The great Ontological riddle concerning what is the true
Nature of Reality is solved by the ultimate truth that a
persons real identity is God. Together with some recent
discoveries from the world of mathematics, namely the
Mandelbrot set, we can finally make the case for
Idealism or the idea that all existence is consciousness.
In this section we discuss what is the nature of reality.
Essentially what we'll be doing is showing how it is
that Idealism or the idea that existence is really
subjective, can work in practice. Or to put it another
way I am going to show how it is that all existence is
really consciousness.
This point of view stands in opposition against the
alternative and more widely held view concerning the
nature of reality which is called Materialism. This is the
belief that existence consists of physical matter. It
supposes a material reality and a physical universe
upon which the subjective world of consciousness is
based. The belief in Materialism is presently the
dominant view of reality in the World today. However
there are good reasons to suppose that the idea of
Materialism may be inherently flawed. These reasons
derive from lines of inquiry within philosophy and also
some results obtained from the field of quantum physics
within science, which studies the sub-atomic basis of
material existence. For instance, some of the greatest
philosophers of all time namely Descartes, Berkeley and
Kant have all come to the same conclusion that we can
never have certain knowledge of the physical World and
that we can only really know the subjective world i.e.
our consciousness. Therefore the idea of Materialism is
flawed from the outset, for it tries to reduce something
that we do have certain knowledge of, namely our
conscious subjective states, into something we can
never really know with any certainty as being truly
existent, i.e. the physical world. Moving along to the
world of science, one of the great physicists of the 20th
century namely John Wheeler, who worked with Albert
Einstein, summed up what quantum mechanics was
telling us about the nature of reality in one sentence, he
said 'There's no out there, out there.' This statement is
meant to suggest that our belief in an external and
independently existing physical reality is one which is
being undermined by results from quantum physics.
So having outlined some of the problems inherent with
idea of Materialism, what I'll do here is to take Idealism
as our starting assumption and show how it is that
existence is really consciousness. In so doing we'll be
describing an alternative view of reality that also
provides answers to some of the biggest puzzles in
science and philosophy today. It is also a way of
looking at the nature of existence that confirms what
the founders of the World's great religions and the great
mystics have been telling us all along. That indeed
there is an existence above and beyond the physical and
temporal. Also that it is this higher super reality which
generates the appearance of an external world and the
illusion we call physical reality. I shall explain how this
illusion works so that it can clearly be seen that indeed
all existence is consciousness and furthermore that all
consciousness is really one consciousness. This one
consciousness can rightly be called God, the ultimate
source and ground of all being. So even though this
section is called 'The nature of reality', it can just as
easily be called 'The nature of God'. This is because
God is the ground of all reality, and all the reality that
we perceive and are aware of, is really a series of
manifestations of the ultimate reality that is God. When
we consider reality in its completeness then inevitably
we arrive at the divine. Total reality is God and to truly
understand the nature of reality as we know it is also to
understand the nature of God.
Idealism or the idea that the nature of existence is really
consciousness, has always had its adherents throughout
the course of human history. However all the while, the
trouble with the idea of Idealism has been that it has
been impossible to argue convincingly and compelling
the case for it. The reason why this is so is because in
the past, the difficulty with the idea of Idealism has
been how to explain the nature of the material world.
It's all very well to say that all existence is really
subjective or is made up of consciousness, but the
problem then is to provide an explanation for the
objective world and the external physical universe. In
response to this question, in the past, the only answer
that Idealists have been able to come up with is to say
that the physical world of matter is somehow illusory
without any further explanation of why the illusion of
physical reality is so convincing. Obviously there is
'something' behind the appearance of the external
physical world, but there has been an explanatory gap
as to what this 'something' is. However the situation
has changed and this has been brought about by a
recent discovery in mathematics and also an invention
from the world of computer science. What these
discoveries or inventions give us are the necessary
conceptual stepping stones and metaphors, which
enable us to finally explain the truth behind Idealism.
They provide us with insight into what is behind the
exquisite beauty, detail and complexity that we find in
the universe and also allow us to grasp the role of
consciousness in the overall scheme of things.
So what are these new additions to humankind's
knowledge that better allow us to understand the nature
of existence. The first of these is the discovery of fractal
mathematics and in particular the Mandelbrot set. The
second is the invention and widespread use of virtual
reality computer environments. I discuss both of these
things in turn and relate how they enable use to
understand the nature of reality and the relationship
between consciousness and the external physical world.
6 Jun 2014
SYRIA'S TWIN JIHAD
On both sides of the religious divide,
Lebanese militants have relied on similar
arguments to justify what they perceive as a
never-ending war of convictions, which poses
great dangers in a region where self-
identities are shaped by belief instead of
citizenship.
On this cold morning, a cortege of vehicles
headed by a car covered in coloured flower
arrangements drives through the busy streets
of Dahieh – a bastion of Shiite Hezbollah –
surrounded by militants carrying
Kalashnikovs.
Every few minutes, a staccato of gunfire is
followed by ululations, as men dressed in
fatigues wave the yellow banners of the Party
of God. "Labayka Ya Hussein", says one
militant, invoking Hussein whose martyrdom
is a widely spread symbol among Shiites.3
What appears like a wedding procession is in
fact the funeral of a Hezbollah fighter killed
in Syria. Surprisingly, the funerals of Shiite
Hezbollah fighters bear a striking
resemblance to the "martyrs' weddings" of
Sunni jihadists organised in Palestinian
camps in Lebanon or Jordan, during which
confectionery and juices are generously
distributed.
The strong similarities between funeral
processions of Sunni and Shiite fighters killed
in Syria and staged as celebrations underline
the converging views on jihad of the two
groups, at odds since the beginning of the
Syria war in which Sunnis support the
rebellion and Shiites fight alongside the
regime of President Bachar Assad, a member
of the Alawite community, a Shiite sect.
For both Shiite and Sunni jihadists, the fight
in Syria was initially motivated by the desire
to protect their fellow coreligionists. "We
fight to defend the children and women being
slaughtered by the Assad regime," said Abu
Horeira, a Lebanese jihadist from Tripoli who
fought in Qussayr. In April 2013, Sayed
Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, relied
on a similar analogy, promising to defend the
Lebanese Shiite inhabitants of Al-Qusayr:
"We will not abandon the Lebanese residents
of Al-Qusayr."
As the battles in Syria increased in intensity,
the political discourse of jihadists in Lebanon
further polarised, with religious motivations
coming to the fore. "Religious arguments are
often used to appeal to the masses," says
Shiite cleric Sayed Hani Fahs.
Lebanese sheikhs on both sides of the divide
have relied on religious text to provide a
rationale for their call for Jihad, which is
mentioned over 150 times in the Quran, the
sacred book of both Sunnis and Shiites.
"Jihad in Syria is an obligation for all
Sunnis," said Salafi Sheikh Omar Bakri, in a
previous interview. While Hezbollah has not
officially called for jihad, fighters such as unit
commander Abou Ali have reported that
"everyone who goes to fight in Syria has
received a taklif sharii (a religious
command)."
Militants from the capital Beirut, the Bekaa
and Tripoli, both Shiites and Sunnis, have
answered the call to fight in Syria. "Early this
year, at least 100 ( Sunni) men from North
Lebanon were killed in Qalaat al Hosn, in
Homs," said a military source speaking on
condition of anonymity. They belonged to
Jund al Cham, an al-Qaeda style organisation.
On the other hand, security estimates point to
the involvement of over 5,000 Hezbollah
fighters in Syria. A source close to the
militant organisation believes that at least
500 of its members have been killed in Syria.
"My place is secured in heaven if I die ( in
Syria) and my family taken care of," says
Abou Ali, who has been deployed several
times in Qussayr, Qalamoun and Damascus.
Abou Ali , like many other fighters from
Hezbollah, argues that he is defending his
community, his religious beliefs and his sect's
dignity.
Sunni and Shiite religious narratives used in
the Syrian war are reminiscent of an enmity
over 14 centuries old. In several speeches,
Hezbollah figures have revived fears rooted
in the events that led to the Sunni/Muslim
schism, invoking the protection of Shiite
religious shrines, namely that of Sayyeda
Zeinab, to justify their involvement in Syria.
Zeinab was the daughter of Imam Ali, who is
revered by Shiites, and Fatima, who was the
daughter of prophet Muhammad.
"There is no better satisfaction than dying
fighting to protect the religious shrine of Sit
Zeynab," says another Hezbollah fighter on
condition of anonymity. This discourse has
been reinforced in many Shiite minds by
scenes of beheading perpetrated by rebel
groups.
In a recent interview with a Free Syria Army
fighter on the Lebanese border of the Syrian
Qalamoun region, the fighter , a secular man,
admitted that rebels often resorted to this
tactic to make "an example of traitors",
regardless of whether they belonged to
regime forces or to Hezbollah. For Shiites
nonetheless, these beheadings are a stark
reminder of the beheading of Hussein,
Zeinab's brother, during the Battle of
Karbala.
Religious ideology has served as a magnet for
both Shiite and Sunni fighters willing to give
up their life for the Syrian "religious" cause.
A recent report by the International Centre
for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) at
King's College in London put the number of
foreign Sunni jihadists at about 10,000. The
same can be said of Shiite fighters fuelling
the war in Syria, which has attracted Shiites
from Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.
According to Michael Knights, an expert from
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
(WINEP), a think tank that was spun off from
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), there are between 800 and 2,000
Iraqi Shiites in Syria which, including
Hezbollah, would put the number of Shiite
fighters at no less than 6,000 militants.
Armageddon ideology used in the Syria
conflict has fanned Shiite-Sunni fires in
Lebanon as well as across the region.
Reducing the conflict there to a battle within
Islam, as portrayed by jihadists on one side
and by Hezbollah on the other, could portend
a greater conflict that would wreak havoc in
region where the Muslim divide runs deep,
and religious identities prevail over
nationalism.
Lebanese militants have relied on similar
arguments to justify what they perceive as a
never-ending war of convictions, which poses
great dangers in a region where self-
identities are shaped by belief instead of
citizenship.
On this cold morning, a cortege of vehicles
headed by a car covered in coloured flower
arrangements drives through the busy streets
of Dahieh – a bastion of Shiite Hezbollah –
surrounded by militants carrying
Kalashnikovs.
Every few minutes, a staccato of gunfire is
followed by ululations, as men dressed in
fatigues wave the yellow banners of the Party
of God. "Labayka Ya Hussein", says one
militant, invoking Hussein whose martyrdom
is a widely spread symbol among Shiites.3
What appears like a wedding procession is in
fact the funeral of a Hezbollah fighter killed
in Syria. Surprisingly, the funerals of Shiite
Hezbollah fighters bear a striking
resemblance to the "martyrs' weddings" of
Sunni jihadists organised in Palestinian
camps in Lebanon or Jordan, during which
confectionery and juices are generously
distributed.
The strong similarities between funeral
processions of Sunni and Shiite fighters killed
in Syria and staged as celebrations underline
the converging views on jihad of the two
groups, at odds since the beginning of the
Syria war in which Sunnis support the
rebellion and Shiites fight alongside the
regime of President Bachar Assad, a member
of the Alawite community, a Shiite sect.
For both Shiite and Sunni jihadists, the fight
in Syria was initially motivated by the desire
to protect their fellow coreligionists. "We
fight to defend the children and women being
slaughtered by the Assad regime," said Abu
Horeira, a Lebanese jihadist from Tripoli who
fought in Qussayr. In April 2013, Sayed
Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, relied
on a similar analogy, promising to defend the
Lebanese Shiite inhabitants of Al-Qusayr:
"We will not abandon the Lebanese residents
of Al-Qusayr."
As the battles in Syria increased in intensity,
the political discourse of jihadists in Lebanon
further polarised, with religious motivations
coming to the fore. "Religious arguments are
often used to appeal to the masses," says
Shiite cleric Sayed Hani Fahs.
Lebanese sheikhs on both sides of the divide
have relied on religious text to provide a
rationale for their call for Jihad, which is
mentioned over 150 times in the Quran, the
sacred book of both Sunnis and Shiites.
"Jihad in Syria is an obligation for all
Sunnis," said Salafi Sheikh Omar Bakri, in a
previous interview. While Hezbollah has not
officially called for jihad, fighters such as unit
commander Abou Ali have reported that
"everyone who goes to fight in Syria has
received a taklif sharii (a religious
command)."
Militants from the capital Beirut, the Bekaa
and Tripoli, both Shiites and Sunnis, have
answered the call to fight in Syria. "Early this
year, at least 100 ( Sunni) men from North
Lebanon were killed in Qalaat al Hosn, in
Homs," said a military source speaking on
condition of anonymity. They belonged to
Jund al Cham, an al-Qaeda style organisation.
On the other hand, security estimates point to
the involvement of over 5,000 Hezbollah
fighters in Syria. A source close to the
militant organisation believes that at least
500 of its members have been killed in Syria.
"My place is secured in heaven if I die ( in
Syria) and my family taken care of," says
Abou Ali, who has been deployed several
times in Qussayr, Qalamoun and Damascus.
Abou Ali , like many other fighters from
Hezbollah, argues that he is defending his
community, his religious beliefs and his sect's
dignity.
Sunni and Shiite religious narratives used in
the Syrian war are reminiscent of an enmity
over 14 centuries old. In several speeches,
Hezbollah figures have revived fears rooted
in the events that led to the Sunni/Muslim
schism, invoking the protection of Shiite
religious shrines, namely that of Sayyeda
Zeinab, to justify their involvement in Syria.
Zeinab was the daughter of Imam Ali, who is
revered by Shiites, and Fatima, who was the
daughter of prophet Muhammad.
"There is no better satisfaction than dying
fighting to protect the religious shrine of Sit
Zeynab," says another Hezbollah fighter on
condition of anonymity. This discourse has
been reinforced in many Shiite minds by
scenes of beheading perpetrated by rebel
groups.
In a recent interview with a Free Syria Army
fighter on the Lebanese border of the Syrian
Qalamoun region, the fighter , a secular man,
admitted that rebels often resorted to this
tactic to make "an example of traitors",
regardless of whether they belonged to
regime forces or to Hezbollah. For Shiites
nonetheless, these beheadings are a stark
reminder of the beheading of Hussein,
Zeinab's brother, during the Battle of
Karbala.
Religious ideology has served as a magnet for
both Shiite and Sunni fighters willing to give
up their life for the Syrian "religious" cause.
A recent report by the International Centre
for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) at
King's College in London put the number of
foreign Sunni jihadists at about 10,000. The
same can be said of Shiite fighters fuelling
the war in Syria, which has attracted Shiites
from Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.
According to Michael Knights, an expert from
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
(WINEP), a think tank that was spun off from
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), there are between 800 and 2,000
Iraqi Shiites in Syria which, including
Hezbollah, would put the number of Shiite
fighters at no less than 6,000 militants.
Armageddon ideology used in the Syria
conflict has fanned Shiite-Sunni fires in
Lebanon as well as across the region.
Reducing the conflict there to a battle within
Islam, as portrayed by jihadists on one side
and by Hezbollah on the other, could portend
a greater conflict that would wreak havoc in
region where the Muslim divide runs deep,
and religious identities prevail over
nationalism.
4 Jun 2014
EVERYONE IS GOD
What has always historically been the unbelievable truth
has today finally become the inescapable truth. What in
the past could only be spoken of in parables can now
be spoken directly and what in the past could only be
described in part can now be described more fully.
This section deals with the idea that a person's real
identity is ultimately God. Or put another way it is to
say that when a person truly experiences herself or
himself as God, then this is not some illusion. Rather
the experience of becoming God is to see things as they
really are. It is the discovery of our true nature and the
realization that it is material physical existence that is
really illusory. When we see beyond the appearances of
'normal' physical reality then we are no longer trapped
in the delusion that we are our physical bodies. We see
that our real identity transcends the material. So
instead of seeing ourselves as a person trapped in a
physical body, gazing out upon a vast impersonal
universe; instead we come to understand that we are
God living through a person gazing out and reflecting
upon itself, that is the Universe, that is God.
Many people are familiar with the idea of the 'Christ
within'. In Hinduism's premier holy text the Bhagavad
Gita we have the 'Krishna within', and the Koran tells us
that Allah is 'closer than your jugular vein'. The
Buddhist scriptures talk about the Buddha within and
correspondingly the Adi Granth, which is the Sikh holy
text, describes that 'the one God is all pervading and
alone dwells in the Mind'. Though many religious people
know the idea that God is to be found within them, they
imagine that somehow a small and divided piece of God
is inside them or perhaps that all it means is that there
is some aspect of God within us. However other
passages in the scriptures of the World's religions also
clearly state that God is indeed within us, but also that
God is undivided, indivisible and always one. For
instance this idea is clearly stated in the Bhagavad Gita
in the following passage...
'Although the Supersoul [i.e. God within], appears to be
divided, He is never divided. He is situated as one.' -
Bhagavad Gita Chap 13, verse 17
Also the idea that God is an indivisible unity, forms one
of the central tenets of the so called monotheistic
religions i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is
confirmed in what is referred to in the Bible as the
greatest commandment, also known as the 'schema',
which begins like this...
'Hear O Israel, the lord your God the lord is One...' -
Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4
So it is always the oneness and totality of God that is
to found within each and every one of us. This is the
mystery of the 'all in all', an idea that is expressed
several times in the New Testament and also one that
is found in the Bhagavad Gita, as the following passage
demonstrates...
'The man whose self is disciplined in yoga, whose
perception is the same everywhere, sees himself in all
creatures and all creatures in himself.' - Bhagavad Gita
6:29
Also related to this idea of the 'all in all' or the idea
that within a person is to be found all of existence, is
the mystery of the kingdom of Heaven. For it is stated
in the Bible that this is to be found inside you, as
described by Jesus in gospels. As it says in the
Gospels...
"The kingdom of God does not come with your careful
observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is' or 'There it
is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." - Bible,
Luke 17:21
has today finally become the inescapable truth. What in
the past could only be spoken of in parables can now
be spoken directly and what in the past could only be
described in part can now be described more fully.
This section deals with the idea that a person's real
identity is ultimately God. Or put another way it is to
say that when a person truly experiences herself or
himself as God, then this is not some illusion. Rather
the experience of becoming God is to see things as they
really are. It is the discovery of our true nature and the
realization that it is material physical existence that is
really illusory. When we see beyond the appearances of
'normal' physical reality then we are no longer trapped
in the delusion that we are our physical bodies. We see
that our real identity transcends the material. So
instead of seeing ourselves as a person trapped in a
physical body, gazing out upon a vast impersonal
universe; instead we come to understand that we are
God living through a person gazing out and reflecting
upon itself, that is the Universe, that is God.
Many people are familiar with the idea of the 'Christ
within'. In Hinduism's premier holy text the Bhagavad
Gita we have the 'Krishna within', and the Koran tells us
that Allah is 'closer than your jugular vein'. The
Buddhist scriptures talk about the Buddha within and
correspondingly the Adi Granth, which is the Sikh holy
text, describes that 'the one God is all pervading and
alone dwells in the Mind'. Though many religious people
know the idea that God is to be found within them, they
imagine that somehow a small and divided piece of God
is inside them or perhaps that all it means is that there
is some aspect of God within us. However other
passages in the scriptures of the World's religions also
clearly state that God is indeed within us, but also that
God is undivided, indivisible and always one. For
instance this idea is clearly stated in the Bhagavad Gita
in the following passage...
'Although the Supersoul [i.e. God within], appears to be
divided, He is never divided. He is situated as one.' -
Bhagavad Gita Chap 13, verse 17
Also the idea that God is an indivisible unity, forms one
of the central tenets of the so called monotheistic
religions i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is
confirmed in what is referred to in the Bible as the
greatest commandment, also known as the 'schema',
which begins like this...
'Hear O Israel, the lord your God the lord is One...' -
Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4
So it is always the oneness and totality of God that is
to found within each and every one of us. This is the
mystery of the 'all in all', an idea that is expressed
several times in the New Testament and also one that
is found in the Bhagavad Gita, as the following passage
demonstrates...
'The man whose self is disciplined in yoga, whose
perception is the same everywhere, sees himself in all
creatures and all creatures in himself.' - Bhagavad Gita
6:29
Also related to this idea of the 'all in all' or the idea
that within a person is to be found all of existence, is
the mystery of the kingdom of Heaven. For it is stated
in the Bible that this is to be found inside you, as
described by Jesus in gospels. As it says in the
Gospels...
"The kingdom of God does not come with your careful
observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is' or 'There it
is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." - Bible,
Luke 17:21
GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
We'll now talk about another major issue in relation to
the Coming One World Order. It concerns the distinct
possibility that all of humanity is being brought together
into an all encompassing and planet wide tyranny. This
is a serious problem if the entire human race is brought
under the control of a tiny self serving minority at the
expense of individual freedoms and the greater good of
the majority. The modern economic system is one where
the rich tend to become even richer and further
consolidate and extend their economic power through
the exercising of political power. In a world where
political power is increasingly self serving, gained
through financial power and used for financial gain, then
certainly it is true that economic power also buys
political power. It would appear that we are perhaps
heading towards a corrupt One world tyranny, headed by
a dynastic elite, who may one day have total control
over the Political, Judicial, Economic, Law enforcement
and Military institutions of the entire World; perhaps
even key Religious ones as well.
This may seem the stuff of conspiracy theories but
without a doubt economic and political advantage is
gained through unscrupulous and devious means which
have to be kept secret from the wider public. For
example, through the creation of wars accompanied by
lucrative sale of arms and/or financing of these
conflicts; through the over throw of foreign governments
followed by the installation of 'friendly' regimes and
also through the formation of secret societies and
cabals which serve the interests of its members at the
expense of non members and the common good.
However it is true that a part of the human makeup is a
certain fixation on power, influence and status. And
certainly humans spend a lot of time, energy and
resources to come up with ways and means to gain
power over other humans. So if we take this human
tendency, extrapolate it to a global scale and take it to
its logical conclusion, then it is not unreasonable to
conjecture that there are those who, if given the
opportunity, would like to rule the World. Also given that
the World is gradually becoming one economically and
politically integrated unit, together with all the
ingenious, corrupt and conspiratorial means through
which power may be obtained, extended and
consolidated; then an evil self serving world tyranny is
definitely a distinct possibility.
the Coming One World Order. It concerns the distinct
possibility that all of humanity is being brought together
into an all encompassing and planet wide tyranny. This
is a serious problem if the entire human race is brought
under the control of a tiny self serving minority at the
expense of individual freedoms and the greater good of
the majority. The modern economic system is one where
the rich tend to become even richer and further
consolidate and extend their economic power through
the exercising of political power. In a world where
political power is increasingly self serving, gained
through financial power and used for financial gain, then
certainly it is true that economic power also buys
political power. It would appear that we are perhaps
heading towards a corrupt One world tyranny, headed by
a dynastic elite, who may one day have total control
over the Political, Judicial, Economic, Law enforcement
and Military institutions of the entire World; perhaps
even key Religious ones as well.
This may seem the stuff of conspiracy theories but
without a doubt economic and political advantage is
gained through unscrupulous and devious means which
have to be kept secret from the wider public. For
example, through the creation of wars accompanied by
lucrative sale of arms and/or financing of these
conflicts; through the over throw of foreign governments
followed by the installation of 'friendly' regimes and
also through the formation of secret societies and
cabals which serve the interests of its members at the
expense of non members and the common good.
However it is true that a part of the human makeup is a
certain fixation on power, influence and status. And
certainly humans spend a lot of time, energy and
resources to come up with ways and means to gain
power over other humans. So if we take this human
tendency, extrapolate it to a global scale and take it to
its logical conclusion, then it is not unreasonable to
conjecture that there are those who, if given the
opportunity, would like to rule the World. Also given that
the World is gradually becoming one economically and
politically integrated unit, together with all the
ingenious, corrupt and conspiratorial means through
which power may be obtained, extended and
consolidated; then an evil self serving world tyranny is
definitely a distinct possibility.
THE NEW AGE AND OCCULT
With the abandonment of many of the traditional
religious beliefs held by a great many of the people it is
natural, considering the spiritual needs humans have,
that new ideas should emerge to take their place. The
past few centuries have witnessed a rapid proliferation
in the number of new religious movements, sects and
cults. The weakening hold that traditional religious
institutions have had over people as a direct result of
the challenge of Scientific Rationalism, has led to
opportunities for new world views and beliefs to
flourish. While from the time of the Enlightenment
onwards, many have opted for an Atheistic Secular
Humanist outlook, at the same time many others have
rejected this world view absent of spirit and devoid of
God. Instead this longing for an alternative spirituality
has led to the popularity of the New Age, the Occult and
other spiritual movements in the form of fringe cults.
There is diversity here that is myriad and would
comprise things like Theosophy, Mormonism,
Scientology, Moonies, Witchcraft, Wicca, UFO cults,
Satanism to Magic, Fairies and Crystals energies. While
benefit may be derived by some of the adherents of
these sorts of beliefs, at the same time all that glitters
isn’t gold. While religion and the spiritual outlook has
always involved a degree of suspension of disbelief, and
an openness to unexplained mysteries taken on faith,
some of the ideas making the rounds on the New Age
circuit or the world of Cults, lend credence to statement
by the writer G.K. Chesterton who famously said that,
‘When a man stops believing in God then he doesn’t
believe in nothing, he believes in anything’.
Also, a flaw in the whole New Age enterprise is that due
to its rampant commercialism and fixation on material
gain, there is a tendency for the prophets of the New
Age to tell people what they want to hear rather than
what they need to know, in order to sell more books,
workshops and merchandise. All too often New Age
gurus are less interested in freeing the Spirit, rather
more focused on liberating the contents of peoples
wallets.
Taken together these spiritual problems of the present
age, i.e the falling away from religion into Atheism, the
emergence of Religious Fundamentalism and the
degeneration of spirituality into certain aspects of the
New Age and the world of Cults, can be seen as a
general decline in World Religion. The age of reason and
the rise of Secular Humanism has brought with it an age
of spiritual darkness, as characterized by the process of
Secularization, the rise of Religious Fundamentalism,
Cults and fringe Sects; along with the superficiality, not
to mention the crass commercialism of the New Age.
religious beliefs held by a great many of the people it is
natural, considering the spiritual needs humans have,
that new ideas should emerge to take their place. The
past few centuries have witnessed a rapid proliferation
in the number of new religious movements, sects and
cults. The weakening hold that traditional religious
institutions have had over people as a direct result of
the challenge of Scientific Rationalism, has led to
opportunities for new world views and beliefs to
flourish. While from the time of the Enlightenment
onwards, many have opted for an Atheistic Secular
Humanist outlook, at the same time many others have
rejected this world view absent of spirit and devoid of
God. Instead this longing for an alternative spirituality
has led to the popularity of the New Age, the Occult and
other spiritual movements in the form of fringe cults.
There is diversity here that is myriad and would
comprise things like Theosophy, Mormonism,
Scientology, Moonies, Witchcraft, Wicca, UFO cults,
Satanism to Magic, Fairies and Crystals energies. While
benefit may be derived by some of the adherents of
these sorts of beliefs, at the same time all that glitters
isn’t gold. While religion and the spiritual outlook has
always involved a degree of suspension of disbelief, and
an openness to unexplained mysteries taken on faith,
some of the ideas making the rounds on the New Age
circuit or the world of Cults, lend credence to statement
by the writer G.K. Chesterton who famously said that,
‘When a man stops believing in God then he doesn’t
believe in nothing, he believes in anything’.
Also, a flaw in the whole New Age enterprise is that due
to its rampant commercialism and fixation on material
gain, there is a tendency for the prophets of the New
Age to tell people what they want to hear rather than
what they need to know, in order to sell more books,
workshops and merchandise. All too often New Age
gurus are less interested in freeing the Spirit, rather
more focused on liberating the contents of peoples
wallets.
Taken together these spiritual problems of the present
age, i.e the falling away from religion into Atheism, the
emergence of Religious Fundamentalism and the
degeneration of spirituality into certain aspects of the
New Age and the world of Cults, can be seen as a
general decline in World Religion. The age of reason and
the rise of Secular Humanism has brought with it an age
of spiritual darkness, as characterized by the process of
Secularization, the rise of Religious Fundamentalism,
Cults and fringe Sects; along with the superficiality, not
to mention the crass commercialism of the New Age.
GLOBAL TERRORISM
We are faced with the problem of Global Terrorism which
has been called the shadow of the process of
Globalization. As the world is becoming one place, so it
is that the effects of terrorism have global effects. Also
it may be understood that the causes of this global
terrorism are likewise global in nature, with disaffected
individuals and groups caught up in ideologies of global
scope and participating in causes that transcend
international and even inter-continental barriers. We see
this particularly in the Muslim world, where issues in
Palestine, Bosnia, Afghanistan or Iraq can mobilize
people on the other side of the world to want to make
interventions. This process is followed by international
powers such as the United States, which in order to
protect its people and economic interests, is compelled
to make its own global interventions to counteract
perceived threats and in the process perhaps
exacerbating the problems these measures were
designed to remedy in the first place.
has been called the shadow of the process of
Globalization. As the world is becoming one place, so it
is that the effects of terrorism have global effects. Also
it may be understood that the causes of this global
terrorism are likewise global in nature, with disaffected
individuals and groups caught up in ideologies of global
scope and participating in causes that transcend
international and even inter-continental barriers. We see
this particularly in the Muslim world, where issues in
Palestine, Bosnia, Afghanistan or Iraq can mobilize
people on the other side of the world to want to make
interventions. This process is followed by international
powers such as the United States, which in order to
protect its people and economic interests, is compelled
to make its own global interventions to counteract
perceived threats and in the process perhaps
exacerbating the problems these measures were
designed to remedy in the first place.
OIL, GAS AND URANIUM AT ITS PEAK
A serious problem looming over the horizon is that of
fuel shortages due to the peaking in production and
subsequent decline in output of three of the Worlds
most important energy sources, that is Oil, Gas and
Uranium Ore. The Worlds output of all these
commodities is described by what’s known as the
Hubbert Curve, which describes how the output of each
of these energy resources will peak at a certain point in
time but thereafter production of the commodity go into
terminal decline. At the same time the World demand for
the same commodity will either grow or remain constant
thereby producing a supply shortfall, pushing up prices
and producing a state of scarcity for that resource. This
can lead to Political instability, Economic problems and
even War when countries use force of arms to try to
secure their energy supplies. The dates for these
eventualities are around 2010 for Peak Oil, though some
commentators think we have already got there. The
estimates for the time of Peak Gas range from around
2020 to 2030 and that for Peak Uranium at around 2025
to 2035.
fuel shortages due to the peaking in production and
subsequent decline in output of three of the Worlds
most important energy sources, that is Oil, Gas and
Uranium Ore. The Worlds output of all these
commodities is described by what’s known as the
Hubbert Curve, which describes how the output of each
of these energy resources will peak at a certain point in
time but thereafter production of the commodity go into
terminal decline. At the same time the World demand for
the same commodity will either grow or remain constant
thereby producing a supply shortfall, pushing up prices
and producing a state of scarcity for that resource. This
can lead to Political instability, Economic problems and
even War when countries use force of arms to try to
secure their energy supplies. The dates for these
eventualities are around 2010 for Peak Oil, though some
commentators think we have already got there. The
estimates for the time of Peak Gas range from around
2020 to 2030 and that for Peak Uranium at around 2025
to 2035.
WATER SCARCITY
A problem that is related to Global Warming concerns
the availability of water resources to the worlds people.
It has been estimated by the United Nations that due to
population growth, pollution and global warming the
average persons water supply will be cut by a third over
the next 20 years. This would be a major inconvenience
in the developed and industrialized countries but in the
Third World where 90% of the water supply is used for
agriculture, the consequences will be disastrous. Even in
Australia which at the time of writing this, is in a
drought that has lasted 6 years, is facing the ruin of
large swathes of its agricultural industry. It has been
said by strategists that in the future wars will be fought
over water, this most essential of requirements for
sustaining life. For instance, King Abdullah of Jordan
has said ‘future potential conflict in our area is not over
land, it is over water.' It is a certainty that the problems
deriving from water scarcity will increase sharply over
the years to come.
the availability of water resources to the worlds people.
It has been estimated by the United Nations that due to
population growth, pollution and global warming the
average persons water supply will be cut by a third over
the next 20 years. This would be a major inconvenience
in the developed and industrialized countries but in the
Third World where 90% of the water supply is used for
agriculture, the consequences will be disastrous. Even in
Australia which at the time of writing this, is in a
drought that has lasted 6 years, is facing the ruin of
large swathes of its agricultural industry. It has been
said by strategists that in the future wars will be fought
over water, this most essential of requirements for
sustaining life. For instance, King Abdullah of Jordan
has said ‘future potential conflict in our area is not over
land, it is over water.' It is a certainty that the problems
deriving from water scarcity will increase sharply over
the years to come.
GLOBAL WARMING
Another major problem that looms on the horizon and
one that probably is already upon us and exerting its
effects, is the phenomenon of Global Warming. It can be
argued endlessly whether Global Warming is man made
or whether it's a naturally occurring phenomenon,
however the empirical evidence certainly shows that
Global Warming is indeed occurring. This is made
manifest in the melting glaciers and polar ice caps, the
increase in hurricane activity (with category 4 and 5
hurricanes, the most intense, doubling in frequency over
the past 50 years), changing rainfall patterns and of
course the actual increases in measured surface
temperatures.
The majority verdict of the scientific community points
towards the notion that Global Warming is at least
partly man made and brought about through the
emissions of so called green house gases such as
methane and carbon dioxide, which causes the earths
atmosphere to retain more heat. Also based on
computer climate models, it is projected that Global
Warming will continue with potentially dire
consequences for vast numbers of people living on this
planet. These predictions vary with some scenarios
describing temperature rises of 1 or 2 degrees
centigrade coupled with sea level rises of 80cm or so.
Other models predict temperature rises of 3 to 5 degrees
centigrade coupled with sea level rises of 7m! At the
extreme end we find truly doomsday scenarios where
the earths atmosphere is changed to such an extent
that it becomes similar to that of the planet Venus, with
surface temperatures way above the boiling point of
water, that is 250 degrees celsius together with
sulphuric acid rain. Though seemingly far fetched, the
world renowned scientist Stephen Hawking cited this
scenario as a distinct future possibility.
Even without considering these future predictions we are
already being affected by climate change in a way that
is detrimental to human life and well-being. It is
estimated that over 27,000 died as a direct result of the
2003 freak heat wave that was experienced over
Western Europe. Those that died were many the very
old and the very young. The deaths that have resulted
from crop failures in The Third World, brought about as
an indirect consequence of climate change, may number
into the millions. Hurricane Katrina which a few years
ago hit the Southern coastal city of New Orleans in the
USA is estimated to have killed over 1000 people.
one that probably is already upon us and exerting its
effects, is the phenomenon of Global Warming. It can be
argued endlessly whether Global Warming is man made
or whether it's a naturally occurring phenomenon,
however the empirical evidence certainly shows that
Global Warming is indeed occurring. This is made
manifest in the melting glaciers and polar ice caps, the
increase in hurricane activity (with category 4 and 5
hurricanes, the most intense, doubling in frequency over
the past 50 years), changing rainfall patterns and of
course the actual increases in measured surface
temperatures.
The majority verdict of the scientific community points
towards the notion that Global Warming is at least
partly man made and brought about through the
emissions of so called green house gases such as
methane and carbon dioxide, which causes the earths
atmosphere to retain more heat. Also based on
computer climate models, it is projected that Global
Warming will continue with potentially dire
consequences for vast numbers of people living on this
planet. These predictions vary with some scenarios
describing temperature rises of 1 or 2 degrees
centigrade coupled with sea level rises of 80cm or so.
Other models predict temperature rises of 3 to 5 degrees
centigrade coupled with sea level rises of 7m! At the
extreme end we find truly doomsday scenarios where
the earths atmosphere is changed to such an extent
that it becomes similar to that of the planet Venus, with
surface temperatures way above the boiling point of
water, that is 250 degrees celsius together with
sulphuric acid rain. Though seemingly far fetched, the
world renowned scientist Stephen Hawking cited this
scenario as a distinct future possibility.
Even without considering these future predictions we are
already being affected by climate change in a way that
is detrimental to human life and well-being. It is
estimated that over 27,000 died as a direct result of the
2003 freak heat wave that was experienced over
Western Europe. Those that died were many the very
old and the very young. The deaths that have resulted
from crop failures in The Third World, brought about as
an indirect consequence of climate change, may number
into the millions. Hurricane Katrina which a few years
ago hit the Southern coastal city of New Orleans in the
USA is estimated to have killed over 1000 people.
A PLANET IN PERIL
It is generally acknowledged that in the World today
there are potentially calamitous problems relating to
environmental destruction, resource depletion, global
warming and over population. The natural resources of
this planet, its forests, fisheries and crop lands are
already being used at such a rate that is unsustainable.
We are already using the planets renewable resources
faster than what the planet can replenish. This trend is
related to the ongoing and accelerating process of
species extinction and the destruction of natural
habitats such as the tropical rainforests, whole ocean
ecosystems, rivers and coastal wetlands. This gradual
destruction of the earths biosphere, its animal and plant
species together with their complex webs of self
sustenance, is certainly set to continue as human
population growth and increased economic activity
imposes more pressures on the planetary ecosystem.
The worlds population at an estimated 7 billion people
today, is projected to grow to over 10 billion people as
early as 2050. This is coupled with massive growth in
economic activity lead by the surging economies of
China and India and further boosted by economic
growth in the rest of the World as well. If the Planet is
already struggling to cope with the demands placed
upon it by the human race currently, when we also
factor in these other considerations, then certainly we
are heading for some interesting times. The United
Nations Environment Programme and the World Wildlife
Fund for Nature issued a joint report in 2000 that said,
'The World's seas, fresh waters, forests and croplands
are being exploited at such a rate that nothing will be
left by 2075'. Also food shortages and food price hikes
that were experienced by the World in 2008 may be the
shape of things to come.
ONE NATION IS STILL POSSIBLE
My wife and I currently are on a book tour
by bus through several states, and I have
been struck by the number of people who
already have read "One Nation," but also by
the large, enthusiastic crowds whose
constituents include all political parties.
People are concerned about our future as a
nation and the poor prioritization of issues
by our leaders, to put it mildly.
We wrote "One Nation" to convince our
fellow Americans that "we the people" are not
enemies and that our strength is derived
from unity and common sense, which should
be ubiquitous. The real enemies are the
forces that are constantly trying to divide and
conquer. They create divisions based on race,
gender, age, education and, especially,
income. It is important that we discuss who
the purveyors of division are and what drives
them to seek a radical alteration of the
American way of life.
We discuss the tools used to manipulate the
populace into feeling that they should be
offended so easily by words, while diverting
their attention away from the real issues that
desperately cry out for a solution. One of the
major keys to avoiding manipulation is
knowledge. Our system of government was
designed for people who could easily
understand the issues and vote intelligently
based on knowledge, rather than blindly
following political leaders who are often
enshrouded with less than honorable motives.
One of the book's major themes is that
knowledge is a formidable enemy of
falsehood and a formidable ally of truth.
There are specific steps that each of us can
take, such as reading about something new
for a half-hour every day for a year. Such a
simple move will profoundly change the life
of the reader and will vastly increase their
effectiveness as an involved and responsible
citizen.
In today's world of widely disseminated
information, a person rapidly can become
knowledgeable in a variety of areas,
regardless of his occupation.
The greatest concerns of the people we are
encountering on the road revolve around the
future of their children and grandchildren as
we continue along the path of government
growth and escalating expenditure of
taxpayer money, essentially ensuring that
future generations have lives characterized
by significantly reduced economic freedom.
The lessons are abundant in America and
throughout the world regarding the
consequences of prolonged fiscal
irresponsibility. Also, historical records are
replete with accounts of the self-destruction
of nations, driven by national debt. Many of
our leaders are complacent about our
precarious financial state because people
seem more interested in reality television and
sporting events than in our imminent
financial collapse. Once again, history
informs us that national leaders seldom
recognize and act upon economic warnings
before disaster occurs.
I think the majority of the American people
know we are rapidly approaching the fiscal
cliff, and they are concerned but not
panicked. It is not too late for people of all
political stripes to put partisan bickering
aside and join forces to combat the
unsustainable debt that threatens our future.
It also is not too late for responsible voters to
notice which leaders refuse to seriously
engage in such endeavors and remove them
from office.
It doesn't matter to me that those who despise
my warnings will say I'm only promoting my
book and trying to make money. From their
perspective, they are probably incapable of
understanding motives that would differ from
theirs. Regardless of what they say, November
2014 will bring perhaps the most
consequential midterm elections in history.
Combined with the elections of 2016, "we the
people" will determine whether traditional
American values and traditional
interpretations of our Constitution are
important to us, or whether we prefer to
continue down the path of ever-increasing
government control of everything, including
our lives. Books such as "One Nation: What
We Can All Do To Save America's Future"
will, by the grace of God, ensure that we go
into that election process with our eyes open.
Not only are there no enemies among us, but
we can and must come together to recapture
the values that made us an exceptional
nation. We must use our intellect and energy
to unleash the most powerful economic
engine the world has ever known. Then we
must concentrate on opening the pathways of
personal empowerment to the millions of
Americans who feel forgotten. Instead of
restraining them in positions of dependency,
we must provide clear pathways to self-
improvement. We can help those who have
made mistakes that make it difficult for them
to pursue an education by providing a
reasonable amount of money for day care.
By demonstrating true compassion as dictated
by Judeo-Christian values, we can make
America a place of dreams and success for
everyone. We must remember that freedom
is not free, and all of us must be involved in
its maintenance.
by bus through several states, and I have
been struck by the number of people who
already have read "One Nation," but also by
the large, enthusiastic crowds whose
constituents include all political parties.
People are concerned about our future as a
nation and the poor prioritization of issues
by our leaders, to put it mildly.
We wrote "One Nation" to convince our
fellow Americans that "we the people" are not
enemies and that our strength is derived
from unity and common sense, which should
be ubiquitous. The real enemies are the
forces that are constantly trying to divide and
conquer. They create divisions based on race,
gender, age, education and, especially,
income. It is important that we discuss who
the purveyors of division are and what drives
them to seek a radical alteration of the
American way of life.
We discuss the tools used to manipulate the
populace into feeling that they should be
offended so easily by words, while diverting
their attention away from the real issues that
desperately cry out for a solution. One of the
major keys to avoiding manipulation is
knowledge. Our system of government was
designed for people who could easily
understand the issues and vote intelligently
based on knowledge, rather than blindly
following political leaders who are often
enshrouded with less than honorable motives.
One of the book's major themes is that
knowledge is a formidable enemy of
falsehood and a formidable ally of truth.
There are specific steps that each of us can
take, such as reading about something new
for a half-hour every day for a year. Such a
simple move will profoundly change the life
of the reader and will vastly increase their
effectiveness as an involved and responsible
citizen.
In today's world of widely disseminated
information, a person rapidly can become
knowledgeable in a variety of areas,
regardless of his occupation.
The greatest concerns of the people we are
encountering on the road revolve around the
future of their children and grandchildren as
we continue along the path of government
growth and escalating expenditure of
taxpayer money, essentially ensuring that
future generations have lives characterized
by significantly reduced economic freedom.
The lessons are abundant in America and
throughout the world regarding the
consequences of prolonged fiscal
irresponsibility. Also, historical records are
replete with accounts of the self-destruction
of nations, driven by national debt. Many of
our leaders are complacent about our
precarious financial state because people
seem more interested in reality television and
sporting events than in our imminent
financial collapse. Once again, history
informs us that national leaders seldom
recognize and act upon economic warnings
before disaster occurs.
I think the majority of the American people
know we are rapidly approaching the fiscal
cliff, and they are concerned but not
panicked. It is not too late for people of all
political stripes to put partisan bickering
aside and join forces to combat the
unsustainable debt that threatens our future.
It also is not too late for responsible voters to
notice which leaders refuse to seriously
engage in such endeavors and remove them
from office.
It doesn't matter to me that those who despise
my warnings will say I'm only promoting my
book and trying to make money. From their
perspective, they are probably incapable of
understanding motives that would differ from
theirs. Regardless of what they say, November
2014 will bring perhaps the most
consequential midterm elections in history.
Combined with the elections of 2016, "we the
people" will determine whether traditional
American values and traditional
interpretations of our Constitution are
important to us, or whether we prefer to
continue down the path of ever-increasing
government control of everything, including
our lives. Books such as "One Nation: What
We Can All Do To Save America's Future"
will, by the grace of God, ensure that we go
into that election process with our eyes open.
Not only are there no enemies among us, but
we can and must come together to recapture
the values that made us an exceptional
nation. We must use our intellect and energy
to unleash the most powerful economic
engine the world has ever known. Then we
must concentrate on opening the pathways of
personal empowerment to the millions of
Americans who feel forgotten. Instead of
restraining them in positions of dependency,
we must provide clear pathways to self-
improvement. We can help those who have
made mistakes that make it difficult for them
to pursue an education by providing a
reasonable amount of money for day care.
By demonstrating true compassion as dictated
by Judeo-Christian values, we can make
America a place of dreams and success for
everyone. We must remember that freedom
is not free, and all of us must be involved in
its maintenance.
POPULAR NONSENSE
"Young people are exploited!" "Income
mobility is down!" "Poor people are locked
into poverty!"
Those are samples of popular nonsense
peddled today.
Leftist economist Thomas Piketty's book
"Capital in the Twenty-First Century" has
been No. 1 on best-seller lists for weeks (with
400 pages of statistics, I assume "Capital" is
bought more often than it is read). Piketty
argues that investments grow faster than
wages and so the rich get richer far faster
than everyone else. He says we should impose
a wealth tax and 80 percent taxes on rich
people's incomes.
But Piketty's numbers mislead. It's true that
today the rich are richer than ever. And the
wealth gap between rich and poor has grown.
Now the top 1 percent own more assets than
the bottom 90 percent!
But focusing on this disparity ignores the fact
that over time, the rich and poor are not the
same people. Oprah Winfrey once was on
welfare. Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton was a
farmhand. When markets are free, poor
people can move out of their income group.
In America, income mobility, which matters
more than income inequality, has not really
diminished.
Economists at Harvard and Berkeley
crunched the numbers on 40 million tax
returns from 1971-2012 and discovered that
mobility is pretty much what The Pew
Charitable Trusts reported it was 30 years
ago.
Today, 64 percent of the people born to the
poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile
-- 11 percent rise all the way into the top
quintile. Meanwhile, 8 percent born to the
richest fifth fall all the way to the bottom
fifth. Sometimes great wealth makes kids lazy
and self-indulgent, and wrecks their lives
Also, the rich don't get rich at the expense of
the poor (unless they steal or collude with
government). The poor got richer, too. Yes,
over the last 30 years, incomes of rich people
grew by more than 200 percent, but
according to the Congressional Budget Office,
poor people gained 50 percent. That growth
should matter more than the disparity.
Piketty's data reveal times in our history
when income inequality decreased: during
world wars and depression. Do we want
more of that ?
It's right to worry about the plight of the
poor, but not everything done in their name
really helps them -- minimum wage laws, for
example.
I've had hundreds of employees whom I paid
nothing: student interns. Unpaid internships
were allowed for years, because it was
understood that interns learn by working. My
interns learned a lot. Many went on to
successful careers in journalism. One won a
Pulitzer Prize. Many said they learned more
working for me than at college (despite
$50,000 tuition). They benefited and I
benefited. Win-win.
So for years government ignored Labor
Department rules that decreed unpaid
internships legal only if an employer gets "no
immediate advantage" from the intern.
Geez, who wants that? Of course I got an
advantage from my interns. That's why I
employed them!
Recently, President Barack Obama's Labor
Department announced it would enforce the
internship rules, and some interns sued their
former employers, claiming internships were
"unfair." Charlie Rose forked over a quarter
of a million dollars. Word spread, so now
unpaid internships are vanishing.
Some people say it's good that unpaid
internships are gone, because they are unfair
to poor people, who can't afford volunteer
work. But getting rid of opportunities does
nothing to help anyone. Employers lose and
students lose.
Difficult as it can seem to make your own
way in this world without a phony
government promise that you'll be taken care
of, or that every job will pay at least $15 an
hour, success happens when markets are
relatively free. Individual initiative creates
new things, companies, job opportunities --
whole new ways of life -- that make the world
better for all of us.
Government "help" ends up doing harm.
Leave people free -- both as workers and
employers -- to pursue opportunities they find
worthwhile, and we will prosper in ways
government planners could never imagine.
mobility is down!" "Poor people are locked
into poverty!"
Those are samples of popular nonsense
peddled today.
Leftist economist Thomas Piketty's book
"Capital in the Twenty-First Century" has
been No. 1 on best-seller lists for weeks (with
400 pages of statistics, I assume "Capital" is
bought more often than it is read). Piketty
argues that investments grow faster than
wages and so the rich get richer far faster
than everyone else. He says we should impose
a wealth tax and 80 percent taxes on rich
people's incomes.
But Piketty's numbers mislead. It's true that
today the rich are richer than ever. And the
wealth gap between rich and poor has grown.
Now the top 1 percent own more assets than
the bottom 90 percent!
But focusing on this disparity ignores the fact
that over time, the rich and poor are not the
same people. Oprah Winfrey once was on
welfare. Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton was a
farmhand. When markets are free, poor
people can move out of their income group.
In America, income mobility, which matters
more than income inequality, has not really
diminished.
Economists at Harvard and Berkeley
crunched the numbers on 40 million tax
returns from 1971-2012 and discovered that
mobility is pretty much what The Pew
Charitable Trusts reported it was 30 years
ago.
Today, 64 percent of the people born to the
poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile
-- 11 percent rise all the way into the top
quintile. Meanwhile, 8 percent born to the
richest fifth fall all the way to the bottom
fifth. Sometimes great wealth makes kids lazy
and self-indulgent, and wrecks their lives
Also, the rich don't get rich at the expense of
the poor (unless they steal or collude with
government). The poor got richer, too. Yes,
over the last 30 years, incomes of rich people
grew by more than 200 percent, but
according to the Congressional Budget Office,
poor people gained 50 percent. That growth
should matter more than the disparity.
Piketty's data reveal times in our history
when income inequality decreased: during
world wars and depression. Do we want
more of that ?
It's right to worry about the plight of the
poor, but not everything done in their name
really helps them -- minimum wage laws, for
example.
I've had hundreds of employees whom I paid
nothing: student interns. Unpaid internships
were allowed for years, because it was
understood that interns learn by working. My
interns learned a lot. Many went on to
successful careers in journalism. One won a
Pulitzer Prize. Many said they learned more
working for me than at college (despite
$50,000 tuition). They benefited and I
benefited. Win-win.
So for years government ignored Labor
Department rules that decreed unpaid
internships legal only if an employer gets "no
immediate advantage" from the intern.
Geez, who wants that? Of course I got an
advantage from my interns. That's why I
employed them!
Recently, President Barack Obama's Labor
Department announced it would enforce the
internship rules, and some interns sued their
former employers, claiming internships were
"unfair." Charlie Rose forked over a quarter
of a million dollars. Word spread, so now
unpaid internships are vanishing.
Some people say it's good that unpaid
internships are gone, because they are unfair
to poor people, who can't afford volunteer
work. But getting rid of opportunities does
nothing to help anyone. Employers lose and
students lose.
Difficult as it can seem to make your own
way in this world without a phony
government promise that you'll be taken care
of, or that every job will pay at least $15 an
hour, success happens when markets are
relatively free. Individual initiative creates
new things, companies, job opportunities --
whole new ways of life -- that make the world
better for all of us.
Government "help" ends up doing harm.
Leave people free -- both as workers and
employers -- to pursue opportunities they find
worthwhile, and we will prosper in ways
government planners could never imagine.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: INCOMPETENT OR INTENTIONAL?
Even Democrats are beginning to yell
“incompetence!” And it’s a nightly refrain on
FOX News. Certainly we are seeing signs of
incompetence in the deplorable VA scandal.
And the rollout of ObamaCare was a world-
class case of “glitch.” Inquiring minds are still
asking what became of a half billion dollar
investment in Solyndra. That “green energy”
company went belly up. The fact that many of
its organizers were Obama contributors
should not attract any congressional
oversight, of course. Nothing to see here,
folks, just move on (dot org).
The other administration woes—from Fast &
Furious to Benghazi are even more troubling.
A proper investigation may tell us whether or
not vets died awaiting care at VA hospitals.
But we already know that Americans died
because of administration missteps in Mexico
and Libya.
So, for those inclined to yell INCOMPETENCE,
there is plenty to yell about. Still, it might be
wise to pause and reflect: Is competence
really the winning issue that some pundits
think it is?
The 2012 campaign for president was run
largely on the basis of executive competence.
Candidate Mitt Romney was famous for his
start-up of Bain Capital, for rescuing the 2002
Winter Olympics, and for running a taut ship
as Governor of Massachusetts. He may have
stumbled with Joe Sixpack when he said he
“liked to fire people” who don’t perform, but
there was an aura of quiet competence
circling all the bright young folks who rallied
to Mitt’s campaign apparat.
Most impressive, perhaps, was their high-tech
plan for voter turnout. After all, voter turnout
is everything in politics. Long before
Abraham Lincoln stepped on the debate
platform with Democrat Stephen Douglas,
Lincoln the Whig politico was giving
campaign workers lessons in turning out the
vote for his party in Illinois.
Team Romney promised a state-of-the-art
computer-driven voter turnout effort that
would be far more advanced than anything
seen before. They called their plan Project
ORCA. It was a humorous dig at the Obama
turnout effort. The president’s team called
their computer program Narwhal.
On Election Day, November 6, 2012, ORCA
beached itself early in the day. The much-
vaunted computer program crashed. Fearing
leaks, the Romney team failed to test ORCA
before the critical day. It was perhaps the
most spectacular failure in the history of
presidential politics.
By contrast, Mr. Obama’s Narwhal swam
smoothly through calm seas to a thumping
victory. A businessman friend of mine, who
is highly tech savvy, related to us the story of
his lawyer daughter. She voted in Northern
Virginia at 1 pm. At 1:40 pm, she got a text
message from the Obama campaign listing all
her friends on FaceBook who had not yet
voted. The Obama team asked our young
advocate, politely, to text her friends and
encourage them to vote.
This is a cautionary tale. Critics can go on
and on about this administration’s
incompetence. We should be aware, however,
that the left will use these charges as
examples of the unfairness of President
Obama’s critics. They have never been
willing to give our first black president a fair
shake, Mr. Obama’s supporters are saying.
Barack Obama has been supremely competent
in the one great thing that matters to liberals:
Getting and keeping power. Don’t forget, it is
in ruling over us that liberals live and
breathe and have their being.
Let’s also remember that “competence” was
the great watchword of that other
technocratic Massachusetts governor, the
smooth and efficient Michael Dukakis. In
1988, he promised “competence not
ideology.”
Vice President George Bush countered that
competence will get the trains there on time,
to be sure, but it doesn’t let you know where
the trains are going. Bush ran a tough
campaign based on values and principles, a
campaign that accentuated the differences in
governing philosophy. He blasted Dukakis as
a “liberal.” He carried forty states. (That was
the last campaign where a candidate openly
claimed to be liberal. Now, they are all
“progressives.”)
Conservatives need to tell Americans where
they want to take the train. They should be
strong in saying that ObamaCare must be
repealed. They should not shy away from
social issues, but should learn how to
communicate the pro-life and pro-marriage
positions more effectively.
My friend Gary Bauer has wisely pointed out
that the NBCNews/Wall Street Journal polls on
people and the economy show that none of
the Republicans’ economic issues can
command a majority. The best of the GOP’s
planks garners less than 40% of the
electorate.
I agree with most of those conservative
economic positions. But too voters don’t.
Twelve years of miseducation and sixty years
of media misinformation have taken their
toll. By dumping social issues and stressing
only economic issues, the Republicans can
assuredly carry 37% of the vote---which is
what President George H.W. Bush got in 1992
against that New Democrat, Bill Clinton.
Barring misfortune, President Obama will be
in office until January 20, 2017. He is daily
increasing his powers. He had already issued
forty-one substantive changes to ObamaCare.
These changes were not approved by
Congress. Nor were they adjudicated by the
Supreme Court. Nonetheless, he holds the
power and he issues his diktats. And the great
bureaucratic machine rolls on over us all. In
wielding that vast power, in daily seizing
even more power, Mr. Obama’s competence
is unequaled.
“incompetence!” And it’s a nightly refrain on
FOX News. Certainly we are seeing signs of
incompetence in the deplorable VA scandal.
And the rollout of ObamaCare was a world-
class case of “glitch.” Inquiring minds are still
asking what became of a half billion dollar
investment in Solyndra. That “green energy”
company went belly up. The fact that many of
its organizers were Obama contributors
should not attract any congressional
oversight, of course. Nothing to see here,
folks, just move on (dot org).
The other administration woes—from Fast &
Furious to Benghazi are even more troubling.
A proper investigation may tell us whether or
not vets died awaiting care at VA hospitals.
But we already know that Americans died
because of administration missteps in Mexico
and Libya.
So, for those inclined to yell INCOMPETENCE,
there is plenty to yell about. Still, it might be
wise to pause and reflect: Is competence
really the winning issue that some pundits
think it is?
The 2012 campaign for president was run
largely on the basis of executive competence.
Candidate Mitt Romney was famous for his
start-up of Bain Capital, for rescuing the 2002
Winter Olympics, and for running a taut ship
as Governor of Massachusetts. He may have
stumbled with Joe Sixpack when he said he
“liked to fire people” who don’t perform, but
there was an aura of quiet competence
circling all the bright young folks who rallied
to Mitt’s campaign apparat.
Most impressive, perhaps, was their high-tech
plan for voter turnout. After all, voter turnout
is everything in politics. Long before
Abraham Lincoln stepped on the debate
platform with Democrat Stephen Douglas,
Lincoln the Whig politico was giving
campaign workers lessons in turning out the
vote for his party in Illinois.
Team Romney promised a state-of-the-art
computer-driven voter turnout effort that
would be far more advanced than anything
seen before. They called their plan Project
ORCA. It was a humorous dig at the Obama
turnout effort. The president’s team called
their computer program Narwhal.
On Election Day, November 6, 2012, ORCA
beached itself early in the day. The much-
vaunted computer program crashed. Fearing
leaks, the Romney team failed to test ORCA
before the critical day. It was perhaps the
most spectacular failure in the history of
presidential politics.
By contrast, Mr. Obama’s Narwhal swam
smoothly through calm seas to a thumping
victory. A businessman friend of mine, who
is highly tech savvy, related to us the story of
his lawyer daughter. She voted in Northern
Virginia at 1 pm. At 1:40 pm, she got a text
message from the Obama campaign listing all
her friends on FaceBook who had not yet
voted. The Obama team asked our young
advocate, politely, to text her friends and
encourage them to vote.
This is a cautionary tale. Critics can go on
and on about this administration’s
incompetence. We should be aware, however,
that the left will use these charges as
examples of the unfairness of President
Obama’s critics. They have never been
willing to give our first black president a fair
shake, Mr. Obama’s supporters are saying.
Barack Obama has been supremely competent
in the one great thing that matters to liberals:
Getting and keeping power. Don’t forget, it is
in ruling over us that liberals live and
breathe and have their being.
Let’s also remember that “competence” was
the great watchword of that other
technocratic Massachusetts governor, the
smooth and efficient Michael Dukakis. In
1988, he promised “competence not
ideology.”
Vice President George Bush countered that
competence will get the trains there on time,
to be sure, but it doesn’t let you know where
the trains are going. Bush ran a tough
campaign based on values and principles, a
campaign that accentuated the differences in
governing philosophy. He blasted Dukakis as
a “liberal.” He carried forty states. (That was
the last campaign where a candidate openly
claimed to be liberal. Now, they are all
“progressives.”)
Conservatives need to tell Americans where
they want to take the train. They should be
strong in saying that ObamaCare must be
repealed. They should not shy away from
social issues, but should learn how to
communicate the pro-life and pro-marriage
positions more effectively.
My friend Gary Bauer has wisely pointed out
that the NBCNews/Wall Street Journal polls on
people and the economy show that none of
the Republicans’ economic issues can
command a majority. The best of the GOP’s
planks garners less than 40% of the
electorate.
I agree with most of those conservative
economic positions. But too voters don’t.
Twelve years of miseducation and sixty years
of media misinformation have taken their
toll. By dumping social issues and stressing
only economic issues, the Republicans can
assuredly carry 37% of the vote---which is
what President George H.W. Bush got in 1992
against that New Democrat, Bill Clinton.
Barring misfortune, President Obama will be
in office until January 20, 2017. He is daily
increasing his powers. He had already issued
forty-one substantive changes to ObamaCare.
These changes were not approved by
Congress. Nor were they adjudicated by the
Supreme Court. Nonetheless, he holds the
power and he issues his diktats. And the great
bureaucratic machine rolls on over us all. In
wielding that vast power, in daily seizing
even more power, Mr. Obama’s competence
is unequaled.
CHINA'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST FOREIGN WORDS
Twice in late April, People’s Daily railed
against the incorporation of acronyms and
English words in written Chinese. “How much
have foreign languages damaged the purity
and vitality of the Chinese language?” the
Communist Party’s flagship publication asked
as it complained of the “zero-translation
phenomenon.”
So if you write in the world’s most exquisite
language—in my opinion, anyway— don’t even
think of jotting down “WiFi,” “MBA,” or “VIP.”
If you’re a fan of Apple products, please do
not use “iPhone” or “iPad.” And never ever
scribble “PM2.5,” a scientific term that has
become popular in China due to the air
pollution crisis, or “e-mail.”
China’s communist culture caretakers are
cheesed, perhaps by the unfairness of the
situation. They note that when English
absorbs Chinese words, such as “kung fu,” the
terms are romanized. When China copies
English terms, however, they are often
adopted without change, dropped into Chinese
text as is.
This is not the first time Beijing has moaned
about foreign terms. In 2010 for instance,
China Central Television banned “NBA” and
required the on-air use of “US professional
basketball association.” The irony is that the
state broadcaster consistently uses “CCTV” to
identify itself, something that has not escaped
the attention of China’s noisy online
community.
In response to the new language campaign,
China’s netizens naturally took to mockery
and sarcasm last month. They posted fictitious
conversations using ungainly translations for
the now shunned foreign terms. On Weibo,
China’s microblogging service, they held a
“grand competition to keep the purity of the
Chinese language.” The consensus was that
People’s Daily was once again promoting the
ridiculous and impractical, as the substituted
Chinese translations were almost always
longer and convoluted.
The derision has not stopped China’s
policymakers from taking extraordinary steps
to defend their language. In 2012, the Chinese
government established a linguistics
committee to standardize foreign words. In
2013, it published the first ten approved
Chinese translations for terms such as WTO,
AIDS, and GDP, ordering all media to use
them. A second and third series of approved
terms are expected this year. How French.
There is a bit of obtuseness in all these
elaborate efforts. As People’s Daily , China’s
most authoritative publication, talks about
foreign terms damaging “purity and vitality,”
it forgets that innovation, in the form of
borrowing, is the essence of vitality. And as
for “purity,” the Chinese people are not
buying the Communist Party’s hypocritical
argument. “Do you think simplified Chinese
characters pure?” asked one blogger.
The party, starting in the early Maoist era,
replaced what are now called “traditional”
Chinese characters for a set of “simplified”
ones, thereby making a wholesale change of
the script. The new set of characters may be
easier to write, but the forced adoption meant
that young Chinese in the Mainland can no
longer read classic works in their own
language unless they have been transcribed
into the new characters.
The party, it seems, is just anti-foreign. “Since
the reform and opening up, many people have
blindly worshipped the West, casually using
foreign words as a way of showing off their
knowledge and intellect,” said Xia Jixuan
from the Ministry of Education, quoted in
People’s Daily . “This also exacerbated the
proliferation of foreign words.”
Are foreign words inherently bad? In China,
unfortunately, we are seeing further evidence
of the closing of Communist Party minds.
against the incorporation of acronyms and
English words in written Chinese. “How much
have foreign languages damaged the purity
and vitality of the Chinese language?” the
Communist Party’s flagship publication asked
as it complained of the “zero-translation
phenomenon.”
So if you write in the world’s most exquisite
language—in my opinion, anyway— don’t even
think of jotting down “WiFi,” “MBA,” or “VIP.”
If you’re a fan of Apple products, please do
not use “iPhone” or “iPad.” And never ever
scribble “PM2.5,” a scientific term that has
become popular in China due to the air
pollution crisis, or “e-mail.”
China’s communist culture caretakers are
cheesed, perhaps by the unfairness of the
situation. They note that when English
absorbs Chinese words, such as “kung fu,” the
terms are romanized. When China copies
English terms, however, they are often
adopted without change, dropped into Chinese
text as is.
This is not the first time Beijing has moaned
about foreign terms. In 2010 for instance,
China Central Television banned “NBA” and
required the on-air use of “US professional
basketball association.” The irony is that the
state broadcaster consistently uses “CCTV” to
identify itself, something that has not escaped
the attention of China’s noisy online
community.
In response to the new language campaign,
China’s netizens naturally took to mockery
and sarcasm last month. They posted fictitious
conversations using ungainly translations for
the now shunned foreign terms. On Weibo,
China’s microblogging service, they held a
“grand competition to keep the purity of the
Chinese language.” The consensus was that
People’s Daily was once again promoting the
ridiculous and impractical, as the substituted
Chinese translations were almost always
longer and convoluted.
The derision has not stopped China’s
policymakers from taking extraordinary steps
to defend their language. In 2012, the Chinese
government established a linguistics
committee to standardize foreign words. In
2013, it published the first ten approved
Chinese translations for terms such as WTO,
AIDS, and GDP, ordering all media to use
them. A second and third series of approved
terms are expected this year. How French.
There is a bit of obtuseness in all these
elaborate efforts. As People’s Daily , China’s
most authoritative publication, talks about
foreign terms damaging “purity and vitality,”
it forgets that innovation, in the form of
borrowing, is the essence of vitality. And as
for “purity,” the Chinese people are not
buying the Communist Party’s hypocritical
argument. “Do you think simplified Chinese
characters pure?” asked one blogger.
The party, starting in the early Maoist era,
replaced what are now called “traditional”
Chinese characters for a set of “simplified”
ones, thereby making a wholesale change of
the script. The new set of characters may be
easier to write, but the forced adoption meant
that young Chinese in the Mainland can no
longer read classic works in their own
language unless they have been transcribed
into the new characters.
The party, it seems, is just anti-foreign. “Since
the reform and opening up, many people have
blindly worshipped the West, casually using
foreign words as a way of showing off their
knowledge and intellect,” said Xia Jixuan
from the Ministry of Education, quoted in
People’s Daily . “This also exacerbated the
proliferation of foreign words.”
Are foreign words inherently bad? In China,
unfortunately, we are seeing further evidence
of the closing of Communist Party minds.
AMERICA'S PURPOSE AND ROLE IN A CHANGED WORLD
More about: North America , US , Lebanon
MAY/JUNE 2014
America’s Purpose and Role in a
Changed World
25 people recommend this. Be the first of your friends. Recommend
Sarah Grebowski
’ll never forget my brief and ill-received
show of American patriotism as a young
expatriate in Beirut. It was the summer of
2010, and the city was teeming with convoys
of Lebanese youth honking and waving flags
to celebrate their favorite teams’ victories in
the World Cup. After an exciting win by the
US, I joined a group of Americans in a street
celebration. But cruising down the main
thoroughfare of West Beirut, our procession of
stars and stripes was met with disapproving
looks. The image that remains with me to this
day is that of an older man standing silently
with his shoe in his hand. The tattered sole
was pointed directly at us, an expression of
disrespect in Muslim culture. We recognized
the gesture’s meaning only because a similar
shoe had been thrown at the American
president’s head a year earlier.
Today’s generation of young Americans,
known as the millennials, has come of age at
a time when America has been humbled on
the world stage. Many of them have traveled
extensively at a young age and experienced
this diminished reputation firsthand. Their
parents and grandparents believe that
America has been a remarkable force for
good in the world and that the country should
not lose sight of its responsibility to shape
events globally because of mistakes made in
the last decade. But millennials seem more
fixed on the limits of American power and
disenchanted with ideas of American
exceptionalism.
Because of these reservations, the millennial
generation is often described as declinist or
isolationist. I disagree. Young Americans care
more than any other age group about what
happens beyond our borders. Millennials tend
toward multilateralism and the cautious use of
force, and perhaps would be more selective in
committing US resources overseas. But far
from an abdication of global leadership, this
prudence may prove to be the silver lining to
millennials’ crisis of confidence in America’s
role as, in President Obama’s words, “not just
a place on a map, but the light to the world.”
ther generations have been disillusioned
by the tarnishing of America’s image
abroad. This was particularly true during the
war in Vietnam. A Foreign Affairs article
published in 1970 titled “The New Generation
of Isolationists” contains remarkable parallels
between the attitudes of young baby boomers
at the time and millennials now. The 1970s
youth generation saw deep flaws in American
democracy, felt outrage over America’s wars
and covert action, and vowed that they would
not repeat the foreign policy mistakes being
made by their elders.
Much as the 1972 Democratic Party
convention and its presidential candidate
harnessed the political voice of this frustrated
generation, the 2008 presidential election,
which saw the second-highest youth turnout
in history, focused national attention on the
attitudes and opinions of the eighteen-to-
thirty-two-year-old slice of the American
population known as the millennials. Amid
the clamor over what it means to be a
millennial, this much is clear: the current
generation embraces a distinctly different
worldview than that of older generations. In a
2011 Pew Research poll, “The Generation Gap
and the 2012 Election,” millennials were the
least likely age group to say that the US is the
greatest country in the world; in fact, only
thirty-two percent of them held the view.
The reasons for young people’s skepticism
toward claims of American greatness that
resonate so strongly with their elders are
complex.
For starters, millennials’ unprecedented level
of interaction with foreign cultures makes
them reluctant to think of their country as
fundamentally superior to others. More than
simply gaining familiarity with other
countries and feeling an affinity for the global
community, millennials have developed bonds
with foreign countries through their
experiences living, working, and studying
abroad. Especially throughout America’s
economic recession, when many college
graduates faced a discouraging lack of job
opportunity at home, many have called Beirut,
Beijing, Kyiv, and other places home. Recent
polling data from Zogby Analytics confirms
that millennials are much less likely to agree
that foreign cultures are inferior to American
culture than other generations have been.
Historical context is also part of the equation.
Millennials have come of age during a decade
when America’s image has plummeted as a
result of unpopular wars, shaping their
perception of the country. More importantly,
they have never seen the world order come
under a threat from a malign force such as
fascism or communism. Millennials have read
about the exceptional things America has
done to benefit the rest of the world, but were
never shaped by the visceral experiences of
stocking a fallout shelter during the Cold War
or being conscripted to fight for America’s
way of life. The attacks of 9/11 might have
been a seminal event for the millennials, but
the resulting war against al-Qaeda has not
affected as many younger people as
profoundly as these previous conflicts did.
Finally, millennials perceive an awkward
mismatch between ideas of American
exceptionalism and the pronounced crisis of
institutions the country faces. Millennials
today witness partisan gridlock, economic
stagnation, and growing socioeconomic
inequality at home and wonder whether the
US has the capability or the moral right to
provide global leadership when it has such
interminable difficulty putting its own house
in order.
f millennials aren’t thinking like leaders of
the free world once did, what then do they
see as the way forward for the US?
Isolationism is not the mainstream view
among them, despite the Brookings
Institution’s 2011 finding that fifty-eight
percent of the “emerging foreign policy
leaders” identified among the younger
generation think America is “too involved in
global affairs and should do more at home.”
Millennials on the extreme end of foreign
policy opinion—who, for example, favor
slashing the foreign aid budget, which hovers
at one percent of federal spending, for the
sake of “nation building at home”—often
overestimate the degree to which scaling back
our presence globally will fix domestic
problems.
But the Brookings profile of millennials may
be an outlier. A greater number of studies
indicate that millennials are ready to embrace
a robust foreign policy with more, not less,
engagement beyond our borders. A 2005 poll
conducted by GQR Research, for example,
showed that more young Americans believed
that the September 11th attacks underscored a
need for America to be more connected with
the world (fifty-five percent) than a need
simply to assert greater control over its
borders (thirty-nine percent). Millennial
foreign policy views are also not necessarily
defeatist or declinist. Most young Americans
believe that the nation’s best days are ahead
of us and show more optimism about the
future than older generations. 1
The central question, then, is not whether but
how the millennial generation of
policymakers will preserve America’s position
in the world and promote global stability and
prosperity. If trends continue, the rising
generation will likely be cautious in the use of
force to achieve foreign policy goals and
prefer diplomacy instead. (In the 2011 Pew
poll, sixty-six percent of millennials thought
that relying too much on military force to
defeat terrorism actually leads to more hatred
and terrorism.) Multilateralism is also central
to the millennial vision. Younger Americans
are the most likely to believe that America’s
security depends on building strong ties with
other nations, and think that the US should
take the interests of its allies into account
even if it means making compromises. 2
This is no abdication of global leadership, but
rather a realistic reaction to the lessons of
recent history. What would be the wisdom
after the Iraq War in using military force
over diplomacy to advance democratic
change? Where are the financial and political
resources for the US to secure its interests
unilaterally?
Millennials see leadership as more than a
binary choice between isolationism and
interventionism, and weigh the many forms
of agency when it comes to how the US can
shape events around the world. Though
shirking a global leadership role is not an
option, scaling back our commitments abroad,
especially militarily, does seem to be an
important priority among this young
generation. Aware of America’s fallibility and
the constraints upon its global behavior,
millennials believe they can craft a more
sustainable level of American engagement
beyond its borders by recalibrating its use of
hard and soft power to shape events
WHY IS THE PENTAGON HONORING A CHINESE GENERAL?
General Fang Fenghui, China’s chief of
general staff, is now in the US on a five-day
tour of American military facilities, including
the naval air station in San Diego, where he
inspected the USS Ronald Reagan , one of
America’s 10 active aircraft carriers. Most
notably, he will receive a “full-military-
honors arrival ceremony” at the Pentagon on
Thursday.
The visit comes as a fleet of about 80 Chinese
vessels , both military and civilian, are
protecting a drilling rig that China National
Offshore Oil Corporation, a Chinese state-
owned enterprise, positioned just off
Vietnam’s coast at the beginning of this
month. China’s ships rammed and collided
with Vietnamese craft defending waters that
Hanoi believes to be within its exclusive
economic zone. The rig’s location is near the
Paracel Islands in the South China Sea.
Beijing, with its infamous nine-dashed line on
its official maps, takes the position that about
90 percent of that body of water is China’s,
including the drill site. The expansive—and
largely indefensible—claim includes the
coastal waters of Taiwan, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia as well as
Vietnam.
Secretary of State John Kerry has been trying
to calm the situation. “He urged both sides on
both calls to de-escalate tensions, to engage in
high-level dialogue, to ensure safe conduct by
their vessels at sea, and to resolve the dispute
through peaceful means,” said State
Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, referring
to Kerry’s conversations with his Chinese and
Vietnamese counterparts. The Chinese flatly
rejected these even-handed comments, blasting
Kerry for just trying to keep the peace in the
region. Hong Kong’s South China Morning
Post has called the exchange a “war of words.”
According to one Chinese oil official , Beijing
apparently directed its state oil company,
commonly known as CNOOC, to drill in order
to bolster its sovereignty claim. “This reflected
the will of the central government and is also
related to the US strategy on Asia,” said the
official, speaking anonymously to Reuters,
about drilling in Vietnam’s waters. “It is not
commercially driven.”
Beijing, with its particularly provocative
move, is obviously testing President Obama,
who had just left the region after an eight-day
tour to reassure allies and friends. Vietnam was
the perfect target for the Chinese, as it is not
allied with Washington. Yet the Chinese
gambit nonetheless affects US interests as it
directly impinges freedom of navigation,
something America has defended for more
than two centuries. Moreover, Beijing’s act
against Vietnam’s coastal water mirrors
moves against American allies Japan, South
Korea, and the Philippines.
The Chinese do not take American warnings
seriously, reports the Wall Street Journal. And
why should they? General Fang is about to get
military honors while his country’s vessels are
deliberately creating turmoil and directly
challenging American interests.
Washington may think it is preserving
regional order by seeking to develop a
cooperative relationship with Beijing—hence
the honor for Fang—but Chinese
policymakers evidently perceive them
differently, seeing America’s hopeful and
generous moves as symptoms of weakness.
After all, they have continually increased the
pressure on their neighbors and challenged
Washington directly, especially during the last
half decade.
In any event, there is no arguing with history.
China has, in recent years, been harassing
American vessels in international waters,
dismembering the Philippines, and
appropriating international airspace. The
Chinese have regularly violated the territorial
integrity of Japan with their probes on the sea
and in the air. Last October, for no apparent
reason, Beijing publicly boasted about its
ability to kill Americans in the tens of
millions.
The assumptions that guide American policy
toward China are obviously incorrect. It’s not
too late to change course and maybe even
send General Fang home without his Pentagon
ceremony.
general staff, is now in the US on a five-day
tour of American military facilities, including
the naval air station in San Diego, where he
inspected the USS Ronald Reagan , one of
America’s 10 active aircraft carriers. Most
notably, he will receive a “full-military-
honors arrival ceremony” at the Pentagon on
Thursday.
The visit comes as a fleet of about 80 Chinese
vessels , both military and civilian, are
protecting a drilling rig that China National
Offshore Oil Corporation, a Chinese state-
owned enterprise, positioned just off
Vietnam’s coast at the beginning of this
month. China’s ships rammed and collided
with Vietnamese craft defending waters that
Hanoi believes to be within its exclusive
economic zone. The rig’s location is near the
Paracel Islands in the South China Sea.
Beijing, with its infamous nine-dashed line on
its official maps, takes the position that about
90 percent of that body of water is China’s,
including the drill site. The expansive—and
largely indefensible—claim includes the
coastal waters of Taiwan, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia as well as
Vietnam.
Secretary of State John Kerry has been trying
to calm the situation. “He urged both sides on
both calls to de-escalate tensions, to engage in
high-level dialogue, to ensure safe conduct by
their vessels at sea, and to resolve the dispute
through peaceful means,” said State
Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, referring
to Kerry’s conversations with his Chinese and
Vietnamese counterparts. The Chinese flatly
rejected these even-handed comments, blasting
Kerry for just trying to keep the peace in the
region. Hong Kong’s South China Morning
Post has called the exchange a “war of words.”
According to one Chinese oil official , Beijing
apparently directed its state oil company,
commonly known as CNOOC, to drill in order
to bolster its sovereignty claim. “This reflected
the will of the central government and is also
related to the US strategy on Asia,” said the
official, speaking anonymously to Reuters,
about drilling in Vietnam’s waters. “It is not
commercially driven.”
Beijing, with its particularly provocative
move, is obviously testing President Obama,
who had just left the region after an eight-day
tour to reassure allies and friends. Vietnam was
the perfect target for the Chinese, as it is not
allied with Washington. Yet the Chinese
gambit nonetheless affects US interests as it
directly impinges freedom of navigation,
something America has defended for more
than two centuries. Moreover, Beijing’s act
against Vietnam’s coastal water mirrors
moves against American allies Japan, South
Korea, and the Philippines.
The Chinese do not take American warnings
seriously, reports the Wall Street Journal. And
why should they? General Fang is about to get
military honors while his country’s vessels are
deliberately creating turmoil and directly
challenging American interests.
Washington may think it is preserving
regional order by seeking to develop a
cooperative relationship with Beijing—hence
the honor for Fang—but Chinese
policymakers evidently perceive them
differently, seeing America’s hopeful and
generous moves as symptoms of weakness.
After all, they have continually increased the
pressure on their neighbors and challenged
Washington directly, especially during the last
half decade.
In any event, there is no arguing with history.
China has, in recent years, been harassing
American vessels in international waters,
dismembering the Philippines, and
appropriating international airspace. The
Chinese have regularly violated the territorial
integrity of Japan with their probes on the sea
and in the air. Last October, for no apparent
reason, Beijing publicly boasted about its
ability to kill Americans in the tens of
millions.
The assumptions that guide American policy
toward China are obviously incorrect. It’s not
too late to change course and maybe even
send General Fang home without his Pentagon
ceremony.
VIOLENCE, POWER, AND NUCLEAR PUTIN
V
T
More about: Europe and Central Asia , Russia , Ukraine, Vladimir Putin
ONLINE FEATURES
Violence, Power, and Nuclear
Putin
574 people recommend this. Be the first of your friends. Recommend
Mariana Budjeryn
The practice of violence, like all action,
changes the world, but the most probable
change is to a more violent world.
—Hannah Arendt, On Violence
ladimir Putin wants to reclaim for Russia
the respect and status the Soviet Union
once commanded and has recently
undertaken to achieve this by force. His
landgrab in Ukraine has been swift and
remarkably successful, emboldening him to
continue his campaign against Ukraine.
Between his high popularity at home and the
meek reaction of the West, it might seem that
Putin is growing in power. Yet to maintain it,
he will have to increasingly rely on violence,
including world’s largest nuclear arsenal. The
West should understand that the cost of
deterring him now is dwarfted by the cost of
deterring him later.
So far, Russia and the West have engaged in a
war of words. Russia accuses the decaying
and hypocritical West of instigating last
winter’s Euromaidan protests in Ukraine,
deposing its corrupt regime, and installing an
illegal government in Kyiv. The US accuses
dishonest and belligerent Russia of invading
Ukraine, illegally annexing Crimea, and now
fermenting separatism in the country’s east
and south. Russia, while denying direct
involvement in Ukraine, claims that, like the
US, it has the right to project its power
wherever it deems necessary. The Russian
Parliament gave Putin the leave to do so by
force—only in Ukraine, for now.
Putin’s is an old-fashioned Machiavellian
understanding of power, whereby violence,
force, and coercion are various
manifestations of it and allude to the different
ways in which one man rules over another. As
that Clausewitzian maxim goes, war is simply
a continuation of politics by other means.
Force begets power, and power can use force
if and when it likes. In short, might
constitutes right.
Yet there is a profoundly different way to
conceive of the relationship between power
and violence. Political theorist Hannah
Arendt, while recognizing that power and
violence often come in tandem, drew sharp
distinctions between the two and juxtaposed
them as opposites. Power, she argued, is not
the ability to impose the will of one man over
another, but the ability to act in concert.
Power is the property of the collective, and a
single actor can be powerful only in as much
as he has the following of many. Power is
generated through persuasion and
demonstration. Because the support for power
is granted through free choice and can be just
as freely withdrawn, power comes with
responsibility to practice what it preaches.
Violence, on the other hand, is the property of
a single actor, individual or institutional.
According to Arendt, while power is the end
in itself, violence is always instrumental, a
means to an end. It also needs tools: physical
strength, soldiers, weapons. Violence distorts
equality between actors and obliterates
freedom to choose, which is so essential to
power and the responsibility it entails. Power
relies on support; violence commands
obedience. Power needs no justification, but
does need legitimacy; violence can be
justifiable, but never legitimate.
All forms of government, including
democracies, rely on a combination of power
and violence. All forms of government,
including tyrannies, rely on the general
support of society, too. To forge this support, a
tyranny sooner or later turns to coercion,
which necessarily diminishes its power and
makes it, as Montesquieu said, the most
violent and the least powerful form of
government. Thus, the resort to violence is
nothing else but a symptom of eroding power.
Vladimir Putin eschews and at the same time
envies US power, which he sees as freedom to
do as it wills in the world. What he does not
understand is that genuine US power is
manifested not in its military prowess, vast
intelligence network or economic might per se ,
but in the willingness of others to follow it
voluntarily. It is manifested in the fact that
US-led NATO did not fizzle away when the
instrumental reasons for its existence
disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet
Union. It is manifested in the free choice of
the polities formerly under the Soviet
domination, from the Baltics to Kyrgyzstan, to
align with the US-led Euro-Atlantic order
without any coercion. George Kennan best
described the essence of US power as leading
by example.
Ironically, Putin and his cronies unwittingly
grant recognition to Western power every
time they freely choose to send their children
to Western schools, park their fortunes in
Western banks, and establish their residencies
in posh Western cities and vacation spots.
While US power thus conceived has been
declining, in no small part due to its ill-
justified and unsupported invasion of Iraq, it
is still vastly more attractive than anything
Putin and his Russian world has to offer. With
its corrupt and oppressive oligarchy, its
primitive hydrocarbon economy one-eighth of
the size of America’s, and its stifled public
sphere, Putin’s Russia has found few eager
followers. Unable to generate power by
influencing, engaging, and inspiring the
world with a compelling ideology, a model of
development, or a concept of good life, Putin
resorted to violence.
After all, it worked at home. Putin’s
popularity is craftily manufactured through
various forms of coercion. As Sergei Guriev, a
Russian economist in exile, summed up : “For
less sophisticated people, he relies on
brainwashing… For more sophisticated but
less honest people, he needs to bribe them.
For honest, sophisticated people, he uses
repression.” Brainwashing is the most
dangerous of coercive methods because it
creates an illusion of power, intoxicating but
false. Nevertheless, it is a form of intellectual
violence: by snuffing out dissent and
establishing a monopoly on interpretation of
past and present, Putin’s regime has forced
millions of Russian minds into a rut, robbing
them of freedom to make a fair choice
between alternatives.
Thus, Putin’s regime stands and falls on
substituting violence for its nonexistent
power. To admit that people or states can
follow a leader without being coerced is to
subvert his own model of rule. Therefore, the
story must be told of the West blatantly
forcing others to align with it. It becomes
inevitable that the West should play its dirty
hand in Ukraine’s pro-European protests, as
in every other anti-Putin project inside or
outside Russia.
he repercussions of Putin’s conflation of
power with violence are ominous. He is
not the only leader to do this, but he is the
only leader presiding over a country whose
mediocre power is far outmatched by the
violence it is still capable to inflict upon the
world with its nuclear armaments. One might
argue that nuclear weapons were also a factor
in the US-Soviet stand off, and that deterrence
might still work well enough today. Yet the
current conflict bears a significant difference
from the Cold War: the Soviet Union was a
recognized superpower, and Putin’s Russia is
not.
The Soviet Union was one of the victors of
World War II, and participated in the
establishment of the postwar order on par
with the US and Britain. Its communist
ideology and critique of capitalism found
followers in Latin America, Asia, and Europe.
Behind its closed borders, the USSR relied on
gulags and the KGB for its survival. Yet to the
West, ever a riddle wrapped in a mystery
inside an enigma, the USSR was indisputably
a superpower. As such, it engaged on equal
terms with the US in both the arms race and
the disarmament race of the Bush-Gorbachev
years. The USSR’s special status conferred
upon it a responsibility for maintaining the
international order and preventing the
nuclear Armageddon.
By comparison, Putin’s Russia is open to
global flows of goods, capital, and data. In
any political, economic, or conventional
military regard, it is at best a regional actor,
as President Obama recently reminded Putin.
The international support Russia was able to
muster for its Ukrainian foray is pitiful:
eleven powerless states, including North
Korea, Syria, and Cuba, held together by their
hatred and fear of Western power rather than
by any positive idea, vision, or goal.
Furthermore, Ukraine may have cost Russia
the vestiges of greatness it enjoyed in military
and space cooperation with the US.
The only area in which Russia still brandishes
a global status is its nuclear arsenal. It is the
only conceivable reason why Russia still
enjoys a permanent seat on the UN Security
Council. In essence, Russia inherited the
Soviet Union’s super-force without a modicum
of super-power responsibility. In fact, Putin
looks to be set on dismantling the very postwar
order that helped prevent nuclear
conflagration during the Cold War.
Meanwhile, the West seems paralyzed by
Putin’s audacity and unsure what to make of
it. The temptation not to get mired in a
conflict over Ukraine is great. Economic
sanctions and visa restrictions against Putin’s
inner circle are meant to shake his oligarchic
power base at home. So far, these reactions
look like ineffectual finger wagging rather
than a credible deterrent, let alone a way to
reverse territorial changes already effected.
In any case, sanctions take time to produce
change, and, with Ukraine’s presidential
elections looming on May 25th, time is
working in Putin’s favor.
Arendt warned that nuclear weapons were
capable of distorting politics precisely due to
the kind of radical mismatch between power
and capacity for violence we see in Russia
today. The danger is not that, undeterred,
Putin’s regime will gain in power, but rather
that to compensate for its lack of power it will
have to rely on ever more crude coercion,
both domestically and in the neighborhood it
feels entitled to rule. In light of this threat, the
West should mount a prompt, united, and
decisive response to Putin proportionate to his
transgressions. It should do so not just for
Ukraine’s sake, but also for its own, if it wants
to avoid the rising costs of dealing with an
exponentially violent revisionist regime
armed with the most formidable weapons in
existence.
T
More about: Europe and Central Asia , Russia , Ukraine, Vladimir Putin
ONLINE FEATURES
Violence, Power, and Nuclear
Putin
574 people recommend this. Be the first of your friends. Recommend
Mariana Budjeryn
The practice of violence, like all action,
changes the world, but the most probable
change is to a more violent world.
—Hannah Arendt, On Violence
ladimir Putin wants to reclaim for Russia
the respect and status the Soviet Union
once commanded and has recently
undertaken to achieve this by force. His
landgrab in Ukraine has been swift and
remarkably successful, emboldening him to
continue his campaign against Ukraine.
Between his high popularity at home and the
meek reaction of the West, it might seem that
Putin is growing in power. Yet to maintain it,
he will have to increasingly rely on violence,
including world’s largest nuclear arsenal. The
West should understand that the cost of
deterring him now is dwarfted by the cost of
deterring him later.
So far, Russia and the West have engaged in a
war of words. Russia accuses the decaying
and hypocritical West of instigating last
winter’s Euromaidan protests in Ukraine,
deposing its corrupt regime, and installing an
illegal government in Kyiv. The US accuses
dishonest and belligerent Russia of invading
Ukraine, illegally annexing Crimea, and now
fermenting separatism in the country’s east
and south. Russia, while denying direct
involvement in Ukraine, claims that, like the
US, it has the right to project its power
wherever it deems necessary. The Russian
Parliament gave Putin the leave to do so by
force—only in Ukraine, for now.
Putin’s is an old-fashioned Machiavellian
understanding of power, whereby violence,
force, and coercion are various
manifestations of it and allude to the different
ways in which one man rules over another. As
that Clausewitzian maxim goes, war is simply
a continuation of politics by other means.
Force begets power, and power can use force
if and when it likes. In short, might
constitutes right.
Yet there is a profoundly different way to
conceive of the relationship between power
and violence. Political theorist Hannah
Arendt, while recognizing that power and
violence often come in tandem, drew sharp
distinctions between the two and juxtaposed
them as opposites. Power, she argued, is not
the ability to impose the will of one man over
another, but the ability to act in concert.
Power is the property of the collective, and a
single actor can be powerful only in as much
as he has the following of many. Power is
generated through persuasion and
demonstration. Because the support for power
is granted through free choice and can be just
as freely withdrawn, power comes with
responsibility to practice what it preaches.
Violence, on the other hand, is the property of
a single actor, individual or institutional.
According to Arendt, while power is the end
in itself, violence is always instrumental, a
means to an end. It also needs tools: physical
strength, soldiers, weapons. Violence distorts
equality between actors and obliterates
freedom to choose, which is so essential to
power and the responsibility it entails. Power
relies on support; violence commands
obedience. Power needs no justification, but
does need legitimacy; violence can be
justifiable, but never legitimate.
All forms of government, including
democracies, rely on a combination of power
and violence. All forms of government,
including tyrannies, rely on the general
support of society, too. To forge this support, a
tyranny sooner or later turns to coercion,
which necessarily diminishes its power and
makes it, as Montesquieu said, the most
violent and the least powerful form of
government. Thus, the resort to violence is
nothing else but a symptom of eroding power.
Vladimir Putin eschews and at the same time
envies US power, which he sees as freedom to
do as it wills in the world. What he does not
understand is that genuine US power is
manifested not in its military prowess, vast
intelligence network or economic might per se ,
but in the willingness of others to follow it
voluntarily. It is manifested in the fact that
US-led NATO did not fizzle away when the
instrumental reasons for its existence
disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet
Union. It is manifested in the free choice of
the polities formerly under the Soviet
domination, from the Baltics to Kyrgyzstan, to
align with the US-led Euro-Atlantic order
without any coercion. George Kennan best
described the essence of US power as leading
by example.
Ironically, Putin and his cronies unwittingly
grant recognition to Western power every
time they freely choose to send their children
to Western schools, park their fortunes in
Western banks, and establish their residencies
in posh Western cities and vacation spots.
While US power thus conceived has been
declining, in no small part due to its ill-
justified and unsupported invasion of Iraq, it
is still vastly more attractive than anything
Putin and his Russian world has to offer. With
its corrupt and oppressive oligarchy, its
primitive hydrocarbon economy one-eighth of
the size of America’s, and its stifled public
sphere, Putin’s Russia has found few eager
followers. Unable to generate power by
influencing, engaging, and inspiring the
world with a compelling ideology, a model of
development, or a concept of good life, Putin
resorted to violence.
After all, it worked at home. Putin’s
popularity is craftily manufactured through
various forms of coercion. As Sergei Guriev, a
Russian economist in exile, summed up : “For
less sophisticated people, he relies on
brainwashing… For more sophisticated but
less honest people, he needs to bribe them.
For honest, sophisticated people, he uses
repression.” Brainwashing is the most
dangerous of coercive methods because it
creates an illusion of power, intoxicating but
false. Nevertheless, it is a form of intellectual
violence: by snuffing out dissent and
establishing a monopoly on interpretation of
past and present, Putin’s regime has forced
millions of Russian minds into a rut, robbing
them of freedom to make a fair choice
between alternatives.
Thus, Putin’s regime stands and falls on
substituting violence for its nonexistent
power. To admit that people or states can
follow a leader without being coerced is to
subvert his own model of rule. Therefore, the
story must be told of the West blatantly
forcing others to align with it. It becomes
inevitable that the West should play its dirty
hand in Ukraine’s pro-European protests, as
in every other anti-Putin project inside or
outside Russia.
he repercussions of Putin’s conflation of
power with violence are ominous. He is
not the only leader to do this, but he is the
only leader presiding over a country whose
mediocre power is far outmatched by the
violence it is still capable to inflict upon the
world with its nuclear armaments. One might
argue that nuclear weapons were also a factor
in the US-Soviet stand off, and that deterrence
might still work well enough today. Yet the
current conflict bears a significant difference
from the Cold War: the Soviet Union was a
recognized superpower, and Putin’s Russia is
not.
The Soviet Union was one of the victors of
World War II, and participated in the
establishment of the postwar order on par
with the US and Britain. Its communist
ideology and critique of capitalism found
followers in Latin America, Asia, and Europe.
Behind its closed borders, the USSR relied on
gulags and the KGB for its survival. Yet to the
West, ever a riddle wrapped in a mystery
inside an enigma, the USSR was indisputably
a superpower. As such, it engaged on equal
terms with the US in both the arms race and
the disarmament race of the Bush-Gorbachev
years. The USSR’s special status conferred
upon it a responsibility for maintaining the
international order and preventing the
nuclear Armageddon.
By comparison, Putin’s Russia is open to
global flows of goods, capital, and data. In
any political, economic, or conventional
military regard, it is at best a regional actor,
as President Obama recently reminded Putin.
The international support Russia was able to
muster for its Ukrainian foray is pitiful:
eleven powerless states, including North
Korea, Syria, and Cuba, held together by their
hatred and fear of Western power rather than
by any positive idea, vision, or goal.
Furthermore, Ukraine may have cost Russia
the vestiges of greatness it enjoyed in military
and space cooperation with the US.
The only area in which Russia still brandishes
a global status is its nuclear arsenal. It is the
only conceivable reason why Russia still
enjoys a permanent seat on the UN Security
Council. In essence, Russia inherited the
Soviet Union’s super-force without a modicum
of super-power responsibility. In fact, Putin
looks to be set on dismantling the very postwar
order that helped prevent nuclear
conflagration during the Cold War.
Meanwhile, the West seems paralyzed by
Putin’s audacity and unsure what to make of
it. The temptation not to get mired in a
conflict over Ukraine is great. Economic
sanctions and visa restrictions against Putin’s
inner circle are meant to shake his oligarchic
power base at home. So far, these reactions
look like ineffectual finger wagging rather
than a credible deterrent, let alone a way to
reverse territorial changes already effected.
In any case, sanctions take time to produce
change, and, with Ukraine’s presidential
elections looming on May 25th, time is
working in Putin’s favor.
Arendt warned that nuclear weapons were
capable of distorting politics precisely due to
the kind of radical mismatch between power
and capacity for violence we see in Russia
today. The danger is not that, undeterred,
Putin’s regime will gain in power, but rather
that to compensate for its lack of power it will
have to rely on ever more crude coercion,
both domestically and in the neighborhood it
feels entitled to rule. In light of this threat, the
West should mount a prompt, united, and
decisive response to Putin proportionate to his
transgressions. It should do so not just for
Ukraine’s sake, but also for its own, if it wants
to avoid the rising costs of dealing with an
exponentially violent revisionist regime
armed with the most formidable weapons in
existence.
UKRAINE'S ELECTION EXPOSES PUTIN LIES
Despite the best efforts of Vladimir Putin and
his terrorist commandos in the eastern
Donbas region, Ukraine’s presidential
elections did in fact take place on May 25th,
under conditions that international observers
concur were fair and free. As of this writing,
Petro Poroshenko appears to have won in one
round.
Herewith a few lessons:
First, Ukraine is hardly the unstable almost-
failed state that Putin and his Western
apologists say it is. The terrorist violence was
confined to two provinces—Luhansk and
Donetsk. In the rest of the country, the voting
proceeded smoothly. On top of that, Ukraine’s
security forces were able to maintain law and
order in much of the country, a positive
development that builds on the armed forces’
creditable performance in their “anti-terrorist
operations” in April and May.
Second, Ukraine is anything but the
illegitimate state Putin and his western
apologists say it is. Voting participation for
the entire country was high: about 60 percent.
Not including the two provinces that were
terrorized by Putin’s commandos,
participation was even higher. Everyone
knows that the only thing that kept Ukrainians
in the Donbas from voting was Putin’s
terrorists.
Third, Putin’s terrorist commandos have been
outflanked by the elections. People want
stability; they want a return to normality.
And they know that elections can bring about
both. The terrorists, like Putin, have nothing
but violence to offer. That is not a winning
electoral platform. Nor is it any way to win
the hearts and minds of the eastern Ukrainian
population the terrorists claim to be
defending from wild-eyed Ukrainian
“fascists.” Small wonder that, after hemming
and hawing for several months, even
Ukraine’s richest oligarch, Rinat Akhmetov,
got off the fence and denounced the terrorists,
while calling on Donbas residents to take to
the streets and march in protest. (And, in an
indication of just what is still so wrong with
the Donbas, hundreds of thousands heeded his
call. Were they not, one might well ask,
capable of acting on their own—without being
told to do so by some higher-up?)
Fourth, while Ukraine now has a legitimately
elected president, Putin has egg on his face—
lots of it. Russia’s fascistoid dictator can
continue questioning democratic Ukraine’s
legitimacy, and he is perfectly entitled to
believe that fair and free elections are unfair
and un-free, but at some point such
truculence becomes nothing more than
childishness, stupidity, and petulance. Come
to think of it, haven’t those three qualities
defined Putin’s behavior since the fall of
2013, when he coerced Ukraine’s since-
deposed sultan, Viktor Yanukovych, into
backing out of the Association Agreement with
the European Union? Ask yourself this: just
what has Putin gotten out of this entire crisis?
An arid peninsula with enormous economic
and political problems, a spike in his
popularity, and affirmations of love from his
Western apologists. And just what has he lost?
Good relations with the West, good relations
with Ukraine, and the prospect of a rapid
recovery of Russia’s moribund economy. Isn’t
it time to recognize the obvious: that Putin’s
statecraft is about as refined as
Yanukovych’s?
Fifth, Ukraine’s much touted, much decried,
and much denounced “radical, right-wing
extremists” attracted about 1–2 percent of the
vote—which surprised no one who knows a
bit about Ukrainian politics. (Contrast that
with the 25 percent achieved by France’s
National Front in the May 25th elections to
the European Parliament.) In a word,
Ukraine’s right-wingers are a fringe
phenomenon that has played no serious role
in Ukraine’s national politics, is playing no
serious role in Ukraine’s national politics, and
will continue to play no serious role in
Ukraine’s national politics. All those Western,
Russian, and Ukrainian analysts who’ve been
beating the drum about the nefarious
influence of Ukraine’s right in the last few
years—while turning a blind eye to the
extremism of Yanukovych’s thuggish regime
and the even worse extremism of the pro-
Russian hyper-chauvinists who eventually
became the core of Putin’s terrorist
commandos in eastern Ukraine—have some
serious crow to eat. And some serious
apologies to make: for diverting attention
from the real danger in Ukraine to their own
personal obsessions.
Sixth, it may be time to be guardedly
optimistic about democratic Ukraine’s
prospects. True, the Donbas will remain a
problem for a long time, but Putin’s terrorists
are unlikely to branch out to other parts of
the country. As Turkey, Israel, Colombia, and
many other countries have shown, life can go
on, even when terrorists are ensconced in
regional strongholds. More important, Putin
and his terrorists appear to be in a dead end.
The government of Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk has a serious reform program that
should bring about radical economic change
and a whole-scale decentralization of
authority. The newly elected president has
good credentials and a huge popular mandate.
The West—the United States, the European
Union, the International Monetary Fund, and
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—
supports Ukraine and will make sure that
reforms are in fact implemented. Finally, the
capital city, Kyiv, has a new mayor, the pro-
Western reformer, Vitaly Klitschko.
Not bad for a country that, according to
Putin’s Russian propagandists and Western
apologists, is supposedly on the verge of
collapse.
his terrorist commandos in the eastern
Donbas region, Ukraine’s presidential
elections did in fact take place on May 25th,
under conditions that international observers
concur were fair and free. As of this writing,
Petro Poroshenko appears to have won in one
round.
Herewith a few lessons:
First, Ukraine is hardly the unstable almost-
failed state that Putin and his Western
apologists say it is. The terrorist violence was
confined to two provinces—Luhansk and
Donetsk. In the rest of the country, the voting
proceeded smoothly. On top of that, Ukraine’s
security forces were able to maintain law and
order in much of the country, a positive
development that builds on the armed forces’
creditable performance in their “anti-terrorist
operations” in April and May.
Second, Ukraine is anything but the
illegitimate state Putin and his western
apologists say it is. Voting participation for
the entire country was high: about 60 percent.
Not including the two provinces that were
terrorized by Putin’s commandos,
participation was even higher. Everyone
knows that the only thing that kept Ukrainians
in the Donbas from voting was Putin’s
terrorists.
Third, Putin’s terrorist commandos have been
outflanked by the elections. People want
stability; they want a return to normality.
And they know that elections can bring about
both. The terrorists, like Putin, have nothing
but violence to offer. That is not a winning
electoral platform. Nor is it any way to win
the hearts and minds of the eastern Ukrainian
population the terrorists claim to be
defending from wild-eyed Ukrainian
“fascists.” Small wonder that, after hemming
and hawing for several months, even
Ukraine’s richest oligarch, Rinat Akhmetov,
got off the fence and denounced the terrorists,
while calling on Donbas residents to take to
the streets and march in protest. (And, in an
indication of just what is still so wrong with
the Donbas, hundreds of thousands heeded his
call. Were they not, one might well ask,
capable of acting on their own—without being
told to do so by some higher-up?)
Fourth, while Ukraine now has a legitimately
elected president, Putin has egg on his face—
lots of it. Russia’s fascistoid dictator can
continue questioning democratic Ukraine’s
legitimacy, and he is perfectly entitled to
believe that fair and free elections are unfair
and un-free, but at some point such
truculence becomes nothing more than
childishness, stupidity, and petulance. Come
to think of it, haven’t those three qualities
defined Putin’s behavior since the fall of
2013, when he coerced Ukraine’s since-
deposed sultan, Viktor Yanukovych, into
backing out of the Association Agreement with
the European Union? Ask yourself this: just
what has Putin gotten out of this entire crisis?
An arid peninsula with enormous economic
and political problems, a spike in his
popularity, and affirmations of love from his
Western apologists. And just what has he lost?
Good relations with the West, good relations
with Ukraine, and the prospect of a rapid
recovery of Russia’s moribund economy. Isn’t
it time to recognize the obvious: that Putin’s
statecraft is about as refined as
Yanukovych’s?
Fifth, Ukraine’s much touted, much decried,
and much denounced “radical, right-wing
extremists” attracted about 1–2 percent of the
vote—which surprised no one who knows a
bit about Ukrainian politics. (Contrast that
with the 25 percent achieved by France’s
National Front in the May 25th elections to
the European Parliament.) In a word,
Ukraine’s right-wingers are a fringe
phenomenon that has played no serious role
in Ukraine’s national politics, is playing no
serious role in Ukraine’s national politics, and
will continue to play no serious role in
Ukraine’s national politics. All those Western,
Russian, and Ukrainian analysts who’ve been
beating the drum about the nefarious
influence of Ukraine’s right in the last few
years—while turning a blind eye to the
extremism of Yanukovych’s thuggish regime
and the even worse extremism of the pro-
Russian hyper-chauvinists who eventually
became the core of Putin’s terrorist
commandos in eastern Ukraine—have some
serious crow to eat. And some serious
apologies to make: for diverting attention
from the real danger in Ukraine to their own
personal obsessions.
Sixth, it may be time to be guardedly
optimistic about democratic Ukraine’s
prospects. True, the Donbas will remain a
problem for a long time, but Putin’s terrorists
are unlikely to branch out to other parts of
the country. As Turkey, Israel, Colombia, and
many other countries have shown, life can go
on, even when terrorists are ensconced in
regional strongholds. More important, Putin
and his terrorists appear to be in a dead end.
The government of Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk has a serious reform program that
should bring about radical economic change
and a whole-scale decentralization of
authority. The newly elected president has
good credentials and a huge popular mandate.
The West—the United States, the European
Union, the International Monetary Fund, and
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—
supports Ukraine and will make sure that
reforms are in fact implemented. Finally, the
capital city, Kyiv, has a new mayor, the pro-
Western reformer, Vitaly Klitschko.
Not bad for a country that, according to
Putin’s Russian propagandists and Western
apologists, is supposedly on the verge of
collapse.
HEZBOLLAH THREATENED BY IRAN'S FINANCIAL WOES
I
Share
Tweet
Email
Print
More about: Middle East , Lebanon, Iran, Syria, US
ONLINE FEATURES
Hezbollah Threatened by Iran’s
Financial Woes
71 people recommend this. Be the first of your friends. Recommend
Oren Kessler and Rupert Sutton
ran’s economy continues to flounder. It is
hemorrhaging money in Syria, and years of
sanctions have left it suffering from high
unemployment (a quarter of youth are jobless)
and the world’s second-highest inflation rate
(20 percent ), despite a minor boost provided by
an interim nuclear agreement. Now, however,
Iran’s economic woes are beginning to affect
its ability to project power across the region,
potentially leaving its most dangerous
international proxy in the lurch.
Sources close to Hezbollah told Lebanese media
last week that Iranian funds to the group are
drying up. In the words of Hezbollah expert
Matthew Levitt, “Iran is not in good financial
shape; the money from Tehran [to Hezbollah]
doesn’t come as it used to.” As a result, the
group’s military wing has reportedly ordered
its overseas cells and external security units
to find new revenue streams, and its social
services have also had to cut costs.
Over the past three decades, Tehran has
funded Hezbollah terrorism around the world,
from its 1983 bombings of US and French
barracks in Beirut that killed 299 servicemen,
to attacks in the early 1990s at Jewish and
Israeli centers in Argentina that killed 114.
That relationship has continued to this day—
in 2012 Hezbollah bombed an Israeli tourist
bus in Bulgaria , killing six, and the same year
planned a similar attack in Cyprus. The group
has been accused of attacking diplomats as far
afield as India and Georgia, and last month
its operatives admitted to plotting attacks on
tourists in Thailand.
At the same time, Hezbollah also operates a
global network of criminal and narcotics
rings. In West Africa, it has made millions
trading in blood diamonds and arms. In
Colombia, its members have been convicted of
cocaine trafficking, and in the lawless border
areas between Argentina, Brazil, and
Paraguay it runs smuggling networks
transporting marijuana and tobacco. In the
US, officials have uncovered a multimillion-
dollar Hezbollah-run smuggling ring dealing
in drugs and cigarettes.
As less money comes in from Iran, Hezbollah
will likely have to turn to these illicit
operations even more to make up the
shortfall. Last week, however, a bill was
introduced to the US Senate that seeks to
challenge the group’s money-laundering and
logistics operations, designating Hezbollah as a
narcotics-trafficking and transnational
criminal organization. The bill would place
sanctions on individuals and firms conducting
any business with Hezbollah, severely
hindering the organization’s ability to
fundraise at a time when its coffers are
already drying up.
With its diminished financial prospects,
Hezbollah’s overseas cells could face an
accompanying decline in the group’s ability to
conduct both terror attacks and criminal
activity. The failure of its recent attacks in
Cyprus, India, Georgia, and Thailand indicate
that its operational capacity is already
compromised—something money troubles will
only exacerbate.
Meanwhile, Iran continues to bankroll the
Syrian government in its brutal three-year
war against rebel forces. Tehran is believed to
provide the Bashar al-Assad regime with
upwards of $600 million monthly to prosecute
the war and cover its fiscal deficit. For its part,
Hezbollah is itself losing money , pledging to
provide for the families of up to 500 of its
fighters killed in battle alongside Syrian
forces.
Rogue behavior carries costs. The Islamic
Republic’s nuclear program has devastated its
economy, raising fuel, food, and energy prices
for ordinary Iranians. Its three-year
campaign to save the Syrian regime is
bleeding its bank accounts, and damaging its
ability to fund terror beyond its borders.
The Syrian tragedy has claimed as many as
160,000 lives , with no end in sight. Still, in the
dark clouds above Damascus a silver lining
may be emerging: the weakening of the
Islamic Republic and its most dangerous
proxy.
Share
Tweet
More about: Middle East , Lebanon, Iran, Syria, US
ONLINE FEATURES
Hezbollah Threatened by Iran’s
Financial Woes
71 people recommend this. Be the first of your friends. Recommend
Oren Kessler and Rupert Sutton
ran’s economy continues to flounder. It is
hemorrhaging money in Syria, and years of
sanctions have left it suffering from high
unemployment (a quarter of youth are jobless)
and the world’s second-highest inflation rate
(20 percent ), despite a minor boost provided by
an interim nuclear agreement. Now, however,
Iran’s economic woes are beginning to affect
its ability to project power across the region,
potentially leaving its most dangerous
international proxy in the lurch.
Sources close to Hezbollah told Lebanese media
last week that Iranian funds to the group are
drying up. In the words of Hezbollah expert
Matthew Levitt, “Iran is not in good financial
shape; the money from Tehran [to Hezbollah]
doesn’t come as it used to.” As a result, the
group’s military wing has reportedly ordered
its overseas cells and external security units
to find new revenue streams, and its social
services have also had to cut costs.
Over the past three decades, Tehran has
funded Hezbollah terrorism around the world,
from its 1983 bombings of US and French
barracks in Beirut that killed 299 servicemen,
to attacks in the early 1990s at Jewish and
Israeli centers in Argentina that killed 114.
That relationship has continued to this day—
in 2012 Hezbollah bombed an Israeli tourist
bus in Bulgaria , killing six, and the same year
planned a similar attack in Cyprus. The group
has been accused of attacking diplomats as far
afield as India and Georgia, and last month
its operatives admitted to plotting attacks on
tourists in Thailand.
At the same time, Hezbollah also operates a
global network of criminal and narcotics
rings. In West Africa, it has made millions
trading in blood diamonds and arms. In
Colombia, its members have been convicted of
cocaine trafficking, and in the lawless border
areas between Argentina, Brazil, and
Paraguay it runs smuggling networks
transporting marijuana and tobacco. In the
US, officials have uncovered a multimillion-
dollar Hezbollah-run smuggling ring dealing
in drugs and cigarettes.
As less money comes in from Iran, Hezbollah
will likely have to turn to these illicit
operations even more to make up the
shortfall. Last week, however, a bill was
introduced to the US Senate that seeks to
challenge the group’s money-laundering and
logistics operations, designating Hezbollah as a
narcotics-trafficking and transnational
criminal organization. The bill would place
sanctions on individuals and firms conducting
any business with Hezbollah, severely
hindering the organization’s ability to
fundraise at a time when its coffers are
already drying up.
With its diminished financial prospects,
Hezbollah’s overseas cells could face an
accompanying decline in the group’s ability to
conduct both terror attacks and criminal
activity. The failure of its recent attacks in
Cyprus, India, Georgia, and Thailand indicate
that its operational capacity is already
compromised—something money troubles will
only exacerbate.
Meanwhile, Iran continues to bankroll the
Syrian government in its brutal three-year
war against rebel forces. Tehran is believed to
provide the Bashar al-Assad regime with
upwards of $600 million monthly to prosecute
the war and cover its fiscal deficit. For its part,
Hezbollah is itself losing money , pledging to
provide for the families of up to 500 of its
fighters killed in battle alongside Syrian
forces.
Rogue behavior carries costs. The Islamic
Republic’s nuclear program has devastated its
economy, raising fuel, food, and energy prices
for ordinary Iranians. Its three-year
campaign to save the Syrian regime is
bleeding its bank accounts, and damaging its
ability to fund terror beyond its borders.
The Syrian tragedy has claimed as many as
160,000 lives , with no end in sight. Still, in the
dark clouds above Damascus a silver lining
may be emerging: the weakening of the
Islamic Republic and its most dangerous
proxy.
3 Jun 2014
FOREIGN AIDS
Foreign aid or (development assistance) is
often regarded as being too much, or wasted
on corrupt recipient governments despite any
good intentions from donor countries. In
reality, both the quantity and quality of aid
have been poor and donor nations have not
been held to account.
There are numerous forms of aid, from
humanitarian emergency assistance, to food
aid, military assistance, etc. Development aid
has long been recognized as crucial to help
poor developing nations grow out of poverty.
In 1970, the world’s rich countries agreed to
give 0.7% of their GNI (Gross National
Income) as official international development
aid, annually. Since that time, despite billions
given each year, rich nations have rarely met
their actual promised targets. For example,
the US is often the largest donor in dollar
terms, but ranks amongst the lowest in terms
of meeting the stated 0.7% target.
Furthermore, aid has often come with a price
of its own for the developing nations:
Aid is often wasted on conditions that
the recipient must use overpriced
goods and services from donor
countries.
Most aid does not actually go to the
poorest who would need it the most
Aid amounts are dwarfed by rich
country protectionism that denies
market access for poor country
products, while rich nations use aid as
a lever to open poor country markets
to their products
Large projects or massive grand
strategies often fail to help the
vulnerable as money can often be
embezzled away.
often regarded as being too much, or wasted
on corrupt recipient governments despite any
good intentions from donor countries. In
reality, both the quantity and quality of aid
have been poor and donor nations have not
been held to account.
There are numerous forms of aid, from
humanitarian emergency assistance, to food
aid, military assistance, etc. Development aid
has long been recognized as crucial to help
poor developing nations grow out of poverty.
In 1970, the world’s rich countries agreed to
give 0.7% of their GNI (Gross National
Income) as official international development
aid, annually. Since that time, despite billions
given each year, rich nations have rarely met
their actual promised targets. For example,
the US is often the largest donor in dollar
terms, but ranks amongst the lowest in terms
of meeting the stated 0.7% target.
Furthermore, aid has often come with a price
of its own for the developing nations:
Aid is often wasted on conditions that
the recipient must use overpriced
goods and services from donor
countries.
Most aid does not actually go to the
poorest who would need it the most
Aid amounts are dwarfed by rich
country protectionism that denies
market access for poor country
products, while rich nations use aid as
a lever to open poor country markets
to their products
Large projects or massive grand
strategies often fail to help the
vulnerable as money can often be
embezzled away.
TAX AVOIDANCE / HAVEN
We might notlike the idea
of paying taxes, but without it,
democracies will struggle to function, and will be unable to provide public services. This affects both rich and poor nations, alike.
Individuals and companies all have to pay
taxes. But some of the world’s wealthiest
individuals and multinational companies,
able to afford ingenious lawyers and
accountants, have figured out ways to avoid
paying enormous amounts of taxes. While we
can get into serious trouble for evading
payment of taxes, even facing jail in some
countries, some companies seem to be able to
get away with it. In addition, if governments
need to, they tax the population further to try
and make up for the lost revenues from
businesses that have evaded the tax man (or
woman).
Why would companies do this, especially
when some of them portray themselves as
champions of the consumer? The reasons are
many, as this article will explore. In
summary, companies look for ways to
maximize shareholder value. Multinational
companies are in particular well-placed to
exploit tax havens and hide true profits
thereby avoiding tax. Poor countries barely
have resources to address these — many have
smaller budgets than the multinationals they
are trying to deal with.
Yet, companies and influential individuals
also pour lots of money into shaping a global
system that they will hope to benefit from. If
the right balance can’t be achieved, not only
will attempts to avoid taxation and other
measures undermine capitalism (which they
claim they support) they will also undermine
democracy (for even responsible governments
may find it hard to meet the needs of their
population).
of paying taxes, but without it,
democracies will struggle to function, and will be unable to provide public services. This affects both rich and poor nations, alike.
Individuals and companies all have to pay
taxes. But some of the world’s wealthiest
individuals and multinational companies,
able to afford ingenious lawyers and
accountants, have figured out ways to avoid
paying enormous amounts of taxes. While we
can get into serious trouble for evading
payment of taxes, even facing jail in some
countries, some companies seem to be able to
get away with it. In addition, if governments
need to, they tax the population further to try
and make up for the lost revenues from
businesses that have evaded the tax man (or
woman).
Why would companies do this, especially
when some of them portray themselves as
champions of the consumer? The reasons are
many, as this article will explore. In
summary, companies look for ways to
maximize shareholder value. Multinational
companies are in particular well-placed to
exploit tax havens and hide true profits
thereby avoiding tax. Poor countries barely
have resources to address these — many have
smaller budgets than the multinationals they
are trying to deal with.
Yet, companies and influential individuals
also pour lots of money into shaping a global
system that they will hope to benefit from. If
the right balance can’t be achieved, not only
will attempts to avoid taxation and other
measures undermine capitalism (which they
claim they support) they will also undermine
democracy (for even responsible governments
may find it hard to meet the needs of their
population).
SYRIA UNREST
Syria is one of the oldest places where
civilization has thought to have started. Its
capital, Damascus, is one of the oldest
continuously inhabited cities in the world.
Throughout history it has seen many changes,
violent and otherwise.
Today it is comprised of a number of ethnic
groups, mostly Arab, though a reasonable
number of Kurds, Armenians are also
present. There have also been a number of
Iraqi refugees and the main Arab group are
themselves from different sects and
denominations.
Around January 2011, following on from the
Arab Spring where protests against ruling
regimes erupted in a number of Middle East
countries, protesters in Syria came out
demanding President Bashar al-Assad and his
government step down. In response, Assad
sent in troops with some cities and regions
being besieged for weeks and months. Both
pro and anti-government protest gatherings
have at times been large.
Criticism of Syria’s crackdown has been quite
widespread. The Arab League has responded
by suspending Syria’s membership. Syria
claims that it is fighting an insurgency that is
terrorist by nature and claimed Al Qaeda is
involved. It has not been possible to verify
that claim so many see it as a cynical excuse.
The ruling regime is a sect of Shia, so has
support from Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah,
while the opposition is largely Sunni, thus
receiving support from other Middle East
countries, such as Saudi Arabia and others.
Thousands have been killed — civilians and
armed combatants. Some are asking the West
for a military intervention like there was in
Libya, but the US in particular is not keen on
another military intervention even though
they have been openly hostile and critical of
the Syrian ruling regime for many years.
China and Russia also have close ties with
Syria and to date have not been keen on any
action condemning Syria and have even
vetoed some actions. Some papers have
reported Iran and others helping Syria with
weapons, while others also mentioned the
opposition being armed by the West.
civilization has thought to have started. Its
capital, Damascus, is one of the oldest
continuously inhabited cities in the world.
Throughout history it has seen many changes,
violent and otherwise.
Today it is comprised of a number of ethnic
groups, mostly Arab, though a reasonable
number of Kurds, Armenians are also
present. There have also been a number of
Iraqi refugees and the main Arab group are
themselves from different sects and
denominations.
Around January 2011, following on from the
Arab Spring where protests against ruling
regimes erupted in a number of Middle East
countries, protesters in Syria came out
demanding President Bashar al-Assad and his
government step down. In response, Assad
sent in troops with some cities and regions
being besieged for weeks and months. Both
pro and anti-government protest gatherings
have at times been large.
Criticism of Syria’s crackdown has been quite
widespread. The Arab League has responded
by suspending Syria’s membership. Syria
claims that it is fighting an insurgency that is
terrorist by nature and claimed Al Qaeda is
involved. It has not been possible to verify
that claim so many see it as a cynical excuse.
The ruling regime is a sect of Shia, so has
support from Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah,
while the opposition is largely Sunni, thus
receiving support from other Middle East
countries, such as Saudi Arabia and others.
Thousands have been killed — civilians and
armed combatants. Some are asking the West
for a military intervention like there was in
Libya, but the US in particular is not keen on
another military intervention even though
they have been openly hostile and critical of
the Syrian ruling regime for many years.
China and Russia also have close ties with
Syria and to date have not been keen on any
action condemning Syria and have even
vetoed some actions. Some papers have
reported Iran and others helping Syria with
weapons, while others also mentioned the
opposition being armed by the West.
GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
The global financial crisis,brewing for a while, reallystarted to show its effects inthe middle of 2007 and into2008. Around the world stock markets have fallen, large financial
institutions have collapsed or been bought
out, and governments in even the wealthiest
nations have had to come up with rescue
packages to bail out their financial systems.
On the one hand many people are concerned
that those responsible for the financial
problems are the ones being bailed out, while
on the other hand, a global financial
meltdown will affect the livelihoods of almost
everyone in an increasingly inter-connected
world. The problem could have been avoided,
if ideologues supporting the current
economics models weren’t so vocal,
influential and inconsiderate of others’
viewpoints and concerns.
institutions have collapsed or been bought
out, and governments in even the wealthiest
nations have had to come up with rescue
packages to bail out their financial systems.
On the one hand many people are concerned
that those responsible for the financial
problems are the ones being bailed out, while
on the other hand, a global financial
meltdown will affect the livelihoods of almost
everyone in an increasingly inter-connected
world. The problem could have been avoided,
if ideologues supporting the current
economics models weren’t so vocal,
influential and inconsiderate of others’
viewpoints and concerns.
ANIMAL RIGHTS
Animals are used for research in a variety of settings,
including tests to determine the safety of drugs,
cosmetics and other substances. Whether or not
humans should use animals for testing purposes,
however, is a controversial subject. There are both pros
and cons to using animals for testing, but the scientific
community, the government and society in general have
yet to reach a consensus on this ethical issue.
One of the primary advantages of animal testing is that
it allows researchers to develop new medications and
treatments, advancing the field of medicine and
enhancing the health of society. For instance, many
drugs used to treat or prevent cancer, HIV, diabetes,
infections and other medical maladies have resulted
from tests performed on animals. Many proponents of
animal testing support the practice for this reason, even
if they do not support testing cosmetics or other non-
essential substances on animals.
Animal testing also enables scientists and researchers
to test the safety of medications and other substances
with which humans have regular contact. Drugs, for
instance, may pose significant risks to humans, so
testing them on animals first gives researchers a chance
to determine drugs' safety before human trials are
performed. While scientists are cognizant of the
differences between humans and animals, the
similarities are considered significant enough to produce
relevant, useful data that they can then apply to
humans. Thus, animal testing reduces harm to humans
and saves lives, not only because the exposure to risky
substances is minimized, but because resulting
medications and treatments have such positive impacts
on the overall quality of life experienced by humans.
Critiques of Animal Testing
One of the major disadvantages to animal testing is
that a significant number of animals are harmed or die
as a result of experiments and testing. Unfortunately,
many of the substances used on animal subjects never
receive approval for human use or consumption. Those
who oppose animal testing consider this a very
important point, because humans receive no direct
benefits as a result of the deaths of these animals.
Opponents also argue that animals are dissimilar
enough from humans to make the results of animal
tests unreliable. A related criticism is that testing
induces stress in the animals, meaning that the subjects
do not react to experimental substances in the same
way that they might in more natural circumstances,
making the results of experiments less valid.
Using animals as research subjects is also expensive,
because the animals require food, shelter, care and
treatment in addition to the costs of experimental
substances. Long-term or multi-phase tests can
increase the costs of the practice as well. The actual
price paid for the animals is also worth consideration;
there are companies that breed and sell animals
specifically for testing purposes.
including tests to determine the safety of drugs,
cosmetics and other substances. Whether or not
humans should use animals for testing purposes,
however, is a controversial subject. There are both pros
and cons to using animals for testing, but the scientific
community, the government and society in general have
yet to reach a consensus on this ethical issue.
One of the primary advantages of animal testing is that
it allows researchers to develop new medications and
treatments, advancing the field of medicine and
enhancing the health of society. For instance, many
drugs used to treat or prevent cancer, HIV, diabetes,
infections and other medical maladies have resulted
from tests performed on animals. Many proponents of
animal testing support the practice for this reason, even
if they do not support testing cosmetics or other non-
essential substances on animals.
Animal testing also enables scientists and researchers
to test the safety of medications and other substances
with which humans have regular contact. Drugs, for
instance, may pose significant risks to humans, so
testing them on animals first gives researchers a chance
to determine drugs' safety before human trials are
performed. While scientists are cognizant of the
differences between humans and animals, the
similarities are considered significant enough to produce
relevant, useful data that they can then apply to
humans. Thus, animal testing reduces harm to humans
and saves lives, not only because the exposure to risky
substances is minimized, but because resulting
medications and treatments have such positive impacts
on the overall quality of life experienced by humans.
Critiques of Animal Testing
One of the major disadvantages to animal testing is
that a significant number of animals are harmed or die
as a result of experiments and testing. Unfortunately,
many of the substances used on animal subjects never
receive approval for human use or consumption. Those
who oppose animal testing consider this a very
important point, because humans receive no direct
benefits as a result of the deaths of these animals.
Opponents also argue that animals are dissimilar
enough from humans to make the results of animal
tests unreliable. A related criticism is that testing
induces stress in the animals, meaning that the subjects
do not react to experimental substances in the same
way that they might in more natural circumstances,
making the results of experiments less valid.
Using animals as research subjects is also expensive,
because the animals require food, shelter, care and
treatment in addition to the costs of experimental
substances. Long-term or multi-phase tests can
increase the costs of the practice as well. The actual
price paid for the animals is also worth consideration;
there are companies that breed and sell animals
specifically for testing purposes.
SMOKING BAN
A smoking ban is a public policy that includes criminal
laws and health regulations that prohibit smoking in
certain public places and workspaces. There are varying
definitions of smoking employed in this legislation. The
strictest definitions define smoking as being the
inhalation of any tobacco substance while the loosest
define smoking as possessing any lit tobacco product.
There are many reasons why smoking bans originated,
but most of these have medical origins. Research has
shown secondhand smoke is almost as harmful as
smoking in and of itself. The effects of secondhand
smoke are relatively the same as smoking. Lung
disease, heart disease, bronchitis and asthma are
common. Those who live in homes with smokers have a
20-30 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer than
those who do not live with a smoker. Many see it as
unfair that others have to suffer the effects of
secondhand smoke when they are not able to make the
decision for exposur to it. Non-smokers who worked
with smokers experienced a 16-19 percent increase in
lung cancer rates. In this case, the worker had no
choice but to face exposure to the smoke. Smoking
bans remove these risks for many people. The National
Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States
and National Institutes of Health all support smoking
bans because of the statistics of second-hand smoke.
Smoking bans are also imposed because they improve
air quality in restaurants and other establishments. In
New York, it is now illegal to smoke in all hospitality
venues. Studies by the Center for Disease Control have
shown the air quality in New York establishments to be
nine times higher than those in New Jersey where
smoking remains legal. Studies have also shown
employees are exposed to far fewer toxins in areas
where smoking is banned in the workplace. In Norway,
tests showed a decrease in the nicotine levels of both
smokers and nonsmokers when smoking bans were
enacted in the workplace.
Critics of Smoking Bans
Despite the positive effects on health and air quality,
many people are still opposed to smoking bans in the
United States. Critics in the smoking ban debate include
the well-known musician Joe Jackson as well as
Christopher Hitchens, a political critic. Usually, people
who oppose smoking bans see these laws as an
example of the government interfering in people's lives.
They look at the effects on smokers, not those on non-
smokers who are subjected to second-hand smoke.
Other critics emphasize the rights of the property owner
and draw distinctions between public places, such as
government buildings, and privately owned businesses,
such as stores and restaurants.
Some critics of smoking bans believe that outlawing
smoking in the workplace may cause smokers to simply
move their smoking elsewhere. Instead of smoking
indoors, workers may begin smoking in public parks and
exposing a new set of people to their secondhand
smoke. Some have even argued that local bans on
smoking will increase DUI fatalities. Those who wish to
smoke will be forced to drive further away to do so,
althoughno evidence has been found to support this
theory.
Smoking bans in public places are becoming more and
more common in the United States. Whether the rights
of the non-smoker to breathe in fresh air outweigh
those of the smoker to smoke freely is a matter of
opinion, manifesting itself in a heated smoking ban
debate.
laws and health regulations that prohibit smoking in
certain public places and workspaces. There are varying
definitions of smoking employed in this legislation. The
strictest definitions define smoking as being the
inhalation of any tobacco substance while the loosest
define smoking as possessing any lit tobacco product.
There are many reasons why smoking bans originated,
but most of these have medical origins. Research has
shown secondhand smoke is almost as harmful as
smoking in and of itself. The effects of secondhand
smoke are relatively the same as smoking. Lung
disease, heart disease, bronchitis and asthma are
common. Those who live in homes with smokers have a
20-30 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer than
those who do not live with a smoker. Many see it as
unfair that others have to suffer the effects of
secondhand smoke when they are not able to make the
decision for exposur to it. Non-smokers who worked
with smokers experienced a 16-19 percent increase in
lung cancer rates. In this case, the worker had no
choice but to face exposure to the smoke. Smoking
bans remove these risks for many people. The National
Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States
and National Institutes of Health all support smoking
bans because of the statistics of second-hand smoke.
Smoking bans are also imposed because they improve
air quality in restaurants and other establishments. In
New York, it is now illegal to smoke in all hospitality
venues. Studies by the Center for Disease Control have
shown the air quality in New York establishments to be
nine times higher than those in New Jersey where
smoking remains legal. Studies have also shown
employees are exposed to far fewer toxins in areas
where smoking is banned in the workplace. In Norway,
tests showed a decrease in the nicotine levels of both
smokers and nonsmokers when smoking bans were
enacted in the workplace.
Critics of Smoking Bans
Despite the positive effects on health and air quality,
many people are still opposed to smoking bans in the
United States. Critics in the smoking ban debate include
the well-known musician Joe Jackson as well as
Christopher Hitchens, a political critic. Usually, people
who oppose smoking bans see these laws as an
example of the government interfering in people's lives.
They look at the effects on smokers, not those on non-
smokers who are subjected to second-hand smoke.
Other critics emphasize the rights of the property owner
and draw distinctions between public places, such as
government buildings, and privately owned businesses,
such as stores and restaurants.
Some critics of smoking bans believe that outlawing
smoking in the workplace may cause smokers to simply
move their smoking elsewhere. Instead of smoking
indoors, workers may begin smoking in public parks and
exposing a new set of people to their secondhand
smoke. Some have even argued that local bans on
smoking will increase DUI fatalities. Those who wish to
smoke will be forced to drive further away to do so,
althoughno evidence has been found to support this
theory.
Smoking bans in public places are becoming more and
more common in the United States. Whether the rights
of the non-smoker to breathe in fresh air outweigh
those of the smoker to smoke freely is a matter of
opinion, manifesting itself in a heated smoking ban
debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)