(Indo Berita Nusantara), Pada 11 Juli 2009, di Surabaya, buku (MALAPETAKA DEMOKRASI), SPARTAN Jawa Timur, perihal Temuan Investigasi Kecurangan Sistematis Memenangkan Partai Demokrat dan SBY, Pelaksanaan Pileg April 2009, Negara bukan saja gagal menyelenggarakan Pileg secara tertib sesuai jadwal yang digariskan dalam undang-undang tetapi juga lalai mengupayakan pemenuhan hak konstitusional sejumlah besar warga negara.
Terlanggarnya hak Negara ini bukan saja mereduksi legitimasi hasil Pemilu, namun jelas merupakan bentuk pelangaran HAM. Dengan perolehan suara diatas 20% tersebut, maka Partai Demokrat menjadi satu-satunya partai politik yang mendapat kenaikan suara hingga sekitar 300%.
Ini merupakan lompatan terbesar yang pernah diraih parpol. Tidak ada dalam sejarah dunia dan dinegara manapun, sebuah parpol demikin besar mendapatkan suara hanya dalam satu periode kekuasaan kecuali terjadi pada Partai Demokrat di Indonesia. Belum ada upaya nyata KPU ataupun Pemerintah untuk memperjuangkan nasib warga yang memiliki hak pilih, tetapi tidak terdaftar sebagai pemilih.
Jutaan warga dipastikan kembali kehilangan hak kontitusionalnya seperti pada Pileg lalu, yang seharusnya dijamin Negara. Buruknya kinerja KPU semakin kasat mata, karena pada saat pelaksanaan Pileg 2009, Ketua KPU Abdul Hafiz hadir di TPS Cikeas, tempat Susilo Bambang Yhudoyono mencontren, dalam Pilpres ini juga KPU tidak netral.
Contoh spanduk perncontrengan yang dibuat KPU telah dengan sengaja menunjuk kepada kolom gambar dan nomor urut pasangan Presidan dan Wakil Presiden SBY-Boediyono.Andrian
Monday, July 13, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Checkers speech
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Checkers speech was an address made by then United States Senator and Republican vice presidential candidate Richard Nixon on television and radio on September 23, 1952. Senator Nixon had been accused of improprieties relating to a fund established by his backers to reimburse him for his political expenses. With his place on the Republican ticket in doubt, the senator flew to Los Angeles and delivered a half hour television address in which he defended himself, attacked his opponents, and urged the audience to contact the Republican National Committee (RNC) to tell it whether or not he should remain on the ticket. During the speech, he stated that regardless of what anyone said, he intended to keep one gift—a black-and-white dog which was named Checkers by the Nixon children, thus giving the address its popular name.
Nixon, as he related in his address, came from a family of moderate means, and had spent most of his time after law school either in the military, campaigning for office, or serving in Congress. After his successful 1950 Senate campaign, Nixon's backers continued to raise money in order to finance his political activities. These contributions went to reimburse the senator for travel costs, postage for political mailings which he did not have franked, and similar expenses. Such a fund was not illegal at the time, but it exposed Senator Nixon, who had made a point of attacking government corruption, to charges he might be giving special favors to the contributors.
In September 1952, two months after Nixon's selection as General Dwight D. Eisenhower's running mate, the press became aware of the fund. In a matter of a few days, the story grew until the controversy threatened Nixon's place on the ticket. In an attempt to turn the tide of public opinion, Nixon broke off a whistle-stop tour of the West Coast and flew to Los Angeles to make a televised broadcast to the nation, for which television time was purchased by the RNC. Nixon got the idea for the Checkers reference from Franklin Roosevelt's Fala speech—given eight years to the day before Nixon's address—in which President Roosevelt mocked Republican claims that he had sent a destroyer to fetch his dog, Fala, when the dog was supposedly left behind in the Aleutian Islands.
Nixon's speech was heard by about sixty million Americans, and led to an outpouring of public support for him; a huge majority of the millions of telegrams and phone calls received by the RNC and other political offices were in favor of the senator. He was retained on the ticket, which swept to victory in November 1952, keeping Nixon on the path which would lead to his own election as President sixteen years later. The Checkers speech was an early example of a politician using television to appeal directly to the electorate, but has since sometimes been mocked or denigrated. "Checkers speech" has come more generally to mean any emotional speech by a politician.
Checkers speech
The Checkers speech was an address made by then United States Senator and Republican vice presidential candidate Richard Nixon on television and radio on September 23, 1952. Senator Nixon had been accused of improprieties relating to a fund established by his backers to reimburse him for his political expenses. With his place on the Republican ticket in doubt, the senator flew to Los Angeles and delivered a half hour television address in which he defended himself, attacked his opponents, and urged the audience to contact the Republican National Committee (RNC) to tell it whether or not he should remain on the ticket. During the speech, he stated that regardless of what anyone said, he intended to keep one gift—a black-and-white dog which was named Checkers by the Nixon children, thus giving the address its popular name.
Nixon, as he related in his address, came from a family of moderate means, and had spent most of his time after law school either in the military, campaigning for office, or serving in Congress. After his successful 1950 Senate campaign, Nixon's backers continued to raise money in order to finance his political activities. These contributions went to reimburse the senator for travel costs, postage for political mailings which he did not have franked, and similar expenses. Such a fund was not illegal at the time, but it exposed Senator Nixon, who had made a point of attacking government corruption, to charges he might be giving special favors to the contributors.
In September 1952, two months after Nixon's selection as General Dwight D. Eisenhower's running mate, the press became aware of the fund. In a matter of a few days, the story grew until the controversy threatened Nixon's place on the ticket. In an attempt to turn the tide of public opinion, Nixon broke off a whistle-stop tour of the West Coast and flew to Los Angeles to make a televised broadcast to the nation, for which television time was purchased by the RNC. Nixon got the idea for the Checkers reference from Franklin Roosevelt's Fala speech—given eight years to the day before Nixon's address—in which President Roosevelt mocked Republican claims that he had sent a destroyer to fetch his dog, Fala, when the dog was supposedly left behind in the Aleutian Islands.
Nixon's speech was heard by about sixty million Americans, and led to an outpouring of public support for him; a huge majority of the millions of telegrams and phone calls received by the RNC and other political offices were in favor of the senator. He was retained on the ticket, which swept to victory in November 1952, keeping Nixon on the path which would lead to his own election as President sixteen years later. The Checkers speech was an early example of a politician using television to appeal directly to the electorate, but has since sometimes been mocked or denigrated. "Checkers speech" has come more generally to mean any emotional speech by a politician.
Getting it in perspective with M_o_R
by: Simon Buehring
Every activity and situation carries risks. Whether you are launching a new project, providing ongoing services or heading a strategy for widespread organisational change, thorough and effective management of the risks involved is essential to ensure long-term success.
The M_o_R (Management of Risk) methodology, owned by the OGC and administered as a qualification by the APMG, provides a set of principles and generic processes for identifying, analysing and managing the risks that may occur in a business context. This framework is aligned to the other management methodologies associated with the OGC (notable PRINCE2 and MSP), but is design to be used in an organisation or business context.
A risk can be defined as an outcome that is uncertain, and that (were it to occur) would affect the aims or outcome of the organisation. Despite popular usage, therefore, a risk does not have to be negative. It is imperative that a risk manager (or, indeed, any kind of manager) knows how to manage both positive and negative risks to the greatest benefit of the organisation.
Risks affect every level of activity within an organisation. The M_o_R framework draws attention to four key levels (or ‘perspectives’), each of which requires a tailored approach to risk management.
M_o_R: Strategic perspective
Within M_o_R, the ‘strategic’ perspective encompasses long-term decisions related to the overall direction of the organisation. These risks may not be immediately apparent, and can lie dormant for some time after a decision has been made.
For example, a local council might decide to provide a more equal education for all primary school students in its district. This strategy may involve clear long-term benefits in terms of individual, institutional and local academic achievement. It may also involve long-term risks, such as reducing additional opportunities for students at the highest end of the academic spectrum. This may not become apparent for a number of years.
The managers responsible for evaluating the council’s strategy must analyse the probability and potential impact of any such risks in order to enable the most effective approach to risk management.
M_o_R: Programme Management perspective
Medium-term goals are achieved through the programme management perspective. This is the level at which strategy is transformed into a workable change programme. Risk management at the programme level concerns the decisions that are made about the way that the strategy will be fulfilled, and the risks that are implicit in each of those decisions.
For example, the local council may decide that the primary school curriculum needs to be standardised and aligned to that of the local secondary school. This might bring important benefits, such as the adequate preparation of all primary school students in core subject areas. It may also increase parent confidence and force under-performing schools to improve basic standards. However, the programme might also reduce the individuality of the primary school curriculum. There is a risk that the schools and children thriving on a less-structured curriculum might begin to perform badly under the new strictures.
In order to effectively manage risks at a programme level, the risk manager must evaluate the likelihood and importance of the risk against the projected benefits of the change.
M_o_R: Project perspective
Project management is concerned with delivering a set of outputs (or ‘products’) according to a pre-defined scope, budget, schedule and quality specification. Risk management at the level of a project is concerned with the possible incidents or issues that would affect the project output.
For example, the local council may decide to create a standard examination for primary schools, to ensure that all students are adequately prepared in the core subject areas. This project will involve collating a body of knowledge recognised as ‘core’ for primary school students, preparing an acceptable system for examining students, and implementing this new examination system across the local primary schools.
Both the goals and the risks of this project will be more immediate than those involved at the Strategic and Programme perspective. Project risks might include: disputation over material recognised as ‘core’; resistance on the part of teachers and/or parents; failure of the examinations to accurately assess the students’ understanding of the material.
The project risk manager needs to consider how each of these risks may be most effectively managed to ensure delivery of the project outcome to the desired scope and specification.
M_o_R: Operational perspective
Risks are more immediate at ground level, and operational risk management requires a high level of forethought and independent, structured response to convert the project output into real benefits.
Operational risks to the primary school examination scenario considered above might include logistical difficulties organising and processing examinations, or inadequate preparation of the students in coping with exam situations. Those responsible for implementing the new exams must be prepared to deal with issues that may arise during the operation. This preparation comes through identification of risks and thorough analysis of the affect that such risks may have on the concrete outcomes and benefit of the council’s educational strategy.
Summary
Understanding perspective is central to understanding the M_o_R approach to risk management within an organisational environment. Individuals at every level need to be aware of standard processes, techniques and challenges involved in managing the risks associated with their activities and responsibilities.
Every activity and situation carries risks. Whether you are launching a new project, providing ongoing services or heading a strategy for widespread organisational change, thorough and effective management of the risks involved is essential to ensure long-term success.
The M_o_R (Management of Risk) methodology, owned by the OGC and administered as a qualification by the APMG, provides a set of principles and generic processes for identifying, analysing and managing the risks that may occur in a business context. This framework is aligned to the other management methodologies associated with the OGC (notable PRINCE2 and MSP), but is design to be used in an organisation or business context.
A risk can be defined as an outcome that is uncertain, and that (were it to occur) would affect the aims or outcome of the organisation. Despite popular usage, therefore, a risk does not have to be negative. It is imperative that a risk manager (or, indeed, any kind of manager) knows how to manage both positive and negative risks to the greatest benefit of the organisation.
Risks affect every level of activity within an organisation. The M_o_R framework draws attention to four key levels (or ‘perspectives’), each of which requires a tailored approach to risk management.
M_o_R: Strategic perspective
Within M_o_R, the ‘strategic’ perspective encompasses long-term decisions related to the overall direction of the organisation. These risks may not be immediately apparent, and can lie dormant for some time after a decision has been made.
For example, a local council might decide to provide a more equal education for all primary school students in its district. This strategy may involve clear long-term benefits in terms of individual, institutional and local academic achievement. It may also involve long-term risks, such as reducing additional opportunities for students at the highest end of the academic spectrum. This may not become apparent for a number of years.
The managers responsible for evaluating the council’s strategy must analyse the probability and potential impact of any such risks in order to enable the most effective approach to risk management.
M_o_R: Programme Management perspective
Medium-term goals are achieved through the programme management perspective. This is the level at which strategy is transformed into a workable change programme. Risk management at the programme level concerns the decisions that are made about the way that the strategy will be fulfilled, and the risks that are implicit in each of those decisions.
For example, the local council may decide that the primary school curriculum needs to be standardised and aligned to that of the local secondary school. This might bring important benefits, such as the adequate preparation of all primary school students in core subject areas. It may also increase parent confidence and force under-performing schools to improve basic standards. However, the programme might also reduce the individuality of the primary school curriculum. There is a risk that the schools and children thriving on a less-structured curriculum might begin to perform badly under the new strictures.
In order to effectively manage risks at a programme level, the risk manager must evaluate the likelihood and importance of the risk against the projected benefits of the change.
M_o_R: Project perspective
Project management is concerned with delivering a set of outputs (or ‘products’) according to a pre-defined scope, budget, schedule and quality specification. Risk management at the level of a project is concerned with the possible incidents or issues that would affect the project output.
For example, the local council may decide to create a standard examination for primary schools, to ensure that all students are adequately prepared in the core subject areas. This project will involve collating a body of knowledge recognised as ‘core’ for primary school students, preparing an acceptable system for examining students, and implementing this new examination system across the local primary schools.
Both the goals and the risks of this project will be more immediate than those involved at the Strategic and Programme perspective. Project risks might include: disputation over material recognised as ‘core’; resistance on the part of teachers and/or parents; failure of the examinations to accurately assess the students’ understanding of the material.
The project risk manager needs to consider how each of these risks may be most effectively managed to ensure delivery of the project outcome to the desired scope and specification.
M_o_R: Operational perspective
Risks are more immediate at ground level, and operational risk management requires a high level of forethought and independent, structured response to convert the project output into real benefits.
Operational risks to the primary school examination scenario considered above might include logistical difficulties organising and processing examinations, or inadequate preparation of the students in coping with exam situations. Those responsible for implementing the new exams must be prepared to deal with issues that may arise during the operation. This preparation comes through identification of risks and thorough analysis of the affect that such risks may have on the concrete outcomes and benefit of the council’s educational strategy.
Summary
Understanding perspective is central to understanding the M_o_R approach to risk management within an organisational environment. Individuals at every level need to be aware of standard processes, techniques and challenges involved in managing the risks associated with their activities and responsibilities.
Considering Your Car Insurance - Liability Coverage by: Thomas Ajava
|
|
Few people realize that their car insurance is actually a collection of different types of insurance. One type will often be collision insurance, while another aspect of the policy may be medical insurance coverage, while yet another aspect may be applicable to certain replacement issues. The mass of information can be overwhelming to the point you aren't really sure what is important and what is not, so let's clear that up.
The most important part of any car insurance policy is the liability protection. What is liability protection? It is the aspect of the car insurance that covers you from any claim of damages by a third-party. Why would a third-party be claiming damages? Probably because you were in an accident with them and they believe you were the cause of the accident. This can make you liable for the repairs or replacement of their car as well that their medical damages. But wait, it gets better. If they sue you, you're also going to have to deal with paying a lawyer to defend you. Liability aspect of your insurance coverage may very well cover the cost of that lawyer.
You actually are already fairly familiar with the liability coverage in your insurance policy whether you realize it or not. It is represented by the two dollar figures that are quoted when you shop for car insurance. The first figure is often 15,000 followed by second one of 30,000. These two figures relate to the amount of insurance that you are buying. The 15,000 figure represents the amount of money the insurance company will pay on your behalf for each claim against you. The 30,000 figure represents the total amount of money the company will pay regardless of how many claims are made against you.
Let's focus on the $15,000 figure. Ask yourself a simple question. If you cause an accident and the other person is hospitalized, how far do you think the $15,000 will go towards paying their bills? How about towards replacing their car? It certainly is not going to go very far. So what happens when it runs out? Well, here's a scary thing. You're going to be personally liable for anything in addition to the $15,000. The insurance company does not have an obligation to continue to pay anything other than what is in the policy - a fact that should terrify you.
As you can see, a car insurance policy with a $15,000 per event coverage limit is not really much of an insurance policy at all. The good news is you can buy much higher insurance coverage amounts without spending a ton of money. For example, the difference between carrying $100,000 in coverage and carrying $500,000 in coverage is only about an $80 increase for your premiums. How can this be? Well, it has to do with the probability of you getting into an accident that will result is a big dollar money claim by a third party. While a good number of us will get into fender benders every so often, fortunately very few of us are going to get into crash that results in major medical damages. As a result, the insurance company can tell that the probability of there being a major claim for any particular policy is usually pretty low. With this in mind, the premiums for the additional coverage are also very low.
The last couple years have seen some seriously tough times for Americans given the Great Recession as they are calling it now. There are many areas where you can cut back on your insurance expenses. Lowering your total coverage is not one you should be touching. You can actually raise your coverage without spending a single dollar more than you are now. The key is to raise the amount of your deductible. This will lower your premium to the point that it more than compensates for the cost of the increased coverage.
Car insurance is one of those things we all hate to pay for until we really need it. Make sure you have sufficient coverage to protect yourself should you experience a really bad situation. You'll be glad you bought the extra coverage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
