it off and which one suits you.

You cannot be sued for your tax debts. The government runs on its own system and cannot sue you for not paying your taxes; they move to more severe types of punishments and you will most likely be paying quite a hefty fine if you try to cheat them. If you die while in the process of paying your tax debt, the debt will be paid out of your ‘estate’, or the money and property you leave behind. The debtor’s partner is in no way responsible for your debt unless you were involved in a joint loan or something of the sort.

Every person wants to live decently and comfortably in the world. For that, everybody needs money. One has to do some work to make money. So every able person tries to do some job, business etc. We have jobs in the Government sector, private sector etc. Compared to the private sector, jobs in the Government sector are in more demand. We all know the importance of the Government job. A Government job gives us the kind of secure feeling about our future. That's why everybody is going after the Government jobs. Moreover the Government jobs have many advantages over private sector jobs.

Job Security

It is a fact that once you land in a Government job, you are going to work throughout your life in the same job. So you are secured for your future. You don't need to have any fear of losing your job, because your job is guaranteed by the Government. You will get salary and all other statutory benefits like provident fund, pension etc.

Retirement Benefits

Unlike in the private sector, retirement benefits are guaranteed according to the constitution such as provident fund, pension etc. Here it is mandatory that every government employee has to contribute a percentage of the salary towards a corpus fund. This fund keeps growing till the retirement, after that the employee gets a lump sum amount which is very handy and needed at that age. Since after retirement one has to depend on the savings only for survival.

Pay-Scale Implementation

Unlike in the private sector where uncertainty is part of the life, Government jobs come with predetermined pay scale. The good part is that these pay scales are subjected to periodic revision by pay commission. So a Government employee at the time of joining only knows about his earnings till retirement and after. That means one can calculate roughly how much he is going to earn during the whole service period and manage finances accordingly.

Job Satisfaction

Everybody is patriotic towards the nation to some extent. So by working for the nation in the Government service, one feels that he is contributing his might to the development of the nation building. This feeling gives a kind of job satisfaction to every employee. Apart from the above, other institutional advantages like formation of employee unions, perks like free accommodation and leave travel allowance makes the life comfortable and secure. These are the reasons why people prefer a Government sector job over a private sector job.