India Develops Solid Footprints in Afghanistan

In a recent agreement between India and Afghanistan where India has agreed to train Afghan security forces, this move has added one more significant dimension to Indo-Afghan relations. During the past decade, India has taken multiple initiatives to strengthen its relation with Afghanistan.

It all started with toppling of Taliban regime in 2001 by the US-led international coalition forces, when India moved swiftly to make its presence felt in Afghanistan. Taliban which were reportedly harboring the alleged 9/11 perpetrators and Al- Qaeda chief Osama bin-Laden, had to pay the heaviest price by being overthrown by the coalition forces.

Prior to 9/11 events, Taliban did not have a warm relation with India when in power as they were allegedly backed by Pakistan, the arch-enemy of India. With the capture of Kabul in 1996 by Taliban, the Indian government led by prime minster H.D Deve Gowda did not officially recognize the regime of Taliban. In fact India, along with Iran and Russia were strong supporters of Northern Alliance, a multi-ethnic anti-Taliban force based in north of Afghanistan. The Indian Embassy in Kabul hardly functioned during the reign of Taliban 1996 - 2001.

Events changed dramatically in favor of India in post-Taliban as the members of Northern Alliance, the old-time ally of India, got the lion's share of power in Kabul in Bonn Conference on future of Afghanistan held in Germany in 2001. Pakistan, India's arch-rival stood as a weak and helpless bystander of events by having a limited say with ouster of its ally, Taliban. Delhi government led by BJP was in full swing to take maximum political mileage by announcing generous financial and technical aid to the Afghan government.

Shift in India's strategy

With new and somewhat pro-India dispensation in Kabul, India shifted its strategy towards Afghanistan. The help that it was giving to anti-Taliban forces in the form arms and military equipments were channeled to the central government led by Hamid Karzai, in the shape of technical support and capacity building of human resources, with main focus on overall development and infrastructure of the country. The earlier donation of airplanes by India to the crippled Afghan Aviation sector and the announcement of scholarships for Afghan students were the most noted ones.

Gradually, India concentrated more on infrastructure and monetary help to the country. The roads between Kandahar province and Spin Boldak district and Zaranj - Delaram highway were built by India. According to The Hindu, in undertaking of these projects, Indian engineers had to face constant threat from the insurgents groups with the loss of life of an Indian engineer in the process. The construction of new Afghan parliament in Kabul by India is in progress and the construction of a water dam in Herat province is near complete. The momentary help of India has been on the rise and to date it has pledged $ 1.3 billion for reconstruction and development of Afghanistan, The Hindu adds.

With increasing influence of India in Afghanistan in post-Talban, Pakistan has also been active in its development activity in Afghanistan. The move, however, has aroused suspicions among Afghan people and authorities. In April 2009, on the condition of anonymity, one former high-ranking Afghan official revealed to the Journal of International Affairs, an American journal that Afghanistan was wary of Pakistani aid due to past indiscretions and meddling with its affairs. In other words, Kabul turned a suspicious eye toward aid from Islamabad due to its past support for the Taliban. This is in part due to ongoing disputes over the Durand Line, which have never been resolved between Afghanistan and Pakistan, a debate that centers on the fate of the predominantly Pashtun tribes along the border. In the words of Barnett Rubin and Abubakar Siddique, "The long history of each state offering sanctuary to the other's opponents has built bitterness and mistrust between the two neighbors", the Journal quoted them as saying.

The future of the relation

According to Indian magazine, Tehelka, the Afghan-Indo relations is a win-win partnership as it is based on solid foundation and trust. The relation further got a shot in the arm with the signing of Strategic Agreement between the two countries in October 2011, and this means they have become strategic partners. India which is experiencing an impressive economic growth for the quite some time is eager to strengthen its economic ties with Afghanistan. The natural resources of Aghansitan are huge and untapped which makes it ideal arena of investment for Indian companies. On top of this, the location of the country could be the more important focus for India as it is a passageway to Central Asian countries. Through Afghanistan, India can reach the Central Asian markets for its goods and products and at the same time access the enormous energy of the region for its energy-hungry industries, the magazine argues.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is worried about the growing influence of India in Afghanistan. Its main contention is using of the country by India for anti-Pakistan activities. The unrest in Baluchistan which is blamed on India and the growing numbers of Indian consulates in several parts of Afghanistan are cited as proof by Pakistan. The Express Tribune, a Pakistani daily, in October 2011, quoted Inspector General Frontier Corps of Baluchistan Major General Obaidullah Khattak, that India was using Afghan territory to carry out terrorist attacks in Baluchistan. "There is evidence that Afghanistan is being used against Pakistan," the paper quoted Khattak.

The daily also quoted Pakistan's former president Pervez Musharraf that India sought to create an anti-Pakistan Afghanistan as part of a bid to dominate South Asia politically and economically.

India which faces hostile Taliban targeting its interests in Afghanistan has also blamed Pakistan for carrying out anti-India activities by using its proxies there. The bombing of Indian Embassy in July 2008 was blamed on Pakistan's intelligence Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). Pakistan, however, denied that it had any role in it.

The blame game between Pakistan and India will certainly go on. Whether it is mere rhetoric used by both or they have solid evidence to prove their accusations is yet to be seen. But one thing is for sure, India is in Afghanistan to stay.

Afghans' concern

The Afghans are watching both India and Pakistan. They welcome the contribution of both for the reconstruction and development of their county. But they don't like is that their country to become the battlefield for India and Pakistan to settle scores. And this has been the official stance of the Afghan government.

View the original article here

Socialist Economic Planning Seems To Accelerate To The Cliff and Pretend It's Not There

Sometimes I wonder how the socialist utopia builders get away with such nonsense, that is to say convince the people of some grand vision which can't possibly exist using their methodologies and theories, not to mention the ancillary motives behind the cause. Nevertheless, they do, and more often than not they do get buy-in from the masses hoping for a positive change for the future.

The problem is their foundation is built on a theory which has never worked in human history. Indeed, that is an impossible obstacle to overcome. Nevertheless this group progresses forward and they have hijacked many nations throughout the annals of history. Okay so let's talk shall we?

Might I suggest that; here we go again. This time in the United States, a country I never thought it could possibly happen. Sure, we see the effects of socialism in countries like Argentina, Venezuela, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, and other nations around the world. But how can the United States which stands for the individual ever agree to dismiss individual freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of one's own happiness for some song and dance of hope and change?

There was a very apropos Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal on November 23, 2012 titled; "Illinois the Unfixable" which stated "Illinois pension system is heading for a meltdown and may now be beyond help. That's the forecast from a Chicago business group, which told its members that the state's pension crisis 'has grown so severe' that it is unfixable."

Now then, Illinois is hardly alone in this problem with its $95 billion dollars in unfunded pension contributions. What's unfortunate is that when they had a chance to do something about it, they didn't, nor does any politician wish to take the political hit for telling the unions no, and so there you have it another Greek Tragedy coming to a downtown theater near you.

What I can't understand is that it didn't work in Illinois and it isn't working still, so then; why did we allow politicians from there to jump into the White House and tell us that they can do it better. They haven't, they can't, and it's obvious that they are spending us into oblivion as they run us off the cliff of bankruptcy. It's as if they pretend it doesn't even exist, that there is no cliff, and that everyone and everything will be fine if we just let them continue. There is a very interesting book I think you should read;

"The Worldly Philosophers," by Robert L Heilbroner, first published in 1953.

This book is an economic philosophy book. And there is indeed an entire chapter on "the Beautiful World of the Utopian Socialists," where the author conveniently puts these delusional socioeconomic theories in their place. Perhaps we all should. Still, it's important for you to make up your own mind, and therefore I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Innovation in America. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here

Is the Utility of Scottish Independence Pragmatic?

There is beginning to be a debate about the pragmatism or the utility of Scottish independence. I strongly suspect that the argument is being made by those who would support independence come what may. They realise however, that the number of "existentialist" nationalists in Scotland is quite small, limited to the more committed members of the Scottish National Party and they have to try to reach out to the waverers and uncommitted in order to win the independence referendum. There's nothing wrong with this, of course. Unionists, too must try to reach out not only to our core support, who would support the Union come what may, but also to those who might be contemplating independence or who have once or twice even voted for the SNP.

One problem with the nationalist appeal to utilitarianism is that it rather forgets one of the central tenets of the philosophy which was developed by people such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. The essence of their idea about morality can be summed up by the quotation from Bentham's A Fragment of Government: "It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." Let's look at how this principle might apply to the issue of Scottish independence. Imagine that as a consequence of independence, the sum of happiness decreased in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. On the basis of utilitarian principles, Scottish independence would have to be rejected even if it led to an increase in happiness in Scotland. The reason is that anything which leads to an overall decrease in happiness is wrong by the principles of utilitarianism. Thus, for instance, if Scotland's failing to share its oil revenues led to a decline in living standards in the rest of the UK, this would be considered by utilitarians to be wrong, because the sum of overall happiness would have decreased, even if it meant that the happiness of those in Scotland was greater than it otherwise would be. The principle of utilitarianism, after all, is not that it should lead to the greatest happiness of the greatest number in Scotland. If the SNP were to maintain that they were only interested in happiness in Scotland, this would show that their philosophy has precious little to do with utilitarianism, which opposes selfishness. It would show, moreover, that the principle underlying the SNP's philosophy is not utility but existential nationalism. Why separate this group of people called Scots from the rest of the population unless it is for reasons of existential nationalism? Utility for us at the expense of you is neither utilitarian nor moral.

Scottish Nationalism fails the test of utilitarianism at the first hurdle. Let's look instead however, at whether it can be argued that it is pragmatic for the people of Scotland to choose independence. The trouble with the idea of appealing to pragmatism is that it depends on the ability to foresee the future. It is likely that if Scotland voted for independence that the result would stand. There would be no turning back. The southern part of Ireland chose to leave the UK in the 1920s, but no matter the nature of living standards there today, there is no bringing back the Union that existed from 1800 until partition. Imagine however, Irish nationalists appealing to pragmatism in the years leading up to independence. How far could they see ahead? It is doubtful that they could have predicted events even in the 1920s. They certainly could not have seen as far ahead as the Second World War, the creation of the European Union, or the crisis in the Eurozone. Yet all of these events have had consequences for the prosperity of southern Ireland. It is perfectly possible to argue, given the economic consequences of being in the Eurozone that it would have been more pragmatic for Irish nationalists not to have chosen independence all those years ago. It is arguable that the Irish people as a whole would be better off today with a united Ireland within the UK. But how could anyone have predicted these matters in the 1920s? Who knows what will happen to Scotland in the coming century. No one can look ahead more than a few years at best. So on what basis can nationalists appeal to pragmatism? Perhaps, they think that under every possible future circumstance it would be better for Scotland to be independent. But this is to argue that would be better for Scotland come what may to be independent. Once more the pragmatic argument reduces itself to the existential argument.

A further argument in terms of pragmatism is that Scotland would be more likely to get a government reflecting the will of its people if it voted for independence. Thus, independence is presented to left-wing Scots as a pragmatic way of avoiding future Tory governments. This argument depends on existential assumptions about Scotland's national status, for otherwise why choose Scotland as the base unit? Southern Scotland together with northern England might, for instance, be a more optimum political unit than either Scotland or the whole of the UK. Why then should we not set up such an independent state for pragmatic reasons? Alternatively, if Scotland were independent, there might be a region, for instance Aberdeenshire, which consistently voted differently from the rest of Scotland, should that region then not be allowed to secede from Scotland? The argument against these positions would be that neither Aberdeenshire, nor northern England joined with southern Scotland are countries, or nations. Once more we fall back on our existential nationalism.

The fundamental problem with the pragmatic argument for independence is that it is based on the idea that it is government that solves our problems and is the source of our money. This naturally leads to the idea that if only there were more government and a larger state all would be well. Nicola Sturgeon believes that the Labour party under Tony Blair was "not an alternative to Conservatism. It was business as usual." This means that her pragmatism amounts to being still more left-wing than Blair and Brown, increasing public spending and debt even more than they did. Far from being pragmatic, this would be economically disastrous. The public sector in Scotland is already too large. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is already much higher than is economically desirable for the promotion of growth. Yet the lesson the SNP would take from the Brown/Blair years is that Labour were Tories in disguise, not left-wing enough and that they did not spend enough public money, nor rack up enough debt. Are we seriously supposed to describe this as pragmatism?

Scotland is clearly an economically viable independent state, but the effect of independence financially would be about neutral. Scotland would gain from increased oil revenues, but we would lose our share of central government funding (the Barnett formula). Scotland would face the same hard choices with regard to debt and deficit as we do being part of the UK. The idea that Scotland could avoid austerity by voting for independence is simply not true. Anyone who believes this already shows themselves unfit to rule. The only result of SNP politicians continuing to favour ever increasing public spending in order to pay for still more free goodies to dish out universally as a bribe to the electorate, is that eventually we will be faced with a choice between bankruptcy and far more austerity than we have at present. Declining oil revenues, with fluctuating prices are not going to allow us to live beyond our means. Until the SNP shows that they understand the debt crisis, they are unsuitable to be put in charge of Scotland's economy whether independent or not.

Prosperity does not depend on being independent. If it did, then it would be pragmatic for the citizens of Baden-Württemberg to seek independence. But it is clearly in their interest to remain part of Germany. Independence for Baden-Württemberg would not make the people living there more prosperous. Germany like the UK is made up of places that once were independent, but which realised long ago that it is much more pragmatic to work together. Britain like Germany has a functioning single market and enormous economies of scale. These exist because both Britons and Germans have lived together in one country for centuries. To propose giving up these advantages is the very opposite of pragmatism.

http://effiedeans.wordpress.com/

The Scottish independence referendum will be in 2014. I'm campaigning for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom, by means of a regular blog exploring all of the issues involved. Please come and join the debate by clicking on the above link.

View the original article here

A BINDER-FULL OF WOMEN? How to Unravel the Romney Ramble

Now that the 2012 general election is passed we have a chance to free up space in our craniums to focus on matters that are ongoing. Now we can even isolate topics that emerged from the debris of the debates. We can isolate topics that were not sufficiently topical for in-depth discussions because of the center-stage concerns about the economy, but are nonetheless too vital to ignore.

One of such topics was the idea of "A Binder-full of Women", a tongue-in-cheek comment made by the Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney about equal rights and pay for women in the workplace. There are two issues to consider from the comment: 1) to what extent was the statement colored by the governor's religious beliefs? And 2) can a man really separate his religion from his politics?

In general, the comment may be considered in the context of how society tends to marginalize some of its citizenry; since it is a historical fact that women, for example, often reaped the bane of such marginalization in the home and workplace. Renown feminist activist, Gloria Steinem, in her heyday made the point that: "No man can call himself liberal, or radical, or even a conservative advocate of fair play, if his work depends in any way on the unpaid or underpaid labor of a woman at home, or in the office."

Today, the social gap between the sexes is narrowing; to the extent that even in a recent presidential debate a woman sat in the high chair as moderator. But it is well known that the marginalization of the fairer sex is not only socio-political, but theological as well.

Hence, it is largely within a theological framework that the statement should be weighed; considering governor Romney's Mormon worldview; and with particular consideration to how women function within the system compared to their male counterparts. Howard P. Kainz, Professor Emeritus at Marquette University, in his article titled, Mormon and Christianity: Asking the Right Question, offered that, "Mitt Romney... is not only bishop in the LDS church but a High Priest of the highest echelon (the 'order of Melchizedek).'"

Indeed, it is difficult to separate ones religion from ones politics and the main issue that juxtapose the governor's religion with his politics is the Mormon fundamental belief system and the role women play in it. Though with good intention, to say "a binder-full of women" is to use a term that is marginalizing; and in this context may be received mainly according to how women are marginalized in the movement.

To unravel the undercurrents of the statement it is necessary to examine 1) the dominance of the priesthood, 2) the ideological or covert practice of polygamy and, 3) the inseparable connection between the priesthood, polygamy, and celestial marriage.

First, the dominance of the priesthood. Although much of what may be known to outsiders about Mormonism is shrouded in secrecy, the male-dominated priesthood itself is no secret, since it forms the bedrock of the Mormon culture. With little or no distinction between clergy and laity (pastor and parishioner) Mormon men hold an ordained priesthood with absolute authority over both spiritual and temporal issues.

It is considered their divine appointment to preach, prophesy, heal, baptize, and speak for God -their counsel to be respected and adhered to as tantamount to the voice of God. This authority begins at age twelve where a boy is assigned to the (lesser) Aaronic order of priest, then after age eighteen is inducted into the (higher) Melchizedek order of priests.

To see the extent to which women are marginalized within the system, one must understand that it is found that a pubescent boy of thirteen, as an Aaronic order of priest, is seen to be more qualified to give counsel to his mother than the mother at any age to give counsel to him.

When biblical Old Testament scripture is used in conjunction with the Book of Mormon to justify this practice it takes the priestly authority to an even higher level. A Protestant Christian is often swift with the Pauline outcry, "We're no longer under law, but under grace."

Second, the ideological or covert practice of polygamy. When it comes to the teachings and practice of polygamy (plural marriage) the LDS (Latter Day Saints) today express the view that they no longer sanction polygamy and its members no longer practice it, although there are still elements of the doctrine in its theology.

As late as 1904 after the practice was legally abolished 1890, President Joseph F. Smith (nephew of the founder), explains that, "The doctrine is not repealed, the truth is not annulled, the law is right and just now as ever, but the observance of it is stopped." Concurring with the Mormon belief that polygamous celestial marriage will continue in heaven, he remarked in his book, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol 2, p. 67 that "My wives will be mine in eternity."

It is not hard to believe that the overt practice of polygamy is no longer tolerated today. It doesn't fit well with contemporary political expediencies. When it comes to change the movement has a lot in common with other religious movements like Seventh Day Adventist (SDA), Salvation Army, Church of God, etc. that began about the same time in modern history. The early nineteenth century was an era of religious daring and pioneering. And all these movements have gone through radical changes in their doctrines over the years.

LDS, along with other movements has experienced rifts, and fragmentations with their memberships --members siding with whichever dissenting leader they choose. But with each group holding on to varying interpretation of the core beliefs, the Mormon core belief of polygamy is indeed a diehard value.

It is insightful that it is stated in their articles of faith that, "We claim the privilege of worshipping the Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (mormon.org/articles of faith -#11)

Even though the practice of polygamy is outlawed today, the LDS priesthood honors the practice ideologically and theologically, if not covertly, perhaps with many amongst them pining after the 'the good old days' when a house full of women was the norm.

Third, the inseparable connection between the priesthood, polygamy, and celestial marriage. It would seem the triple connection is a means to an end. With the core belief that God was once a man, it follows, according to this theology, that man is destined to become god. Integral to this theology is that God after being spirit at first, He then underwent a successful probationary human experience on earth from which He gained the right to the exalted position of Almighty God who rules over the planets and universes.

Since a man is expected to follow a similar path to the afterlife, this is where the Mormon doctrine has its deepest significance. Unlike Pauline theology which says that all the saints are joint heirs with Christ, the Mormon view is that a woman cannot gain salvation unless married to a holder of the priesthood. And since all Mormon male members are priests, the idea of female members needing and wanting to be married to one is intrinsic to the church's theology.

The temple ordinance of sealing "celestial marriages" (eternal marriage), represents, for women a doorway into the afterlife where such marriages is expected to survive death, and be perpetual throughout eternity. Hence, the logic of plural marriages is that the more wives, the greater the possibility of male children, and the greater the number of male children, the higher the possibility of many more gods to populate the planets throughout eternity.

Admittedly, the idea of man becoming god is not exclusive to Mormonism. The Worldwide Church of God, which began about a century later also promoted a similar gospel of profundity, but have changed in recent decades. And judging from the information on their website, the Mormons are changing as well. To the average person looking for a church, the articles of faith appears to be main-stream fundamental Christian doctrine. But as always one cannot judge a book by its cover.

It is to the future that society may look to see how much of LDS core doctrine can be masked in order to be validated within a fundamental Christian worldview. And when it comes to religion vs. politics, the truth is that in America religion has always been a part of politics. But the rule of thumb is discretion and subtlety. The idea of "a binder-full of women" was rife with subtlety. But not subtle enough to escape the scrutiny of the curiosity it inflamed.

______________________________________________________________

Ken McCarty Bird is an author and speaker, award-winning poet, and consultant on neuromuscular health issues. The two most recent titles of his four books are, Somatic Sensibility and Caribbean Spell. Ken can be reached at (727) 388-3424 or drbird@caredimensions.org. website: http://www.caredimensions.org/

Discover the Healing Attributes of Poetry!

More than just a collection of poems, Caribbean Spell compiles the richness of thoughts gleaned from the lush and pristine landscape that cuddles a moment of reminiscence. As a well-crafted selection, the author's ingenuity helps the reader relive treasured moments and etched them in the recurring cycle of endless remembrance. That the reader is carried into the intrigue and suspense of the poem right from the start, is what makes Caribbean Spell worth having.Make Caribbean Spell a treasured gift for your friend or family.

View the original article here

Sandy Beats Up Romney - How Climate Change Changed the 2012 Election

In the 2012 presidential election, climate change was not a prominent agenda issue for either President Obama or Governor Romney-until Hurricane Sandy washed ashore. The topic never came up in the presidential debates. President Obama did not mention it because he was accused of promulgating regulations that had stymied business expansion and slowed recovery from the Great Recession. Governor Romney did not mention it because he had been an advocate of a proactive government policy on global warming while Governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007). However, during the brutal Republican primaries, Romney reversed his position to appeal to the ultra conservative Tea Party Republicans. He did not want to call attention to that reversal during the general election.

Just before the election, the populous East Coast saw a live Climate Change Production named Hurricane Sandy. Millions of New Englanders lost power-some for weeks. According to FOX Business (Smith 2012) insured property losses exceeded $20B and economic damage exceeded $50B-exceeded only by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

In contrast to President's Bush's lackadaisical and incompetent response to Hurricane Katrina, President Obama responded quickly and forcefully. In the aftermath, the mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, endorsed Obama for President. Bloomberg asked conservative pundits, Tea Party Congressmen, and other climate change skeptics to explain two hurricanes and a freak October snowstorm in a single year to his suffering constituents. The Republican Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, stood at the President's side and enthusiastically thanked him for the help of the federal government.

In contrast, the 2012 hurricane season was devastating for Governor Romney. First Hurricane Isaac interfered with the Republican National Convention in Florida where he was nominated; then Hurricane Sandy made him look opportunistic regarding his reversal on the climate change issue, while she made Obama look presidential--on the ground, at the scene, being hugged by a grateful Republican governor.

Still conservative businessmen, like the Koch Brothers, and the philosophical brethren in Congress, whose elections they finance, deny the reality of climate change. Under the fear mongering banners of job losses, double dip recession and oppressive government regulations, they assert that one super storm, such as Hurricane Sandy, does not prove global warming. They are right, of course. In any context, one event cannot prove a pattern. However, Hurricane Sandy was more than an isolated event. The melting of the Arctic ice cap is not a one-summer phenomenon. It has been progressing with increasing speed as the climate has been warming for decades. In November, the National Climate Data Center reported that October 2012 marked the 332nd consecutive month that global land and ocean surface temperatures were above the 20th century average for that month. In 2007 ships actually began crossing the Arctic Ocean through the "Northwest Passage"-the shortcut to the Far East that Columbus tried to find 500 years ago.

Hurricane Sandy's destructive power was accentuated by the one foot rise in sea levels that has resulted from the gradual melting of the Arctic ice cap. So even in the unlikely case that Sandy was a random meteorological event, the extent of damage must be laid at the feet of global warming.

There has been international consensus on climate change for over a decade-except in the United States. According to a Brookings Institute poll (Borick et.al. 2011), in 2010, 80 percent of Canadians believed that global warming was a serious concern. In contrast, only 58 percent of Americans felt that way. A longitudinal term Gallup poll (Newport 2010) of Americans showed an even more dramatic public opinion shift away from concern with global warming. Between 1998 and 2010 the number of Americans who felt the "seriousness of global warming is greatly exaggerated" rose from 30 percent to 48 percent.

The Koch Brothers efforts to diffuse the issue of the effects of carbon dioxide emissions succeeded-at least until Hurricane Sandy. Koch Industries has huge investments in coal production and in oil production and the pipelines to deliver it. They funneled grant money to a few scientists, like Richard Muller at the University of California-Berkeley, to dispute the reality of global warming, or at least dispute the impact of human activities on changing temperatures. Thus, they prevented a 100 percent scientific consensus. Because it appeared that scientists disagreed, American citizens had an easy way to deny climate change and avoid life style changes.

However, in mid 2012 Professor Muller reversed his position because, as he said in a July 28th New York Times Op-Ed, his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project had just determined that the earth was getting warmer and that human activities were to blame. A few months later, Professor Muller (with Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels) wrote "The Frackers Guide to a Greener World." In their November 11th Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, they laud natural gas as the green answer to global warming because it produces less greenhouse gases than oil or coal and the U.S. has lots of it. The Koch Brothers are probably still happy with "their man in academia;" they are heavily invested in the new natural gas boom.

Scientists, and those political leaders who took science seriously, had concluded that the earth was warming almost a generation earlier (Gore 1992). Ecologists understood that small increases in average worldwide temperatures would ripple across physical and biological processes in the ecosystem. They understood that some of those changes would gather momentum and cascade rather than attenuate with time and space.

The climate has changed in both directions in the past. Some scientists have postulated that a major warming resulted from the carbon dioxide and methane in dinosaur flatulence (Khan 2012). When the planet was very warm, vegetation grew across polar regions. When the dinosaurs went extinct, carbon dioxide and methane levels dropped as more carbon was stored in vegetation and less carbon dioxide was released. by herbivores.. As the earth cooled, the uneaten vegetation was preserved in permafrost and was covered by accumulating snow--which compressed into vast ice sheets. The white snow reflected the suns rays to further cool the planet. Now as the earth again warms the ice melts, the darker organic matter is exposed and attracts more heat from the sun. As the permafrost melts, the organic matter is exposed to oxygen and rots--producing carbon dioxide, which warms the climate which thaws the permafrost even more quickly which releases even more carbon dioxide--reinforcing the process. All the while, melting of the ice caps causes the sea levels to keep rising, giving Hurricane Sandy (and her successors) more punch at the levies and a knock out punch at Romney--a presidential candidate who had chosen to deny her cause.

References:

Borick, C., E. Lachapelle and B. Rabe 2011 "Climate Compared: Public Opinion on Climate Change in the United States and Canada," Issues in Government studies #39, Brookings Institute

Gore, A. 1992 Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Barnes and Noble: New York, NY

Khan, A 2012 Los Angeles Times May 8

Muller, R. 2012 "The Conversion of a Climate Change Skeptic." New York Times July 28

Muller, R, and M. Daniels 2012 "The Frackers Guide to Greener World," Wall Street Journal Nov. 11

Newport, F. 2010 "American's Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop," Gallup Politics Mar. 11

Smith, S. 2012 "Super Storm Sandy Hits ETFs," FoxBusiness Nov. 19

Lowell Klessig has explored a broad range of academic disciples. He took courses in 45 departments, in 8 colleges at 2 universities. He received a BS in Biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a MAT in Molecular Biology at Vanderbilt University, a MS in Sociology and a Ph.D. in Environmental Management and Resource Planning from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Dr Klessig taught at Northland College, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and throughout Wisconsin as a Natural Resource Specialist, Extension Service, USDA. Concurrently, he also served as Executive Director of the Wisconsin Rural Leadership Program (now Leadership Wisconsin).

He has studied nature and culture in 54 countries. He has lectured on "Social Sustainability" to a variety of audiences on three continents.

In addition to two books and articles in professional journals, Dr. Klessig has authored numerous non-technical publications for adult audiences. He has written a monthly column for a Midwestern newspaper, does occasional magazine features and has written OP-EDs for newspapers in several states.

In retirement, he lectures as an Emeritus Professor of Human Dimensions of Natural Resource Management, writes social commentary, farms (has for 32 years), manages woodland, travels, serves on local government and non-profit organization boards and ice fishes.

View the original article here

Ronald Reagan's Hope for the (Conservative) Hopeless

Don't Give Up the Ship

It was election night 2012 and it was becoming clear that Barack Obama would be reelected to another four-year term as President. The Republicans were starting to analyze why President Obama had been able to pull off this crushing defeat. Finger pointing and recrimination was starting to arise from the battered Republican political landscape. The mood was somewhat pessimistic, but there was one voice among the many that resonated a different tone. This voice was like one crying in the wilderness, alone and isolated, that challenged the pessimism and despondency in the air that night. Charles Krauthammer, on Fox News, exclaimed that he was not discouraged. He believes that there is arising a "new generation of Reagan-esque leaders". He mentions young leaders like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker and others he describes two days later in the Washington Post as "philosophically rooted and politically fluent in the new constitutional conservatism". He admits there may not be another Reagan among them, but there is an emerging generation who will "do conservatism but do it better".

The Reagan Mystique

As I read this article I was struck by the fact that just the mention of the name of Ronald Reagan can bring, politically speaking, hope to the hopeless. What was it about this iconic figure that made him appeal to young and the old, rich and the poor, black and white, fourth generation or first generation immigrants, Republicans and Democrats? Like no other recent political figure, he was able to bridge the political, racial, social, gender, and generational divides so prevalent today. The evidence of this came in 2003 when Mr. Reagan succumbed to the long goodbye of Alzheimer's disease, as untold numbers of all types of people lined the highways and byways to express their love and affection for this bigger than life figure.

Many close to him have said that he was a man who never lost sight of his roots. What were those roots?

A Truly Modest Man

Mr. Reagan's spiritual input came mainly through the life of a godly mother, Nelle Reagan. Paul Kengor in his book God and Ronald Reagan, describes Nelle Reagan as a pillar in her church, the Disciples of Christ (commonly know as the Christian Church); second only to the Pastor in visibility. She believed in prayer ministered to prisoners and would often open her home to help them transition them back into society.

Many felt that if Nelle had been educated she would have taken the pulpit herself. This godly woman was the main influence on his spiritual values and ensuing philosophy of life; a philosophy of life that led him to believe he was an instrument and servant of God on this earth. Mr. Reagan writes in 1987 in a letter to Bernard Cardinal Law, Archbishop of Boston, "My own prayer is that I can... perform the duties of this position so as to serve God".

What was it about this woman who instilled in her son the ability to be great but yet modest, and powerful but not proud? Interestingly enough, the answer may come from the margin of her Bible. In Nelle Reagan's old wrinkled Bible, the same Bible Reagan used for the swearing-in for his first term is an annotation that says, "You can be too big for God to use, but you can never be too small". From those closest to this man we seem to hear a consistent theme. He is said to have been a genuinely modest man. He did not seem to have the necessity to impress. As the old saying goes, what you see is what you get. Reagan hailed from Dixon, Illinois, and the town mayor, James G. Burke once said, speaking of his small town values and religious upbringing, that "Reagan had no pretenses or excessive pride; you can take the Ronald Reagan out of Dixon, but you cannot take Dixon out of Ronald Reagan".

Mr. Reagan, though arguably the most powerful man on Earth, when he was with someone of a lower station in life, did not come off as I am great and you are not. This man must have realized that although he had risen to the highest pinnacle in worldly pursuits, in the eyes of God he was no different than the humblest servant. After President Reagan's death a memorial service was held at the First Christian Church in Dixon. Following the service those attending marched eight blocks to Reagan's boy-hood home in a light rain. As the crowd was standing in front of the house under multitudes of umbrellas, the Dixon Telegraph records that as the band started to play "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", one of Reagan's favorite songs, the clouds opened up, "drenching rich and poor, humble and proud, old and young, treating everyone equally, just as Ronald Reagan always had done". Mr. Reagan, through his demeanor, communicated to the common man; I am just like you.

The Final Encore

President George W. Bush finished his tribute at the President's Reagan's funeral by saying, "When the sun sets off the coast of California, and we lay to rest our 40th president, a great American story will come to an end". As dignitaries, Hollywood friends, and government officials were filing past the casket to say their last goodbyes to the "Gipper", Margaret Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain and one of Reagan's staunchest allies in his fight against tyranny, slowly approached the casket. Seventy-eight years old herself and with her body racked with several small strokes, she paused momentarily, and then slowly bowed. It is a fitting postscript to what she had penned a day or two earlier in the condolence book; "To Ronnie, Well done thou good and faithful servant". At this awesome moment, observers at the funeral noted that as Lady Thatcher bowed, the sun slipped below the western horizon. It was as if heaven's choreographer had staged one last encore, but in this one the actor had not taken the bow, all creation bowed in a final gesture of thanks to one of its choicest servants; a fitting end to a life well lived.

Doing Conservatism and Doing it Better

So, let's do it one more time for the Gipper. In saying this I am appealing to a new generation of conservative leaders, be it Republican or Democrat, yes I said Democrat. Reagan was a man for all people. No, we will never see another Ronald Reagan again; after God made him He broke the mold. Though we no longer have the mold, we still have the model. A model for young political visionaries to emulate that makes us feel good about ourselves again, not through arrogance, but humility. A standard for new Reagan-esque leaders that enables them to relate to the rich and the poor without making us feel ashamed or bad about ourselves. Class warfare always divides people, but so does ignoring the just pleas of truly needy people. Addressing both ends of this equation may be the herculean task for the new group of conservative policy-makers. It won't be easy and it may be messy, but what choice do we have? Look at the election results; we are a divided nation. How would Mr. Reagan walk this political tightrope? Maybe he would do justly, by holding tenaciously to his conservative principles, but also love mercy, by reaching out to the marginalized and disenfranchised among us. How is this possible? Only by walking in Reagan-esque humility. My young conservative friends, if you tread this path you will "do conservatism and do it better", and we may see this divided nation become One Nation Under God again.

View the original article here

SNP and the Development of Newspeak

If you ask the question will an independent Scotland be separate from England, the answer is obviously "yes." The alternative answer of "no" would mean that Scotland had not achieved independence. Alternatively if you ask will the 300 year old union of the UK break up when Scotland becomes independent, the answer is likewise obviously "yes." The alternative would again mean that independence had not been achieved. Finally if you ask the question would this process involve a divorce, the answer once more is self-evidently "yes", otherwise the marriage of the UK would continue to obtain. The SNP may not like the language, but the language accurately reflects what they propose to happen.

It's always better to call a thing what it is. If a person is in favour of independence he will not object to words like "separation", "break-up" and "divorce." On the contrary he will be happy that all three will occur. The SNP know however, that the majority of Scots don't want independence, for which reason they are trying to imply that independence will not really change anything. Thus they think it is vital that certain words, which accurately reflect what they propose, should be banned. Fundamentally they are trying to prevent the Scottish public from gaining a full understanding of the implications of independence.

When the Republic of Ireland became independent did it separate from the rest of the UK? Yes. Was there a break up of the former relationship? Yes. Was there a divorce? Yes. Is there anything negative about describing the situation as such? Do Irish people find such descriptions insulting? Not all, because they are in favour of being a separate country, they are glad that they broke up with Britain, they are pleased that there was a divorce. Does anything in this imply anything negative about Ireland and its relationship with the rest of the world including Britain. Not at all. Ireland is one of our closest allies and best friends. Scotland could, of course, be like the Republic of Ireland, but let's not forget what this means. Eire is a foreign country like France. If I lived there, I'd be a foreigner and would be described as such. Moreover although we get on well now, it was not always so. Divorces can be bitter and Ireland's divorce from the UK was particularly so, giving rise to civil war, partition and the troubles and in the end an Irish merger with the EU. Independence does not always give rise to improved relationships between countries, as the example of the former Yugoslavia and USSR ably show. Where's the social union there? The rest of the UK is really beginning to grumble about Scotland and the discord the SNP has been sowing is liable to make any divorce bitter and contentious. Without cooperation and good will from the rest of the UK, an independent Scotland would really struggle, but when did divorcing couples ever behave with good will and cooperation towards each other?

The average SNP supporter, in reality, is not at all offended by supposedly negative words. Rather he is is looking forward to separation, break up and divorce. But he and his party leadership know that two-thirds of the Scottish public still favour the union, so an attempt is being made to somehow confuse the Scots public by implying that independence does not mean separation, break-up and divorce.

The futility of this is shown by the BBC's use of the word "militant." Does using this word change our attitude to the thing? If you call people who blow up others "militants", rapidly the word "militant" take on all the connotations of the word "terrorist" and then you have to come up with a new euphemism. Does the SNP really want to be associated with such media practices, with an escalating scale of euphemisms for the very thing they're supposed to most want?

The SNP should have the confidence in their cause to call it what it is and put it to the Scottish people as such. An independent country can only be a success if the vast majority of the public give their consent and want it. If the SNP con the Scottish public into an independence that they don't really want, there will be bitterness and division for decades. Only if Scots are able to fully comprehend the implications can a rational choice be made. Luckily whatever words are used, there are unionists who will fully explain the implications and the Scots people are canny enough not to be taken in by the SNP's Orwellian Newspeak and attempts to create thoughtcrimes.

http://effiedeans.posterous.com/

The Scottish independence referendum will be in 2014. I'm campaigning for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom, by means of a regular blog exploring all of the issues involved. Please come and join the debate by clicking on the above link.

View the original article here

Being Charitable With Our Opponents' Views

In today's episode of the CATO Institute's Daily Podcast, Caleb Brown interviewed independent scholar and economist Arnold Kling about being charitable to your opponents' views. They began with an introduction to the new book by Jason Brennan entitled Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know.

Don't Distort Others' Views

Dr. Kling asserts that in his new book, Prof. Brennan puts a lot of focus on the uncharitable manner in which libertarians are often portrayed by others (namely conservatives and progressives). While Kling agrees that progressives often suggest ideas like libertarians just wanting people to starve and conservatives make claims that they are undermining civilization, he has a criticism as well. He makes the point that Brennan (and other libertarians) is guilty of the same infractions when talking about others.

How might we refer to others' viewpoints without putting an intentionally negative spin on them? It could be said that conservatives are concerned with their civilization descending into barbarism. Progressives are frequently worried about oppression and the condition of the oppressed. Libertarians tend to prefer free choice over coercion. Instead, we usually hear rhetoric about conservatives wanting a police state, progressives wanting a nanny state, and libertarians wanting chaos. I've covered the principle of charity in a previous blog post. Dr. Kling urges us to come up with a more charitable way to see others' points of view, thereby having more efficient debates.

View Yourself Accurately

In Bryan Kaplan's article The Ideological Turing Test, he addresses the importance of being able to craft an argument on behalf of your opponent. He states that "the ability to pass ideological Turing tests - to state opposing views as clearly and persuasively as their proponents - is a genuine symptom of objectivity and wisdom." The quote by economist Paul Krugman featured in this article attempts to make the case that liberals have this ability to understand opposing arguments, while conservatives lack that ability. Krugman may view himself or others this way, but he has made a hasty generalization about both liberals' and conservatives' reasoning ability.

Princeton psychology professor and Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman explains the two systems of the mind in his 2011 book Thinking, Fast and Slow. In the emotional intuitive system, or system 1, we form our thoughts more quickly and emotionally. The logical system, or system 2, involves slower, more calculated decision-making. According to Dr. Kling, psychologists have found that people sometimes think they are using system 2 when in fact they are only trying to rationalize an emotionally held belief. He goes on to say, "If you're engaging in reasoning in order to close your mind, which you do when you demonize someone else, then you're really using reasoning for unreasonable purposes."

Evaluate Correctly

Dr. Kling suggests that it would be good practice to evaluate policies based on what they are expected to actually produce, rather than on the intentions with which they were formulated. He makes reference to what is called the "intention heuristic", whereby the morality of a given policy is judged based on its intentions and not on its unintended consequences. One may argue that A is a problem which must be dealt with, so B is a policy which must be instituted to correct it. In time, B produces the outcome C, which is far worse than A.

The bottom line is to remember the charity principle from the Code of Conduct for Argumentation. In using it, we will make our debates more efficient and productive.

Mark Lilly is a writer and editor working to promote rational thinking in the way we view our news and our world. Don't be fooled by rhetoric. Get a thinker's advantage with all the resources available at http://www.howtoreason.com/.

View the original article here

The Blacklisting of Dorothy Parker: The Pendulum of Power Swings Against the Bill of Rights, Again!

It is ironic today we are witnessing the intended power of the Bill of Rights being whittled down to nothing more than meaningless words. It appears that whatever political party is in power they find the Bill of Rights an inconvenience. Today with the TSA setting up road blocks on the interstate harassing travelers with probing searches and probing questions it is no wonder Americans are totally numb to the fact they have no more rights:

Probably the strongest law, signed by President Obama and passed by the Democratic Senate, was NDAA. Essentially this law allows the federal government to pick up any United States citizen and detain them without charge indefinitely. It is by far the most oppressive law against the Bill of Rights ever. What's ironic is this has been done before! Back in the 1950s the Republicans (with some Democratic help) pursued perceived Communist in our government and the arts (mostly writers and actors). In particular they basically accused 150 actors and directors in Hollywood for being communist (i.e. socialist).

Remember, no matter how much we disagree with another person being a communist, fascist, evangelical zealot, or any other true believer ideology, it isn't against the law. You have, under the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association (i.e. the Amish don't have to hang out with you). Under the witch hunt of the McCarthy era people were brought before Congress and were forced to testify under oath what they believed. Yes, many of these people were socialist and communist in their beliefs but, guess what, it's not against the law.

When members of this list were brought to the House Un-American Committee or Senator McCarthy's Senate Committee they were basically blacklisted from further work in Hollywood for refusing to answer questions (First Amendment Bill of Rights). What these committees did was to attack the principle of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly, as it was enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Finally, Congress threw ten writers in jail for a year and about 150 were blacklisted from further work in Hollywood. (The blacklist was derived from a private publication titled the Red Channels). This blacklist was totally unconstitutional and illegal.

The list was derived from a right wing Republican group who saw all liberal Democrats as anti-American Communist. Dorothy Parker, who's name was on the list, saw her career in Hollywood completely destroyed. She never recovered and never got to defend herself in a court of law. Essentially the big Hollywood studios caved in to the political pressure of the day and just ignored those who were on the list. About 11 years later some of the bigger writers eventually got to work under their real names again. In the meantime they had to work under pseudonyms for a fraction of the fee. In fact, why they put Dorothy Parker on the blacklist probably had more to do with her being a founding member of the Writers Guild with eight other Hollywood writers. It's interesting to note that half of the founding Writers Guild members were blacklisted. Sure looks and smells like union busting.

It wasn't until Otto Preminger produced Exodus that a blacklisted screenwriter received a screen credit with his real name. (This was one year before Kirk Douglas' Spartacus which some researchers mistakenly believe was the first film to break the blacklist). Today the pendulum has swung to the other extreme with the far left of the Democratic party attacking the Bill of Rights. The NDAA is only one example of laws being passed by congress (in particular the Democratic Senate). A citizen can now be picked up off the streets and held without charge. They can also be tried by a military court! The list of lost rights that have been removed goes on and on.

Why is it that extreme political believers always want to attack the Bill of Rights? Don't fret, the Bill of Rights always survives these attacks, because, in the end there is nothing else that works better for the people. The most effective tool in any world economy has been the freedoms stated in the Bill of Rights. As soon as they are restricted, as they are today, and Dorothy Parker's day, the economy starts to slow down. In the near future many of these restrictions on the Bill of Rights will be turned back and freedom loving people will get this economy moving again as they did back in Dorothy Parker's day.

Few people remember Dorothy Parker today but in her time she believed in helping the poor, the blacks, the anti-Franco forces in Spain, and the anti-Nazi groups in the late thirties. More then ever, we need the humor and wit of Dorothy Parker today! The pendulum of power may have moved but the need for the Bill of Rights is needed more than ever.

Terrie Frankel is a song writer, author of a New York Times best seller, and actor ( the film Room Enough For Two - The Life of Dorothy Parker). Terrie has been a board member of the Producers Guild of America and is a member of ASCAP and the Grammys. Dorothy Parker has been a 20 year research project for Terrie.

View the original article here

Liberal War on Women

Why do liberals see everyone as victims? Could it be that this approach increases the number of people who need "protecting", thus those who are dependent on Big Brother for that "protection"? It has also turned out to be an effective way of deflecting any criticism of the actions and positions of those on the left.

This past week Republicans began to back off their critique of Susan Rice's refusal to speak truthfully in the weeks following the despicable terrorist strike on our consulate in Benghazi, having been accused of being racist and/or sexist for questioning Ms. Rice's testimony to Congress about the attack. As a woman, I am deeply offended that liberals think Rice (and, by extension, all women) is too fragile to withstand criticism as she executes her role as US ambassador to the UN and Obama administration and foreign affairs spokesperson. Susan Rice is an accomplished woman who has held a variety of national security and foreign policy roles in the US government; she is not some tittering sorority girl requiring protection from big bad bullies questioning her judgement.

I do not believe Rice sees herself as a victim; however, this tactic has been used increasingly by those on the Left as a way to deflect attention away from actual policy matters. Liberals will scream from the rooftops when the stated positions or job performance of anyone of color and/or women are questioned. If you voted for Romney over Obama you're a racist. If Congress questions why Susan Rice presented an inaccurate briefing, clearly intending to deflect acknowledgement of acts of terrorism before the election, then they are both racist and sexist. Far from acknowledging that she was set out as a sacrificial lamb and put in that position then hung out to dry by the administration, they decry the questions as sexist. Maybe Nancy Pelosi isn't woman enough to take criticism, but the rest of women in America certainly are.

Unfortunately, this tactic is working. Over the weekend on the Sunday morning news shows, John McCain was definitely reacting to the Democratic name-calling when he clearly tempered his comments on Rice's potential nomination for Secretary of State. If Republicans are going to give into this nonsense and back off, then off course it validates the Left's position and strengthens this line of attack. Republicans need to man up and refudiate these claims for the outrageous and spurious accusations they are, and condemn Demorats for the scurrilous vagabonds they are.

View the original article here

The Great American Game

As we near the frenzied end of another season of politics, I find myself interested in what is being said on both sides, but apathetic about the process in general.

The interest is driven by observing the various strategies that are employed (and not employed) by both sides and by the effects that those strategies have on the public. While I find the choices made by the campaigns interesting, I find the 'roads not taken' to be more interesting and wonder frequently why campaigns don't say this or that. A particular example was in the 2008 campaign where the McCain side failed to simply take what the people who had opposed Obama in the primaries had said about Obama and just run ads that repeated those attacks. It seemed a ready-made strategy and a particularly damning one to use the words of his own running-mate against him, or the words of his selection for Secretary-of-State against him, but the McCain campaign didn't. I don't know why.

Of equal interest is the reaction of the public-particularly individuals-to what campaigns and candidates are saying and doing. Clearly, the country is more partisan and more divided than ever with potential voters on both sides more bitter and angry than they were in the last election. So with all of that, why would I find myself subject to a sense of apathy about the electoral process?

My apathy isn't borne of fatigue and it isn't because I don't care, quite the contrary, I care quite a bit. My apathy comes from a sense that the electoral process is all just a front for what is a great 'game' of sorts. Please let me explain, for this is a conclusion that I did not reach hastily or lightly. Rather is it based on my own observation of the way political parties have operated in the past, supplemented with the published conclusions of other people and further validated by the way in which political parties continue to operate in the present.

First a quick look at the political past. After the 2000 election, a Republican occupied the White House. For the first Bush presidency, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, the Supreme Court was sympathetic. The Republican party could have done a lot of the things that they are campaigning on now, but they didn't. Perhaps they couldn't have done anything that wanted, but they could have done a lot. The same thing happened with Democrats in 2008, they had majorities in both houses and the presidency, and they did do some things (such as pass the health care legislation they wanted). But the Senate didn't pass a budget (they still haven't) and they haven't done all the things they are campaigning on now (Obama says he wants to lower our taxes, then why didn't he?). My point is that when one side has a greater portion of the power they don't use it the way that they say they want to. Why?

This leads to the notion that the Republican and Democratic parties actually work together to keep a monopoly on political power in this country and that they have done this for some time. During the elections and debates, they pretend to be at odds, but at the end of the day they are really on the same side-that being the side which controls the politics of this country. A particularly good example is of the 2006 election of Joe Lieberman to congress after a wealthy candidate Ned Lamont financed his own campaign and won the Democratic primary. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party worked together to re-install Lieberman and keep out Lamont-who had not proven his primary loyalty lay with the established political parties. This is detailed in the book 'You can't be President: The Outrageous Barriers to Democracy in America' by John R. Macarthur, among other things. A look at the meteoric rise of Obama will confirm that he was vetted and approved, not because of who his is, but because he showed the established parties that he will 'play the game' they way they dictate it must be played. Lastly I will tack on Ron Paul as an example of what happens to candidates who are not primarily loyal to the two-party monopoly, but have an independent will of their own. Despite finishing 2nd in many of the primary contests this year, he was virtually ignored by the media and both political parties. Time and again, results would focus on the candidates who came in 1st, 3rd and 4th, and completely skip over Ron Paul finishing second. Why? Because, as someone who expresses a degree of independence, he must be ignored-and he was-and it worked.

Finally, even if the preceding items were to be dismissed as speculative, I come to the present day to drive the point home and ask if my apathy is right, or wrong. Consider that only a year ago, the Republican field of candidates had Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Jon Huntsman Jr,, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney among still others vying for the Republican nomination. All of them were saying how critical it was that Barak Obama be defeated in the upcoming general election. One-by-one they were eliminated from the field until only Romney remained. But what about all the talk of the 'need to defeat Obama'? What happened to all of those other voices? Gingrich is a powerful speaker, as are many of the other Republicans. How come his isn't out there right now attacking Obama, how come they all aren't out there? If the election is as important as they said it was, then they should be out there campaigning-if not for Romney, then at least against Obama. But they aren't. And the same thing should have happened in 2004 with all of the other Democratic candidates who didn't get the nomination. But it didn't.

So that leads me to the inescapable conclusion that things are not as they are presented to us. It leads me to the conclusion that Newt isn't campaigning against Obama because doing so won't make him president, and beyond that narrow goal, he really doesn't care. Nor do any of the others. Nor, even for that matter, does Mitt Romney. In 2008, when he didn't get the nomination, did he go out and campaign for McCain? Nope. So, when you couple the very real actions that are going on this very day, with the other evidence of what the two-party monopoly has done in the past, it leads to the very real conclusion that-while we are expected to get riled up and treat things as vitally important-the people who are actually in office treat it as a game. They want to win, sure, but most of all, they want to keep playing the game.

View the original article here

The One Thing That the EU Lacks Is the One Thing That the UK Has: Why Would We Give It Up?

The history of the European Union is an attempt to bring various nations together to form something approaching a union, an ever closer union. It might not be entirely clear what the intended end point is, but it is probably something approaching a United States of Europe.

Most Conservatives are supporters of the USA, just as we are supporters of the UK. But what is it that makes us supporters of these unions, while we are often skeptical about a United States of Europe?

There are all sorts of problems with the EU, but for me the fundamental problem is that it is trying to do something which is impossible, for which reason it is trying to do it in an undemocratic way.

Czechs and Slovaks recently decided that they cannot bear to live together in one country, as did Serbs and Croats, Ukrainians and Russians. An outsider can barely tell the difference between these peoples, yet they found that living together in one country was undesirable.

How then does the EU suppose that it can make Germans and French and Italians etc. live happily together in one country?

The EU knows that these very different peoples will not choose to live together in a US of E, it is therefore by subterfuge and by gradually and undemocratically forcing them to live together that it is achieving its aim. In my view this will not work. It is the reason that the EU is riddled with contraction and the fundamental reason why the Eurozone is not working.

What this has to do with independence is just this. What the Eurozone lacks and makes that region full of contradictions, we in the UK have. Why would we give it up, when it makes our currency union possible while theirs impossible?

Two countries recently joined together in Europe, the BRD and DDR, or East and West Germany. There were difficulties, but they were overcome. A massive amount of money was transferred from west to east. Why? The answer is that the people felt themselves to be part of one country. They were all Germans. They might have been Bavarians or Prussians or Hanoverians, but they felt fundamentally that they were Germans. It is this which made the currency union of the D-mark possible.

Likewise despite our differences in the UK, despite the rivalry, we don't think of each other as foreigners. Someone from England is not a foreigner, nor is someone from Wales, nor is someone from Northern Ireland. We bicker, but we are of the same kind. We have fought together in wars (imagine the consequences for history if the UK had not existed in 1941), we have endured troubles together and great successes and this has created a common identity. It is this common identity which makes our union as countries and our currency union work so well and which also makes the USA work. Without it no union is possible in the long term. For which reason, the EU and Eurozone are doomed to failure.

What we have, this common identity is so rare and so important that it should be cherished and valued. It is one of the keys to our peacefulness as a nation, one of the keys to our prosperity. It is what the EU would love to have and will never have. It is what Mr Salmond would have us give up. He would make us foreigners in our own country.

http://effiedeans.wordpress.com/

The Scottish independence referendum will be in 2014. I'm campaigning for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom, by means of a regular blog exploring all of the issues involved.

Please come and join the debate by clicking on the above link.

View the original article here

Being an Empowered Woman - Why You Should Be Proud of Your Gender

Most of us assume the gender inequality should be a thing of the past especially in the developed countries like the United States of America, France, and Germany, but unfortunately that's not the case. We still observe inequalities in these developed countries. Most recently in the United States we observed gender bias in the presidential campaign. Some male political leaders actually insulted the females on both social and financial issues. They were spoken to as if they were second class citizens and not mature enough to make decisions on things that would be beneficial to them and our society.

There is an increase in student loan debt throughout the nation. In the news, this increase in student loan debt is being referred to as the "student loan crisis." Perhaps, it should be referred to as the "women's student loan crisis". According to recent surveys and research, women earn only 82% compared to the 100% earned by their male peers - therefore, the student loan debt crisis is mostly a women's issue. Men and women pay the same percentage to pay back their student loans and there is no law in the United States to exempt women so they pay less. So if women make less money than men, which means the cost of their education is more than that of men.

It is easy to see this is more of a burden for women to pay back their student loans and this gender pay gap is just another obvious inequality that women face in our society. Given all the accomplishments of women in our military, in business and in the home perhaps they are not being given enough credit for their many accomplishments. Perhaps women actually do possess all the qualities they need for great leadership. If we really want our country to function better in the world market maybe it is time we placed our confidence in the leadership of women. After all, they have the education and the advanced skills they need to meet the demands of the new millennium, including the ability to nurture relationships.

We have to ask ourselves if the male ego, chauvinistic attitude, and superiority complexes we see in politics are really helping our country. If we cannot answer yes, maybe it is time for a cultural shift to a more feminine approach. Men seem to have a need to keep women down and they accomplish this by depriving them and keeping women oppressed. They are deprived and oppressed financially, on their health issues, and on any issue where they are not allowed to have their own choice acknowledged. The extremist male political leaders are continuously finding ways to impose their political ideology and beliefs as if women are not in positions to make choices and decisions on how to live their lives.

Sometimes, I wonder if this is year 753 B.C... I doubt if some of the Roman Empire statesmen are less in-tuned to the progress and freedom of the female gender. Is it not time to start a serious, constructive discussion and start creating awareness about "Gender Equality?" If we all dream and fantasize about a better world with economical growth, peace and harmony in our world. Real Change can make our world better. Women are the majority in our society. With their leadership we can bring about the real change we seek. To my understanding in any true democratic political system, the majority rules so we must work to change the double standard imposed by men to keep women out of leadership roles and become a nation that truly supports gender equality.

It's about time to empower & encourage more women into public offices world-wide and we should all continue to educate girls to be great leaders. To do this we must acknowledge all that women already contribute to our society. And we must do more to keep this balance, especially in our political system because it will be beneficial to world progress. This is one of the many reasons... I Want a Woman President in 2020.

The true republic: men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.

- Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906)

Being an Empowered Woman - Why You Should be Proud of Your Gender... Article by Lolu Adebayo Author of In 2020, I Want a Woman President 2nd Edition http://www.loluadebayo.com/blog

Please let me know what you suggest... You could share your opinion @ http://loluadebayo.com/blog

View the original article here

Bildenberg Conspiracy and Class Wars

Yet another person has been trying to claim to me that the so-called Bildenberg Conspiracy is running the world.

My response: Even if there is such a thing as the Bildenberg Conspiracy, it is better than Alex Jones.

The biggest class wars on American soil aren't fought by Marxists. The biggest class wars on the American soil are fought by Reagan Republicans - against the so-called "liberal elites." This means scientists, artists and journalists. Meanwhile the business elites enjoy their full support and protection, even in cases when they are engaging in destructive and fraudulent activity. This Republican class war makes it hard for scientists, journalist and artists to do their jobs, resulting in loss in competitiveness, lowered education levels of the population, and a reduction in the quality of life.

In case of Bildenberg, the accusation is nonpartisan. Apparently this Bildenberg Conspiracy includes people of different parties; but as in all cases of elite-baiting we are seeing here not only paranoia but also disinformation. That there are people wielding all sorts of power behind the scenes all the time should not be surprising to anyone. The real problem is in the accusation that it is a monolithic force. A far more likely scenario is that there are any number of groups (banks, CIA, etc.) that wield power behind the scenes and sometimes team up with each other on matters of common interest. And another problem is the claim that these people are universally worse than the people who aren't part of this elite.

Is there such a thing as the Bildenberg Conspiracy? I have no idea. But even if there is such a thing, it is still an improvement over community power, church power, society power and power of imams. Most likely these people have done a lot for the world before becoming as powerful as they did. The same is not the case with your average wife-beater who wants absolute power over his family, your average country preacher who wants absolute power over his community, your average corrupt judge who wants to enter outrageous rulings against mothers and children, or your average bullying Southern Baptist woman who wants to beat down on people who are not like herself and to get black males put away for rape when they have consensual sex with white girls.

There was a comedy show in Australia in which Martin Luther King came back to life and went after today's black youth: "Man, I lay down my life for you, and all you're doing is doing crack and shooting each other. I had 43 jobs; you cannot get one." I think that Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin would have similar things to say about today's Republican constituents. That they've put in huge work and changed the world - only to see any number of American people turn into wife-beaters, child rapists, bullies, warmongerers, KKK and worse. Really, who makes better decisions: Someone who's achieved vast things in his life or someone whose only claim to validity is that he thinks himself culturally American?

And which liberty is more worth preserving: That of fantastic achievement or that of forcing everyone to follow the herd?

The communities in America are anything but free. They are extremely rigid and controlling, and most of them are also completely corrupt. The government has checks and balances on it to keep it from turning corrupt and tyrannical; the communities have no such checks and balances on them and therefore have nothing to keep them from turning corrupt and tyrannical. And this makes them a vastly inferior form of power than either government, which is accountable to the electorate, or business, which is accountable to the consumer.

Bildenberg? Better that than Waco.

What most populists miss is that the "elites" are also people. And another thing that they miss is that most of those in the elites are there, not because of privilege, but because of achievement. Yes there are corrupt people in "higher echelons"; there are also completely corrupt people in communities. And the scrutinous attention that many like to direct against the "elites" must similarly be directed against all sorts of people who are not elites, such as the people that I've described.

Certainly people deserve to know what political forces are out there. But then the people also need to know what wrong goes on in their own towns. Having known both people in highest levels and communities at all levels, I can say clearly that the people at highest levels impressed me the most. As for villainy, the worst acts I've seen came from people who were not part of any elite and considered themselves Reagan Republicans, true Americans or the community leaders in country-town Australia.

Generally we don't see people such as those accused of being a part of the Bildenberg Conspiracy brutally beating their wives or raping their children. Generally we don't see such people demanding that everyone be exactly like them. Generally we don't see such people teaching their children to beat up on "nerds" or rape "sluts." Generally we don't see such people claiming that scientists are devil-worshippers or that global warming is a UN hoax or that people who don't accept Christ as their Lord and Savior do not deserve to live. We see that behavior on the part of people who see themselves as the people and who, by claiming themselves to be the people, practice a vast and unconstitutional power grab - of deigning to speak for the people of a country of 300 million, most of them nothing like themselves.

Then these people - the most corrupt, most malicious, most aggressively ignorant people in America - go around attacking the federal government, or scientists, or environmentalists, or artists, or teachers, or people who've voted for Obama, for not going by their contemptible party line. The real response is that they shouldn't be following their party line, as their party line is a pack of lies.

One way that fascism initiates is by claiming that there is a big threat to one's way of life. With 1930s fascists, it was the Communists and the Jews; with today's wannabee fascists it's UN, liberals, feminists, environmentalists and this Bildenberg conspiracy theory. And what the people who claim to be standing up for your freedom aren't telling you is that they are themselves far more oppressive than Bildenberg people, if there was such a thing, could ever hope to be. They are against science and learning. They are against women's rights. They are against anyone who is not exactly like themselves. And that makes these people a far greater threat to liberty than any possible conspiracy of the super-rich.

Given my connections, if there was a Bildenberg conspiracy I would have most likely heard about it by now from an insider. The same is the case if there was a "Jewish-Masonic conspiracy" to destroy Russia or a "Satanic New World Order conspiracy" to destroy the United States. Yes, there are and will always be people who wield power from behind the scenes, and that is something that people should know about. But then the demagogues who concoct conspiracy theories are worse than even the most venal among these people, and their goal is nothing less than this: Fascism.

So I state here this: I don't know if there is a Bildenberg Conspiracy; but I do know that there are vast abuses of power at all levels, and most of the people who are engaged in these abuses are worse than what the Bildenberg people are described to be. If this possible collusion is to be investigated - and I am certainly in favor of it being investigated - then so must be all the communal and societal organs of power.

And then it will become possible for more people to make an informed decision as to which covenants they want to inhabit and which covenants they want to create.

View the original article here

Chris Christie, Barbara Walters and Girth Control

In a prime-time television interview, Barbara Walters asked New Jersey Governor Chris Christie if his excess weight did not disqualify him for higher office. While her motivation for this question may stem from a desire to see no Republican in any office ever, she couched her language in pure-hearted concern for the governor's welfare:

WALTERS: Okay, governor, I feel very uncomfortable asking this question when I'm sitting opposite you, but you are a little overweight.
CHRISTIE: More than a little.

WALTERS: Why?

CHRISTIE: If I could figure that out, I'd fix it.

WALTERS: There are people who say you couldn't be president because you're so heavy.

Those "people" are undoubtedly Democrats, still furious with Christie over his lambasting and political manhandling of the public employees unions in his state. Despite Christie's post-Sandy approval ratings and pop culture persona, diehard liberals do not let go of grudges easily. It would certainly not be the first time that vexed opponents resorted to fat jokes to cut their political leaders - excuse the expression - down to size.

President Grover Cleveland is best known as the only chief executive to serve two non-consecutive terms. Serving as the 22nd president from 1885 to 1889, and later as the 24th from 1893 to 1897, Cleveland made a big splash when he arrived in Washington for his first inauguration. One Wisconsin congressman observed:

Cleveland's coarse face, his heavy inert body, his great shapeless hands, confirmed in my mind the attacks made upon him during the campaign. (from Grover Cleveland by Henry F. Graff)

Hovering near 300 pounds at a mere 5 foot 11 inches, Cleveland contrasted poorly against his handsome predecessor, President Chester Arthur. Yet the capital - and the country - was soon to learn of the new president's boundless stamina. The historian Henry Graff labels Cleveland a "workaholic", conducting business until well after midnight while still arising at six each morning. Lack of physical exercise showed on his body, but it barely lessened his capacity for work or the sharpness of his mind. He left the United States a legacy of sound currency, anti-interventionism and constitutional fidelity: three virtues held in contempt by the current, skinny occupant of the White House. Maintaining such strengths did not come without a price. Populist pressure to dilute the gold standard and ease credit standards set Cleveland at odds with his own party. Running for the U.S. Senate in 1894, South Carolina Governor Ben Tillman excoriated his fellow Democrat:

... when Judas betrayed Christ, his heart was not blacker than this scoundrel Cleveland, in deceiving the Democracy. He is an old bag of beef and I am going to Washington with a pitchfork and prod him in his fat ribs. (from Grover Cleveland: A Study in Character by Alyn Brodsky)

Ironically, these same partisans accused President Cleveland - one of the most libertarian-minded since the founders - of despotism, relying only on "brains, belly, and brass."

Looming even larger among presidential silhouettes is that of William Howard Taft. President Taft still reigns as the most obese Commander-in-Chief in American history. Between 335 and 350 pounds, he was by all accounts an unhappy chief executive, and that despondence may well have contributed to his inability to shed pounds. Unlike Cleveland, Taft willingly engaged in physical recreation like tennis, golf and even weightlifting. Though some have later suspected the napping president to have suffered from sleep apnea, he was still the most widely (no pun intended) -traveled president up to that time. More importantly, though he was a poor political practitioner, he was a very wise statesman. Moderate in philosophy, he has historically appeared a stodgy conservative, sandwiched as he was between two narcissistic, self-promoting progressives: Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

President Taft served as a restraining influence on the passions of the times. He valiantly opposed literacy tests for new immigrants, arguing that many came to America to receive education that was lacking in their home countries. Furthermore, he scrupulously enforced merit in the civil service. These are not sexy issues in today's shallow reporting, but maybe they should be. Beyond that, Taft broke up trusts and promoted conservation with all of Roosevelt's zeal, if none of the ex-president's exhibitionism. Because he lacked TR's salesmanship and penchant for the limelight, Taft was unable to garner the personal popularity that would have given him the political heft to match his physical heft. His third-place finish in the 1912 election was humiliating for an incumbent, though liberating for William Howard Taft, who would go on to serve for a decade as Chief Justice of the United States.

As with Cleveland, the fat jokes usually came from slow-witted enemies. Congressman James Watson recounted a legendary encounter between the president and New York senator Chauncey Depew:

Mr. Depew stepped up to Taft... and taking liberties that I never would have thought of taking with a president, said to him, putting his hand on Mr. Taft's big frontal development: "What are you going to name it when it comes, Mr. President?" It was just about that time that Taft was beginning to have some difficulty with Roosevelt, and he quickly responded: "Well, if it's a boy, I'll call it William; if it's a girl, I'll call it Theodora; but if it turns out to be just wind, I'll call it Chauncey." (from William Howard Taft: An Intimate History by Judith Icke Anderson)

In the end, the physical proportions of our two most corpulent chiefs were, while both amusing and annoying, not debilitating. Of course, we know today of the myriad health problems associated with obesity: high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Yet both these men lived to ripe old ages, with Cleveland fathering five children in his 50s. Is it not better to call for total transparency when it comes to a candidate's health than to assume it is poor because we do not like his or her appearance? John Kennedy was among the most robust presidents in image; in fact, he was among the sickliest. Still, his admirers care little about the cover-up of health problems. Perhaps because he looked so good doing it. Anyway, Ms. Walters - once a serious journalist - now restricts most interviews to the beautiful people of stage and screen. Given her well-sculpted subjects, it should surprise nobody that she finds a competent and hardworking governor unacceptable on the national stage.

To learn more about Cleveland, Taft and their politics, visit my blog at http://williamhowardstatecraft.blogspot.com/.

View the original article here

Peace Looks Elusive in Afghanistan

Since the US and NATO troops' withdrawal in 2014 is certain, are the Afghan security forces ready to take the security responsibility of Afghanistan in post 2014? Well, according to their Western trainers and mentors they should be. However, Afghan people are not that sure. The continued attacks by the Taliban inside the country sometime resulting in heavy civilian casualties, the increasing presence of rogue elements in the forces, widespread corruption and nepotism in the ranks of Afghan security forces do not paint good picture of them.

For the successful US and NATO withdrawal, the preparedness and strength of the Afghan security forces are crucial. Because security vacuum after the withdrawal must be fill by domestic forces. So the role of Afghan security forces in the aftermath of 2014 is paramount. The prospect of peace has been slim from the moment Afghan President Karzai announced the pursuit of reconciliation with the Taliban. Each peace effort by Karzai and his team has met failure; whether it is presidential amnesty of Taliban or getting the names its members removed from the UN blacklist. But Taliban has not been impressed.

To make matters worse, a lot of parties and regional players mainly neighboring countries are involved in Afghanistan's conflict. Pakistan, Afghanistan's western neighbor, fears India might use the country as a hub against it by interfering in Baluchistan. India on its part, believes that the revival of extremist elements like Taliban by Pakistan means infiltration these groups into Jammu and Kashmir. Iran, eastern neighbor of Afghanistan wants the US to get bogged down in the country so that finally its resources is drained out. And finally there is an insurgent group of Taliban, supported by Haqqani Network, which is determined to fight till the end to get rid of foreign forces. This group is the main player with its backers, particularly Pakistan. This group, it seems, is unwilling to talk and engage with the US and its allies because it considers them occupiers.

Pakistan is Facilitator of Peace

Recent reports in Long War Journal, American news website suggest of a rift between Taliban ranks regarding peace talks with the US and Afghan Central government. Some so called 'moderate Taliban' led by Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, second in command in Taliban ranks, are in favor of peace and reconciliation. According to BBC report, Baradar had even secret contacts with former UN envoy to Afghanistan Kai Eide on peace. On the other hand, the so called 'bad Taliban' are stick to their guns setting the precondition that the foreign forces should leave Afghanistan first then talks could begin.

Afghan analysts like MP and member of Security Commission of Afghan Parliament Muhammad Naeem Lali Hameedzai, believe that the Taliban are actually controlled by Pakistani intelligence Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), which means that Taliban cannot decide on their own to initiate peace talks with the US and Afghan government. In a report in Long Wall Journal, in April he said that the Barg-i-Matal and Kamdesh districts of Nuristan province were influenced by Taliban militants and had the financial and military support of ISI. But Pakistan is denying such claim and maintains that a prosperous and secure Afghanistan is in the interest of Pakistan and it is the facilitator of peace. Pakistan's Ambassador to Afghanistan Muhammad Sadiq said things had changed in recent years over "our role despite certain misperceptions" in interview in July with The Express Tribune, Pakistani daily. He told The Express Tribune that Islamabad was willing to bury the past and is looking forward to working with all Afghan groups. "The very idea of shifting our embassy in an area populated by Uzbeks and Tajiks is to send out a clear message that we have no favorites in Afghanistan," he claimed.

The role of Pakistan has even been acknowledged by Afghan opposition groups. Talking to a Pakistan newspaper, The Express Tribune, in July former vice president and now an opposition figure Ahmed Zia Massoud said efforts to reach out to the Taliban would remain futile unless Pakistan is part of the process. "The Americans can't do it, it is only Pakistan which can persuade the Taliban and the Haqqanis to come to the negotiating table," he said. He heads the main opposition alliance called the Afghan National Front (ANF). So, Pakistan holds the key to any kind of peace settlement in war-torn country.

'Strategic Depth'

Pakistan is looking for 'strategic depth' in Afghanistan and any negotiation must have its backing. That is the reason that Taliban is used as a proxy and bargaining chip to have a weak and pro-Pakistan government in Kabul. In other words, a government that should that should not discuss the 'Durand Line' issue and be hostile towards India. This means controlling of the events in Afghanistan by Pakistan.

The fact that the Afghan war has become lengthy and expensive and public support for the war in the US and West is slipping, have added more confusion and uncertainty about the campaign. On the other hand, the Taliban is gaining ground everyday and launching regular attacks on US and Afghan forces.

The rise in civilian casualty which is due to lack of coordination between ill-equipped and under-trained Afghan forces and NATO on one hand, and the rampant corruption in the Afghan security forces on the other, has created considerable doubt about among Afghans about the effectiveness of US, NATO and Afghan forces. The very recent green-on-blue attacks on US and NATO soldiers signal that a bloody summer is awaiting international forces. Those who are hoping for peace in Afghanistan must engage Pakistan, because peace looks quite elusive considering the ground realities in this war-ravaged country.

View the original article here

Grover Norquist: A Clandestine Agenda

Who is Grover Norquist?

Grover Norquist is the founder and president of the conservative tax advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform, a group that advocates for lower taxes and smaller government. The son of a former Polaroid Corporation vice-president, Norquist lived a very comfortable life during his upbringing and received an excellent education in one of Massachusetts best public schools and a college education from Harvard University. Once he graduated with his B.A. and M.B.A., he went on to become an executive director of the National Tax Payers Union. From there he started Americans for Tax Reform group in 1985. Since then he has become a major player in the modern conservative movement with his famous "Taxpayer Protection Pledge." In the pledge, signers promise to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

His connections

Why does a man who has never held public office in his life have so much influence on governmental affairs? It just doesn't seem to make sense to most as to why Norquist has such an influence over Republican tax policy. Look no further than the people he is associated with for that answer.

Norquist is a member of one to the most powerful non-governmental organizations in the United States, the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR, as many call it, is a global affairs think tank that is dominated by the American upper class. The CFR is the bridge between the nation's wealthiest individuals and its politicians, bringing them together under one organization to essentially craft the future of American foreign policy. Membership to the organization is not for everyone; one must be invited by an existing member of the organization for one to even be considered by the Board of Directors.

It is through this channel that many CFR members receive government appointments to a variety of positions within the government. Norquist surely uses an organization such as the CFR to create connections for funding and political support from conservatives.

The CFR just tops the list of organizations that he is involved with; he is also a board member of the National Rifle Association and the American Conservative Union.

The Future of the pledge and Norquist

The last few days have not been promising for pledge supporters, as of yesterday John Boehner admitted that tax increases on wealthy Americans is inevitable and will be a part of a future fiscal cliff deal. Suddenly the future does not seem very bright for Norquist and his anti-tax pledge, but what will become of him next?

Unfortunately for his critics, Norquist and his pledge aren't going away any time soon. His connections are far too deep within the Republican Party for him to disappear completely. Norquist is a behind the scenes leader, a product of the American upper class, who has almost limitless connections to politicians and those with power and wealth. Even though many Republican politicians have publicly denounced his pledge, that doesn't mean that they have broken ties with Mr. Norquist entirely. His exclusive influence and ideas will still lead the way for the Republican Party into the 2014 and 2016 elections whether we are aware of it or not.

View the original article here