marahfreedom

Archive for February 24th, 2012|Daily archive page

Ethics the Basis of CPC’s Success (compare to the disgusting and shameless situation in most political parties in ASEAN – which would all be fired and for the extreme wealth and limitless terms, even sent to the firing squad!) – 08:45, February 24, 2012

In 1% tricks and traps, Abuse of Power, better laws, checks and balances, China, collusion, conflict of interest, Confucianism ethics applied, critical discourse, democratisation, misplaced adoration, Nepotism, preventing vested interest, separation of powers, spirit of the law, unprofessional behaviour, vested interest, voting strategy on February 24, 2012 at 4:59 pm

Rules issued to curb nepotism among China’s civil servants
BEIJING, Feb. 23 (Xinhua) — China has issued regulations to limit public servants’ association with their spouses and relatives at work, a move hoped to curb corruption and interferences with their duties.

Civil servants and their spouses, relatives within three generations or relatives-in-law can not hold two posts which report to the same director, nor should they have the director-subordinate work relationship, according to the regulations.

In terms of geographical limitations, the regulations say that civil servants may not serve as heads of prefecture-level Communist Party of China (CPC) committees or governments in their hometowns.

Civil servants are also not allowed to assume top posts in prefecture-level discipline inspection commissions, procuratorates, courts or police departments in their hometowns, according to the regulations.

Civil servants are also asked to avoid situations such as recruitment, promotion or demotion of staff, taxation and approval for going abroad, that involve their relatives.

Those who do not abide by the regulations could be removed from office, according to the regulations jointly issued by the Organization Department of the CPC Central Committee and the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security.

If two civil servants marry or form a new relationship that “should be avoided,” their posts will be adjusted, according to the regulations.

Source:Xinhua

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66102/7738788.html

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Something For the World To Study – especially those nepotist, term limitless, 3rd world minded political parties.

Preventing nepotism . . .

Mubarak in Egypt (fallen)

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/haass35/English

Gaddafi in Libya (fallen unless the Tureg somehow gain autonomy and sovereignty)

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2071839_2071844_2071802,00.html

Aquino in Phillipines (ongoing – quite parallel to various family blocs in Malaysia . . . )

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100721-282271/House-under-siege-Abads-hit-defended-but-refuse-to-budge

Malaysia (ongoing series of oligarchies in BOTH mainstream and opposition coalitions, 3rd force has a lot of work to do . . . )

http://www.tindakmalaysia.com/showthread.php/2777-Nepotism-Umno-controlled-by-3-families

India (Gandhi, Nehru etc..)

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-anna-hazare-you-use-either-nepotism-or-corruption-says-narayana-murthy/20110826.htm

Ali Abdullah Salleh – Tunisia

http://middleeast.about.com/od/yemen/p/ali-abdullah-saleh-profile.htm

. . . and many more but with this surprising one as well featured as the best . . .

The Bushes in USA

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/nepotism_watch_eight_years_late

The Kennedys in USA . . .

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/09/26/kirks-kennedys-nepotism-entrenchment-usa

Perhaps at a lower level as in the below Oklahoma school system nepotism prevention chart USA is still ‘exceptional’ but it is the top echelons that need to set an example and the erosion is immense if the top echelons lack discipline to set an example . . .

There is nothing to prevent these people from taking UNPAID advisory roles, but they insist on hogging political power and creating cults of personality . . . this is the difference between 3rd world, sliding into 3rd world and rising out of 3rd world. China here has set an example and standard that few nations can claim to match . . .

NEPOTISMhttp://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/nepotism.html

Nepotism is a form of favoritism that is based on kinship. Nepotism is usually seen to be a negative practice because it implies that the person getting the job, promotion, college admittance, or property is usually not otherwise qualified enough to have it. There are no uniform laws regarding nepotism, but there are many different ways to approach a legal case where nepotism is suspected.

Nepotism can take place in politics where a person with a political position either passes on their position or gets employment for a member of their family. Laws regarding political nepotism vary from state to state. Another type of nepotism that occurs is within the educational system, when a family member is admitted on the basis of their family’s history at the school applied to.

Sometimes a business may be suspected of nepotism when certain family members of higher-ups are promoted, hired, or given raises while other employees remain in their own positions. If an employee is fired and a family member of business leaders takes the position, it may be considered nepotism. There are no uniform national business laws regarding nepotism and the practice may be openly embraced by some businesses. 

Other businesses may have serious rules banning nepotism, which may include not having spouses or family members working in the same department or company. This type of nepotism may be extremely taxing for people who meet at work and go on to get married.

Anti-nepotism can work against well-qualified individuals as well.  This is especially true in the anti-nepotism that occurs when two people working together get married and one or both of them are fired. The business may also choose to not hire someone who is very qualified for a position because that person is related to someone in the company.

Nepotism is a problematic legal issue to deal with because of its varying complexities. While most states have comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, nepotism may not be covered as a form of discrimination. There are several ways nepotism can be combated legally, however.

Discrimination based on marital status, sex, or age is illegal and can sometimes be argued against in cases of suspected nepotism.  In addition, racial discrimination, a serious charge, can also sometimes be practiced under the guise of nepotism. Many states also have laws and legal rights that argue that nepotism against married couples is a form of illegal discrimination.

If you or someone you know has been affected by nepotism, whether in the workplace, school, or in government, you may be entitled to monetary compensation or your job back. If a lawyer agrees to take such cases it will be on a contingency basis, meaning you only pay them if you win your nepotism case.

Advertisements

Kate Upton covers another magazine – and this time there are no clothes at all (but it’s all in the name of art of course) – by Tamara Abraham – Last updated at 11:25 AM on 23rd February 2012

In critical discourse, critique, insularism, media, Media Neutrality, media tricks, specialisation on February 24, 2012 at 4:15 pm

She is now a household name after appearing on the front of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, but Kate Upton’s latest magazine cover is possibly more sensational still.

The blonde beauty, 19, poses naked on the cover of Italian title Muse, the so-called ‘fashionart magazine’.

Channelling Marilyn Monroe, like so many others before her, the styling of the model manages to reference a retro era without relying on clothing or props.

Kate Upton poses nude on the cover of Muse magazine, channelling the look of Marilyn Monroe

Retro beauty: Kate Upton poses nude on the cover of Muse magazine, channelling the look of Marilyn Monroe

Her peroxide blonde hair is teased into a high bouffant, while her make-up, with powdered skin and matte, taupe lips, looks understated while at the same time, very Fifties.

Though Miss Upton famously slimmed down over the summer, after gaining so much weight her friends staged an intervention, she still looks particularly curvaceous in this new image.

Slimmed-down: Miss Upton (pictured in July, left, and earlier this month, right) famously dropped some weight over the summer after gaining so much weight her friends staged an intervention

Cover girl: Miss Upton was chosen to front the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue this year

Shot at an angle many women would agree was particularly flattering, her shoulders and decolletage look slim, while her chest is enviably full.

Miss Upton has barely been out of the headlines since her Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover was unveiled two weeks ago.

She has since appeared in the pages of Esquire and a Carl’s Jr burger commercial. And during an interview on the Ellen show, she was forced to dodge rumours about a possible relationship with New York Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez.

One thing she won’t be appearing in anytime soon is a Victoria’s Secret show, though.

The lingerie company’s creative head, Sophia Neophitou, told the New York Times that it would never choose Miss Upton to appear in the annual event.

Unafraid to mince her words, she described the Swimsuit Issue cover girl as being blessed with beauty that is ‘too obvious’.

Ms Neophitou told the newspaper that the model is ‘like a footballer’s wife, with the too-blond hair and that kind of face that anyone with enough money can go out and buy.’

Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

where have my pair of pet catapillars got to, AH there they are! how’d they get on her forehead

– FLaming_8ball, London, UK, 23/2/2012 14:35
Rating   1

nice rack, average face, poor waist, overhyped model.

– oliver, expat in turkey, 23/2/2012 14:33
Rating   1

She’s gross……..YUCK !! So are Americans. – Me, Mytown, 23/2/2012 12:46 Has Osama risen from the dead??? OMG!!

– Katie, London, 23/2/2012 14:06
Rating   1

I have a serious girl crush on her….!! She looks amazing!!

– BB, Scotland., 23/2/2012 12:59
Rating   31

She’s gross……..YUCK !! So are Americans.

– Me, Mytown, 23/2/2012 12:46
Rating   80

whats up with the photoshopped bikini bottoms? I’m sure she would have looked just as great without having her crotch shrunk …

– Anon, London, 23/2/2012 12:40
Rating   22

She’s gross……..YUCK !! – David Hilton, Inglewood, California.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Can’t understand comments like this from so called men, she is clearly a beautiful woman, some of the negative comments on here are so strange.

– Jessica , in Dublin, 23/2/2012 12:26
Rating   34

Simply stunning!

– Someone, Near&Far, 23/2/2012 12:25
Rating   38

She’s gross……..YUCK !!

– David Hilton, Inglewood, California., 23/2/2012 11:14
Rating   119

“She’s pretty but them boobies are weird.. – nards, manchester” — You think so? Let me take another, longer look … Mmmmm……

– Mr Grumpy, Merseyside, 23/2/2012 11:08

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

From the comments, we see the need to separate DM (or online media in general) into 3 or 4 general different ‘social-class sections’ (i.e. lower, middle, upper, above upper – which 1%ters obviously are flooding media with now . . . ) or have 3 different media portals (perhaps 12 to 16 sections if further ‘his’ and ‘hers’ or ‘married’, even LGBT, or various faith divisions to not put off anyone seeking a least jarring media portal experience – this could be the lazy counsellor’s prescription for arguing couples and boss-employees contribuitions areas too) or something tired people who log onto the internet could immediately go to to avoid being ‘jarred’ by class, preference EVEN race differences.

As for the above, the LC guys would love this article. Some UC guys would log on to ‘slum’. For mental exercise, counsellors could intentionally make people read mixed media like DM as of now. For those looking to unwind and be as insular as possible, DM is not recommended because of the diverse selection of articles. However those who constantly want to keep challen ging their comfort zones, a varied media portal like DM would be quite useful to keep brain cells firing.

As gritty or organic, as contrived and choreographed MTV can get . . .

2 Articles on USA and England : Uniformed Personnel-Civil Servant Waste of Taxpayer funds – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 5th March 2012

In 1% tricks and traps, Abuse of Power, collusion, conflict of interest, corruption, England, intent, meatball, misrepresentation of facts, police on February 24, 2012 at 8:12 am

ARTICLE 1

4,500 serial offenders are let off with caution despite committing at least 15 crimes each – by Jack Doyle – Last updated at 10:30 PM on 23rd February 2012

Thousands of serial offenders are being let off with a slap on the wrist – despite each committing more than 15 crimes.

Some 4,500 criminals with 15 or more convictions were given a caution last year.

Tens of thousands more were handed fines, community sentences or suspended jail terms. Overall, some two-thirds of the worst serial offenders escaped jail, Ministry of Justice statistics show.

The police are handing out more and more cautions, even to those committing offence after offence

MPs said the figures betrayed the ‘soft justice’ system and called for more public control over sentences.

Tory MP for Clacton, Douglas Carswell, said: ‘From November we get to elect our police chiefs. We now need to ensure democratic accountability over the rest of the criminal justice system.

‘So long as we leave it to the Secretary of State, we will never sort this problem out and get the criminal justice system we want and the public demands.

‘Soft justice is a consequence of an unaccountable justice system.’

Sentencing figures published yesterday showed nearly 105,000 criminals with at least 15 previous offences came back before the courts in England and Wales.

More than one third were locked up. But 67,461 were given a non-custodial sentence. Around a third of those, 20,553 were given community sentences and 16,149 were given a fine.

More than 11,000 were handed an absolute or conditional discharge – in effect no punishment at all. A further 8,160 were given suspended jail sentences.
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke wants to promote better reform programmes rather than filling up prisons

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke wants to promote better reform programmes rather than filling up prisons

In 2004 the custody rate for offenders after 15 or more crimes was 42 per cent, nearly 7 per cent higher.

Overall, three quarters of crimes are committed by adults and juveniles with existing records.

Last year re-offending accounted for some 638,153 out of more than 850,000 offences.

Government officials suggested average prison sentences were at a ten-year high, with burglars locked up for an average of 19 months.

Average sentences for robbery and drug offences were also up.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has pledged to mount a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ to turn offenders away from crime.

He wants tougher community punishments and better reform programmes.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘Overall re-offending is falling but the levels are still too high and we are determined to address the root causes of this behaviour.

‘We are making our jails places of hard work, toughening community sentences and making offenders pay back victims and communities.’
Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards.

This must be the underclass equivalent of getting a bonus (and promotion) for failure. . We are certainly living in very strange times.

– Brian., Wellingborough., 24/2/2012 06:13
Rating   21

Prisons cost money to build, and that money comes from taxation. You can’t have it both ways.

– john, scotland, 24/2/2012 06:03
Rating   4

A far more shocking headline would have been “serial offenders given jail terms”…

– King Cantona, republik of mancunia, 24/2/2012 05:44
Rating   26

The public need to be as enraged about this as they were the riots (which the government couldn’t hide) This situation is an insult to the law abiding public

– dean motley, the Commonwealth, 24/2/2012 05:13
Rating   12

Nowhere near enough detail here. Are these people who have walked free hardened serial muggers and burglars, or recidivist litter louts and casual drug users? There’s a world of difference. But what I really want to see is these three things : harsher, (and hence cheaper) prisons that either deter crime, or make it economically viable to lock up the worst offenders for a long time; a legal framework that permits long sentencing for the worst crimes; and judges who hand down sentences that properly punish the guilty.

– Sean, Up a mountain somewhere, but I’m not saying where, 24/2/2012 04:49
Rating   18

NOT going to prison isn`t working. Send them to prison with two priorities, the primary being to punish and the secondary to rehabilitate. Decent folk deserve protection from criminals.

– Escapee, Sainoi, 24/2/2012 04:36
Rating   23

oh come on..they didn’t mean to they’re of good character really..they had a hard upbringing..they had a bad day nothing’s their fault! yawn..this country is absolutely pathetic!

– mark adam, london, 24/2/2012 02:47
Rating   17

‘We are making our jails places of hard work, toughening community sentences and making offenders pay back victims and communities.’

———————————————————————————————————— In your dreams MOJ spokesman. The crims are almost queuing up to get into HMP

‘Butlins lookalike’. They are doing their best to get ‘put inside’ with dozens of repeat offences, but the legal system won’t cooperate.

– Gordon, Thailand, 24/2/2012 02:30
Rating   14

In the USA it is three strikes and you are out, in other words you get life if you repeat offend twice. However I don’t believe this rule applies for misdemeanours, just for serious crimes.

– Sittingburns, England, Great Britain, 24/2/2012 02:23
Rating   9

Adopt the American system caught three times and you are in for life. After all they have shown they have no respect for society so lock them up forever without parole or possible sentence reduction. I don’t believe it can cost the general public more than these criminals actions are already costing. Plus sack all the promoters and judges who prefer the soft option, protect the victims and forget the bill of human rights unless you consider it from the victims point as it is law and the criminals have already made the choice to be lawless and have rejected the standards of the general law abiding society.

– Toady the Toad, London England, 24/2/2012 02:20

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Am with the Secretary of State (not the Carls Jr toting one from Idiocracy, different morons . . . er people when they’re not morons ) on this.

At least some judges do not believe in enriching prison contractors. Simple enough. If someone steals 1000 sterling worth of goods in 1 year but is locked up at cost of 40+ thousand at tax payer expense for 1 year, he would have done the same damage in 40 years by being in jail for 1 year from some unthinking judge’s punishment – so the taxpayers get punished instead by wastage of painfully extracted taxpayer funds to enrich prison contractor/supplier/jobs system. Let the pettiest criminal be punished in any method by imprisonment (I recommend paying the same amount to the vendor . . . on the spot by the police, no need to waste court time . . .), it is still cheaper overall! And what is to stop the same behaviour from continuing after 1 year in jail?

The judges who ‘let criminals off’ are SAVING England’s economy by saving tax funds which are stupidly spent maintaining prisoners. If the ‘let off’ trend continues, massive funds from PRISON CLOSURES (though a handful of prison contractors/suppliers and gaolers lose their jobs) could be saved. What is worse, a collapsed economy and prison state or a handful of cronies who probably could find another better, more morally and also ethically correct way of making a living than this insidious corruption of civilisational values (i.e. to make a living I don’t care what is involved in my salary – the system is too large and unwieldy for MOST ordinary people to fathom, though some heavier thinkers take on the thankless work simply to validate the educations they never had or will never use because some crony was given the job instead . . .)?

MPs said the figures betrayed the ‘soft justice’ system and called for more public control over sentences. Tory MP for Clacton, Douglas Carswell, said: ‘From November we get to elect our police chiefs. We now need to ensure democratic accountability over the rest of the criminal justice system.’ This should read ‘From November we now get to ensure COLLUSIVE PROFITEERING over the UNCORRUPTED PORTIONS of the criminal justice system (at tax payer expense). Did Douglas Carswell fail math, or is this MP just too daft to figure out the facts in the comment on the above 2 paragraphs? Soft justice is better than a Theft/Extreme Wastage of tax funds on pretext of being tough on criminals, like so many paedophiles (MP) in a Church (Parliament) victimising the children (voters) . . .

Perhaps the best way to punish petty theft or minor crimes would be to bar repeat offenders with electronic bracelets or such, from patronizing shop chains they offended in (keep stealing enough, the offenders would not be able to enter most shops in the end) WHILE saving imprisoning costs.

ARTICLE 2

Something is Wrong when a U.S. Soldier Costs $1 Million a Year – Yahoo! Contributor Network – By Calvin Wolf | Yahoo! Contributor Network

According to CNN, the Pentagon comptroller said during a congressional budget meeting that it cost “about $850,000 per soldier” per year in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments reached a more expensive conclusion: $1.2 million per soldier per year. The estimate is supposed to increase for 2012.

The Pentagon comptroller, Department of Defense undersecretary Robert Hale, said higher weapons operating costs were “a good part that’s probably 50 percent of the budget” when explaining the $850,000 per-soldier statistic.

Something is wrong when the U.S. is spending around $1 million per soldier per year to fight in Afghanistan. It’s more wrong when we’re getting “probably” and “a good part” and other ambiguous terminology. While I’m struggling to pay my rent on a public school teacher’s salary, I want to know why the Department of Defense lacks hard-and-fast figures on its overseas spending.

I want to know who allowed military spending to swell to the point that enough was being spent per individual soldier to pay 21 Americans at home a comfortable $40,500 annual salary.

Weapons operating costs? Are they firing shells of pure gold? Platinum bayonets? Are Humvees suddenly being made by Rolls-Royce? Hearkening back to the wars of generations past, how would generals like Pershing, Patton, MacArthur and even Westmoreland view a figure like $850,000 per man per year?

When the nation still struggles to pull its way out of a recessionary pit, why are we spending like this? The recent riots over the Quran burnings at Bagram Air Base, explained by ABC News, show our billions of dollars have not helped us secure and solidify the notoriously unstable nation of Afghanistan. If we’ve been unable to turn Afghanistan around in over a decade worth of active intervention, why do we continue to burn through taxpayer dollars like they grow on trees?

One million dollars per soldier has not given us anything resembling a true victory in Afghanistan. It’s time to go back to the drawing board. It’s time to decide whether we want higher unemployment and an inefficient military or whether we want an effective balance; a nation where we’re willing to help the poor and unemployed and forego gold-plated bullets.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

More collusion on the part of term limitless legislators (governors, sanators congressmen etc..) with the military contractors and suppliers. Ideally as in the 9th and earlier crusades, anyone who wanted to go to war would have to get their own horse and supplies. Today they should allow the same. A millionaire/billionaire instead of being a wasteful consumer of luxury and exuding decadence and laziness that influences his lessers, should be allowed to buy and maintain his own fighter jet, tank, artillery or even warship, if he wanted to. This would save money, foster a sense of personal pride and take the funding issue entirely out of the equation for government, while at the same time, keeping citizens safer by ensuring ‘Big Government’ won’t be able to decide to spend much needed tax payer monies on war instead of civilian expenses. That is, if the ‘big boys’ want to go to war, they can jolly well fund out of their own pockets, instead of using tax payer funds who are not so big.

Perhaps 2 different taxpayer fund pools? Perhaps an opt out for taxpayers in that separate fund for citizens deciding that their funds will not be used to fund wars or maintain nukes and missile silos that will never be used? That when dismantled AGAIN give some contractor a nice tidy sum of tax funds? The citizens should only vote for legislators that are very clear (and on penalty of quitting their posts if failing to keep their word to amend or change constitutional articles or laws in a given timeframe, that allows States to use taxpayer funds for things that they cannot afford) that the nation is after all the people and those tax funds may not be theirs to use for those who opt out for war.

Such obviously civilian derived funds to create cheaper sources of food, better housing, or for necesssary welfare – instead of political personnel perks, parliamentary privileges (which taxpayers vote that politicians will not be entitled to tea and crumpets at their expense? Or special funeral funds – while serving a bureaucrat get paids a salary after the bureaucrat retires they have a pension – that should be given no more than the same amount of time spent working – who the hell is going to give a civil servant an entire or more than normal 401K equivalent for that region for just dying?!? Especially when they can afford their own funeral etc..?)

$16 Muffins, $8 Coffess, $5 Meatballs : Justice Dept. Spending Rapped

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/21/140661100/-16-muffins-8-coffees-5-meatballs-justice-dept-spending-rapped

The smoked salmon is ‘awful’ and the pork escallops are a ‘disgrace’: What peers said about their exclusive cafeteria (which costs the English £1.44m a year to subsidise)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110365/The-smoked-salmon-awful-escallops-disgrace-What-peers-said-exclusive-cafeteria-costs-1-44m-year-subsidise.html

If a soldier costs 1 million a year to maintain (that Afghanistani Naan and side of meat DO NOT cost USD$100 for the whole month to requisition . . .  think . . . ), then 20 years of a single soldier in service will cost, 20 million which means 29.9 401Ker’s retirements. That same soldier retires in the same manner as well later AND at taxpayer expense! So think about that ‘Letters of Marque’ format or ‘Privateering’ concept where ALL military are voluntary and paid for by themselves. This would create massive jobs (as well as massive capability to wage war – instead of fostering useless plutocrats – how many Battalions of soldiers, or Nuke Subs and navy crew is 40 billion worth Mayor Bloomburg able to support and fund? But the law would have such ‘GLC’ people as lazy and indolent symbols of excess who keep oligarchies that result in worsening laws and Orwellian social conditions in the USA that could fund the entire US military themselves but do not – and who are ready to leave the country with ALL the taxpayers’ funds at the first sign of trouble.

I bet you that under the Plutocrat’s personal funding, the price of a single soldier will suddenly drop to 10,000 a year per soldier . . . thats how much the taxpayers are losing yearly because of government/military contractor-supplier collusion USD$990,000 in all likelihood.). Create that second pool of tax funds specific to persons who believe in war and those who believe in peace (at least those who opt out from allowing their funds to be used for military purposes) by the civilians for civilian purposes – and that means transparent accounts to determine if a hammer or toilet seat do not cost USD$4000 each instead of USD$4 at discounted prices – the rest as of now is being handed out in extreme yearly salary raises when GDP is dropping, and way beyond inflation rates to boot. Anyone able to consider these issues had better act.