The Thatcher Myths And Her Real Legacy

The announcement of Mrs. Thatcher's death was marked by an eruption of celebrations and partying across Britain.

Britons see it as taboo to speak ill of the recently deceased but apparently that did not apply in this case.

So in cyberspace downloads of Judy Garland's version of "Ding, Dong! the Witch is dead " from the Wizard of Oz soared in the charts because of an online campaign. Some graffiti on the streets of Belfast read "Iron Lady? Rust in Peace" and "Rot in Hell, Maggie Thatcher" says another. In my opinion the celebrations were way over the line.

On the other hand a lot of positive things have been said about Mrs. Thatcher's legacy and this article will try to expose them for what they are i.e. myths and will also explain what her true legacy really was.

MYTHS

A. ECONOMY

1. Economic miracle - The Thatcher years (1979 - 1990) were said to have produced an economic miracle.

Not true. Her regime saw two of the three worst recessions in the last hundred years 1980 - 1981 and in the late 1980's the economy picked up because of a credit bubble which soon burst and the economy was back in recession 1990-1991.

2. Rolled back the state.

Not true. Under Mrs. Thatcher government spending rose by more than 1%. Neither did she shrink the state in the sense of cutting taxes so in 1978-79 taxes were 40.2% of GDP and in 1989-90 it was about the same at 39.9% (National Archives 2005- Public Finances Chart 24). She did cut taxes for the rich from 83% to 40% and increased Value Added Tax (which affects the poor the most) from 7% to 15% (Thatcherism, by Kim, Changhyun, October 2005).

Furthermore, the welfare state such as the National Health Service and education were untouched and remained as state monopolies in 1990 as they were in 1979.

3. Restructured economy and made British capitalism competitive.

The idea that privatization was a carefully thought-out strategy to sweep away socialism and replace it with share-owning is false.

Privatization was not in the tory manifesto in 1979 as was not even a conservative invention as the Callaghan government had in 1977 (2 years before Mrs. Thatcher came to power) sold 17% of shares in BP to raise quick money. Furthermore it was not until her second term that the restructuring started.

According to Larry Elliott, economics editor of the London Guardian Mrs.Thatcher stumbled upon privatization (the Big Idea) by accident. Three factors he says caused her to turn to it:
(1) Higher unemployment had increased the deficit to 4% of GDP in the 1980's which created a need for quick money.
(2) Mrs. Thatcher wanted to change the political culture and inculcate in people a sense of share ownership (popular capitalism).
(3) Privatization of services in the public sector provided better value for money as had been proven in some cases at local government level.

Mrs. Thatcher saw privatization as the answer to raising quick cash to pay off the ballooning debt. So she handed over the public companies to the City (London banking center) to be sold. The first big privatization, British Telecom, came in 1984 and public enthusiasm for the selloff far exceeded expectations.

Then, in 1987 came the "Big Idea" i.e. privatization was not only a way of making money but a way of ridding Britain of socialism forever (How Thatcher stumbled on her Big Idea by Larry Elliott, Guardian March 19, 2009). So 1987 was the year of privatization including British Airways, Rolls Royce and British Airports Authority. Steel, water and electricity were also denationalized.

Most of the companies were intentionally sold to previous employees and managers or foreigners as this made it more difficult for any future government to renationalize them.

The money derived from the selloff was not invested in industry to create jobs but only benefitted the rich as it was used to pay for tax cuts for the top income bracket.

By the time John Major came to power in 1990 most of the remnants of the old public sector had been sold. All the family silver had been sold off.

Privatization hurt the economy as prices did not decline proportionately to costs cuts and productivity gains; many services were cut back, especially on the least utilized transport routes because they were not profitable although they served a need; inequality increased as the industrial labor force shrank by 2 million, while wages stagnated in the face of soaring profits for privileged companies. (Failed Privatizations - The Thatcher Legacy & Mrs. Thatcher's mean legacy by Michael Hudson).

The Thatcher government also deregulated banks and trading (Big Bang) in 1986 which led to massive bonuses as "greed is good" became the mantra. Weak banking regulations led to irresponsible lending which gave us today's financial crisis.

British capitalism under Mrs. Thatcher certainly was not more competitive. In 1979 in order to control the double digit inflation she raised interest rates which increased the value of the pound and made exports more expensive and unable to compete with superior quality and less expensive goods coming out of Japan.

4. Made people richer.

Not true. During her regime the income of the richest tenth rose by 61 % whereas the poorest fell by 18%. In 1979 the richest tenth share of national income was 20.6 % and the poorest tenth was 4.3% but by 1991 the share of the richest tenth went up to 26.1 % and the poorest tenth fell to 2.9% (Thatcherism by Kim etc.). So the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

5. Conviction politician who stuck to her beliefs through tough times.

Not true. In 1979 when Mrs. Thatcher came to power her main objective was to reduce inflation so as to improve the environment for the business sector. She tried to do this by cutting the money supply by raising interest rates and cutting government spending (monetarism). Inflation fell but the economy fell into a recession in 1980. Nevertheless the deflationary policies continued.

Unemployment rose to over 3 million (Office of National Statistics); the government fiddled the figures including switching unemployed to disabled benefits so the figure was nearer 4 million. 365 economists wrote a letter to the Times asking Mrs. Thatcher to end the recession. Mrs. Thatcher's response was her famous words to the Tory faithful "You turn if you want to but the lady's not for turning".

Money growth proved harder to control in practice than in theory and consistently remained high.

Mrs. Thatcher did not stick to her guns. The lady was indeed for turning and in the early 1980's she abandoned her original monetarist policy and reversed the rise in interest rates. It was one of the biggest economic policy uturns post 1945 (Hywel Williams, The lady was for turning, Guardian, June 13, 2007).

Inflation fell after 1982 from 8.6% to 4.5% (D. Smith, 1992-From Boom to Bust, Trial & Error in British Economic Policy) not because of lower monetary growth but because of the recession.

Hidden in the unemployment figures were thousands and thousands of young people who came of age at this time and did not know what it was to have a job. Some of them became depressed, developed mental illnesses or committed suicide. They were called "Mrs. Thatcher's children".

6. Greatest free market legacy is privatization.

False. When Mrs. Thatcher sold the public assets she did not sell them as separate units to foster competition. Instead they were sold as monopolistic lumps because that fetched higher prices. That left various cartels, for example, the energy sector and not free market competition.

7. Working days lost to strikes reduced.

Yes but only half the story. In 1979, 29 million working days were lost to strikes and by 1990 it was reduced to 2 million. But how many days were lost due to unemployment? In 1981 alone, for example, unemployment was 3 million; multiply that by the number of working days, 335 days lost = 1 billion (Charles Moore, BBC Question time, April 11, 2013).

B. INTERNATIONAL

1. Thatcher and Reagan ended the cold war.

False. The cold war ended due to the collapse of the USSR which had a new leader, Gorbachev who weakened Russia's military by diverting resources from the production of industrial goods to consumer goods so as to raise the standard of living of the Soviet people and stave off the possibility of another revolution. Earlier Gorbachev had sought and got Thatcher's and Reagan's assurance that they would not attack if the USSR weakened its military. Gorbachev then introduced economic reforms (Perestroika) and more liberty (glasnost) which started a chain reaction that he could not control and the empire collapsed.

2. Stood up for freedom and democracy in the world.

Not true. Mrs. Thatcher supported the apartheid regime in South Africa and called Nelson Mandela a "terrorist". She supported dictators like General Pinochet in Chile and Pol Pot in Cambodia who carried out genocide against their own people. She also had plans to end the sanctions and recognize the racist and rebel regime of Ian Smith in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). But Ian Smith was losing the civil war and upon taking power, Mrs. Thatcher did a uturn and called for talks between the combatants. The lady was for turning.

C. POLITICS

1. Restored law and order.

False. Crime increased by 79%, for example, there were riots in Brixton, Toxteth at the start of her reign and riots and civil disobedience against the Poll tax at the end of it.

Mrs. Thatcher said that she would not negotiate with "terrorists" yet in late 1980 she negotiated with the IRA during the hunger strikes and a concession led to the strike being called off. (Margaret Thatcher- 6 Things you didn't know, by Andrew Sparrow, Guardian April 22, 2013).

2. Created "Property owning democracy through the sale of Council houses".

Her popular capitalism policy of selling public houses at undervalued prices was politically popular, but reduced the stock of houses available for poor people and caused house prices to rise leading to a fall of home ownership (Dispelling the Thatcher myths, by Alex Nunns, April 2013).

3. Electoral Phenomenon.

Mrs. Thatcher won 3 elections, each with a lower percentage of vote than the previous post war tory victories. She never gained the support of more than one-third of eligible voters. She was also helped by a very weak opposition following the breaking off of a part of the Labor Party to form the SDP (Dispelling the Thatcher myths etc.).

REAL LEGACY

Mrs. Thatcher's real legacy is that in the area of the economy, in trying to solve problems she created a new set. High inflation was replaced by high unemployment; productivity improved but the balance of payments worsened; inefficient manufacturing was replaced by unstable financial services; working days lost gave way to many more lost through striking by capital and power shifted from labor to capital as union membership dropped, rates of profit and share of total income of the top 1% increased and wages as a percentage of GDP dropped (Office of National Statistics).

On the political side Mrs. Thatcher created a North-South rift as the recession hit the north and manufacturing industry the hardest while the south (except for the slums of London) was booming with new service industries. As a result in the 1987 election the Conservatives won 226 of the 260 seats in the south but only 149 in other areas (Thatcherism, by Kim etc.).

Mrs. Thatcher succeeded in defeating the unions and the left, which pulled the Labor Party to the right which then rebranded itself as New Labor; but that left three right leaning parties and people no longer had a choice of political ideology; no wonder the Scots are trying to go their own way through independence. She also changed her own party; when she left office it was no longer a consensus party but one that had substituted pragmatism with the ideology of the right and thus lost touch with people which ultimately led to her own downfall.

In concluding, as was the case in the 1970's Western economies are again in crisis. Interestingly there is hardly a word of a return to Thatcherism as the way out of the current crisis. Fareed Zakaria has argued that Thatcher's policies are not helpful in solving today's problems since they were designed for different problems of the 1970's. (Could Margaret Thatcher's reforms work in 2013, Washington Post, April 10, 2013).

Mrs. Thatcher's main fault was that in seeking to meet spurious monetary targets she increased unemployment to unprecedented levels which was responsible for social problems and riots. The celebrations that marked her death are a measure of the depth of the scars that the victims still bear after all these years.

Whatever benefits might have come from Thatcherism, they were not worth the price that the victims paid. And as always it was the poorest who paid the highest price. I know I was there.

Victor A. Dixon- April 28, 2013
Revised October 14, 2013

Victor A Dixon attorney and social scientist

Read More

A Civil Conversation

In the wake of the massacre in December 2012 of 26 children and adults at Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut by a man with an assault rifle, it would seem impossible to have a civil conversation about guns and gun ownership.

Surprisingly, Dan Baum's Gun Guys: A Road Trip, takes the discussion of guns to unexpected amiable territory. He writes about guns from a personal perspective, taking the stance that they are a sporting item and require a certain amount of expertise much like those who like to shoot a bow and arrow.

Mr. Baum begins his tale of gun fascination from when he was elementary school age in 1961 and attended Sunapee summer camp in New Hampshire. He said he was a "pudgy, over mothered cherub amid a tribe of lean savages." Learning how to shoot guns at camp made him special. He was a good shot, and this expertise won him a bronze Pro-Marksman medal from the National Rifle Association. He got a patch his first year at camp and every year after that.

He was hooked.

But he had no mentors among his friends or family members who shared his interest in guns. As someone outside the world of avid, pro-gun-rights gun owners, Mr. Baum decided to take to the back roads of the U.S., visiting many gun stores, rifle ranges and gun shows to find what lies behind the powerful allure of guns for others.

Not fitting the stereotype, Mr. Baum knew he'd butt up against some barriers. He describes himself as a New Jersey Democrat now living Boulder, Colorado, a bastion of liberal pacifists. "I'm a stoop-shouldered, bald-headed, middle-aged Jew in pleated pants and glasses." He used his NRA baseball cap and NRA lapel pin as camouflage to try to fit in more.

He started his research by going out in public wearing an "open carry" gun strapped to his hip for everyone to see. He was looking for reaction from ordinary folks.

His first stop was a Home Depot. He made every effort to be obvious, but he got no reaction -- positive nor negative.

Next stop was the local Apple Store. Surely, he wrote, that would cause a response from the technology folks. Again, no reaction. Finally Mr. Baum steeled himself to enter Whole Foods. Clearly the clientele from such a store would have something to say.

Nope.

Mr. Baum said he felt like a ghost. Or was there some sort of weird psychological tic preventing the Whole Foods customers from seeing the gun because it was too outrageous to be true, e.g. "This is Boulder; that can't be a gun."

His next move was taking the course to get a permit for carrying a concealed, loaded weapon. His instructor stressed the importance of assessing certain "Conditions" for people wearing loaded guns.

Condition White stood for total security: home with the dog at your feet and your home alarm on.

Condition Yellow stood for being aware of one's surroundings, such as walking around town.

Condition Orange was awareness of a possible threat.

Condition Red was responding to a real threat.

Mr. Baum wrote, "I found that I wasn't so much in Condition Yellow as Condition Day-Glo Yellow. Everything around me appeared brilliantly sharp." Mr. Baum's hyper awareness spilled over into his reaction for those walking around him. He described the feeling of pity he felt for passersby who did not know he was capable of wreaking havoc at any moment.

"And there I was, striding among them, uniquely capable of resisting whatever violence might be their portion. It surprised me that it made me feel rather noble."

Dan Baum made a rule not to let himself not get drawn into political discussions, and he kept his promise when he wrote the book months before the events of Sandy Hook and its initial publication. He said his mission was finding out who else besides himself was a self-styled "gun guy," which he did well.

However, he did venture in to the world of politics in a postscript he wrote after the events of Sandy Hook.

In the same reasonable style as in Gun Guys, Mr. Baum points out that things have to change in the way we manage, or mismanage, gun sales in this country. He wants to see more control on how guns make their way into the world of criminals and criminal behavior.

He closes his postscript with "... it's not good enough to say, 'That's just the way we are.'"

The appeal of this book is Mr. Baum's approach to gun ownership. The skeptical reader will be surprised. He does not preach the second amendment nor argue for or against the value of gun ownership. He leaves that up to his audience.

Gun Guys is smart and informative -- an education for anyone the slightest bit curious about why gun owners are so passionate about their guns. Dan Baum's stories are alive, engaging, and earnest.

Reviewer Geri Spieler is the award-winning author of Taking Aim at the President: The Remarkable Story of the Woman Who Shot at Gerald Ford (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). She is also a member of the National Books Critics Circle.

Geri Spieler is author of "Taking Aim At The President: The Remarkable Story of the woman who shot at Gerald Ford," and a journalist. She teaches Internet Research Classes

Read More

Politics Inc - Fraud and Deceit

In 2008 there will be another round of presidential primaries, but with the primaries over a year away there is an almost unknown candidate John Cox of Illinois. John Cox is a businessman, tax attorney, and author. Who at 50, has had two failed attempts at office in Congress in 2000 and in the 2002 Senate, believes that this is the right time for him to make an attempt to take control of the Executive branch. Cox at this time has been gathering support in political circles in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Iowa.

In his book Politic$, Inc., Principle, Not Profit, Why We Need Statesmen, and Not Career Politicians, he makes his views clear about career politicians who have taken up residence for life in Congress. In his book In Politic$, Inc. he draws on the point, that politicians are more concerned about their personal wealth and power than the well being of the people, or the state of the Nation. He reflects on his past involvement with tax officials, who don't seem to know that they are public servants.

Cox offers solutions to many of the governments problems such as, the out of control spending, the runaway train syndrome that we have with regards to the Social security administration, medical care, and the crumbling education system. This he blames on politicians who would rather take the path of least resistance instead of the sometimes more difficult solutions, and all this for political gain. Therefore abandoning a chance to correct some of our most pressing problems .

This book may be the driving force for an electorate searching for a real Conservative leader. In his missive Cox states that he believes that term limits should be implemented. This would resolve issues of Legislators who are unable to show political restraint .

Cox, whose mother was abandoned by his father when John Cox was an infant, is opposed to abortion on demand, and he has strong feelings against amnesty for illegal aliens. This businessman is a strong supporter of a high tech missile defense system to deter other nations from pursuing a nuclear weapons program. He is strongly committed to pursuing a plan for improvements to education, health care costs, and environmental improvements that would be acceptable and fair with minimal interference from bureaucrats.

Politic$ Inc. is not fool proof, and will not solve all the nations problems. Most of Mr. Cox's suggestions and proposals will rely on a new breed of public officials, but also a new type of electorate. A much more responsible electorate. The removal of long term politicians from office will be a risky move, to say the least, and could result in democrats making gains on the number of seats being held.

Read More

The Art of War by Sun Tzu

Written during the 6th century BC, The Art of War is a definitive Chinese military strategy treatise that has proven relevant centuries later, not only to modern-day warfare, but also to politics, business, and managerial and even relationship strategies.

Best summarized in his quote "all warfare is based on deception", Sun Tzu's teachings include the importance of positioning in strategy, having taken into account the objective conditions in the physical environment and the subjective opinions of your opponent in that environment. He also teaches on the importance of speed and versatility in responding to changing conditions, seeing as even the best laid plans in life more often than not do fall apart. Sun Tzu's emphasis however is on how to fight wars without actually going into battle i.e. by outsmarting your opponent. For Sun Tzu, the key is to first know yourself, then know your opponent, thus limiting the costs of competition/ conflict. He talks of the need to recognize opportunities in the weaknesses of your opponent, without trying to create them; tactical maneuvering and the importance of developing information sources.

The Art of War became increasingly popular in the 19th and 20th centuries, with Sun Tzu's teachings being applied in politics and culture of both western and Asian cultures. The book is regarded as a primary example of Taoist thinking, which proved influential to both ancient Chinese and Asian culture and history. Sun Tzu is thought to have been a general of King of Wu, who lived in the Spring and Autumn Period of China (722 -481 BC). This was a period of constant war in China, which saw the seven nations of Zhao, Qin, Qi, Han, Chu, Yan and Wei, battle over control of the whole of China. On this basis, some scholars believe that The Art of War is based on the descriptions of warfare in the Warring States Period (476-221 BC).

Known to have influenced the strategies of Napoleon and Mao, The Art of War has taken prominence in strategies outside military applications. It has proved a bible of sorts on corporate strategy for Japanese businessmen, well respected today for their business savvy. This must-read has also found its way in the legal fraternity for tactics on outsmarting opposing counsel; as well as in the sports world, for defense/offense tactics, political campaign trails, office politics and - believe it or not - getting and holding onto romantic partners.

Read More

GPS Tracking

In the article "GPS, The Good and The Bad" we looked at both sides of GPS tracking. We saw that it can be used for a variety of beneficial activities like finding your location on a map to help you navigate to a specific destination. However, the same technology that allows you to track yourself can allow others to track you. So in today's closer look we are going to checkout ways your phone may be tracked, who might be tracking you, and how to protect yourself.

Probably the most common way that your phones location can be tracked by someone else is if an app that has been installed is transmitting your location. Some apps may just require your location to help provide relevant local content, such as an app that suggests restaurants. It wouldn't be a very useful app if all the suggestions were miles and miles away, so it takes your GPS location to give find options that are close to you. While it is important for you to know which apps are requesting your location, and determine yourself if you are comfortable with a company knowing your location at all times, we are more interested in apps that are specifically for tracking your location and allowing it to be viewed by others.

One such tracking software is ePhoneTracker. This software can be installed on any phone and runs invisibly in the background as long as the phone is on. It won't even show up in the running applications menu of your phone! Once on your phone the app tracks everything your phone does. Text messages, call history, emails sent and received, what websites you visit, your contacts, and your GPS location, all get logged and sent to an email address to be viewed remotely. Software like this can be used in a few different ways and we are going to focus on the GPS tracking capability. Parents might use it to track their children's location to make sure they get to school safely or that they aren't talking to anyone they shouldn't be. For parents of young kids I can see this being used as a tool to ensure safety more than an invasion of privacy. But the difference between monitoring for safety concerns and spying is a fine line. At what age does tracking your kids phone become spying? If you are just keeping track of a person's location to make sure they are safe why does the app need to be so hidden? If you wanted to keep track of your spouse's location while they were away on a business trip or commuting to work you could use one of many other more transparent methods of keeping tabs of their location. There are many other apps for keeping tabs on someone's whereabouts without being sneaky about it.

An app like ePhoneTracker takes GPS location from a safety tool to a spying method. If you are tracking someone without their knowledge it's because you don't trust them to tell you where they are. Maybe you think your teenager isn't actually going to a friend's house, or the library like they said they were. Maybe you think your spouse isn't being faithful and you want to know the truth. Just because you suspect someone of wrongdoing you don't have the right to invade their privacy. Would you want someone spying on you?

GPS isn't the only way to track a phones location. Service providers are constantly receiving location updates from your phone for the purpose of delivering phone calls and other data. Most carriers offer a family locator service that can be used to follow the location of any phone on the family plan. Connecting to open wifi networks will update your phones location, even if you don't have GPS or a data plan.

So how can you avoid being tracked? The best solution is to know what is on your phone. When installing a new app read what it is requesting access to and don't install it if you are unsure what something means! You can always contact the developers to get a clearer understanding of why an app needs certain information, as well as how/where the data is being stored. In some apps you turn off the GPS functionality, although it can be hard to find sometimes. Keeping your phone close or using a login password to make sure other people can't install apps without you knowing is also a great way to keep your information private. You should also be cautious about who knows your Google or Apple IDs because they can be used to install apps remotely to your phone! Another surefire way to know your phone can't be tracked is to use a RF&RFID blocking case. This way no signal is going to or from your phone and you can go about your life without looking over your shoulder.

Read More

Iran: Nuclear Conflict Over Nuclear Power?

If things continue down the path they have begun, and everybody involved keeps chest pounding and challenging each other to climb the ladder of aggression; sooner rather than later, severe weapons will begin to be fired and there will be a major conflict in the Middle East.

This potential war will make the Iraq war look like a small border conflict in scale as it will be the culmination of over 50 years of aggressive behaviour between Iran, it's Arab neighbours; and Israel and it's pro-UN allies.

With the latest worrying news being the expulsion and closure of the UK Embassy in Iran over the continued economic sanctions, and the riots that enabled Iranian students to invade and occupy the UK embassy in a hauntingly familiar scene to the 1979 storming of the US embassy; as well as the expulsion and closure of the entire Iranian embassy in London, tensions are even higher now against the reclusive Persian nation. However, has Iran really done what the Western world says it has done? Or is the nation simply trying to keep itself afloat and be the victim of overzealous elements in the Western World who feel that they need to control the oil-rich nation for their own means?

In the event of a conflict, it is estimated that Iran will fight appropriately, not use so-called dirty tactics, as it's neighbours have used, but fight using appropriate means.

Although it is estimated that Iran will strike at targets in Israel as well as other nations, if a war ensues, it will most likely end up being decidedly one-sided. If the state of Israel feels the need to strike first, which they have a solid history of doing, they may well launch tactical nuclear strikes against known Iranian nuclear facilities to ensure they will not be rebuilt or in any way usable in the future. Although this may seem suicidal, it will prove that Israel is willing to defend itself from perceived aggression as well as real aggression, and more than likely, the UN will bow to Israel and allow the attacks and weapon strikes without censure.

Iran has sworn off using Weapons of Mass Destruction after the Iran/Iraq war, and seems very much against the use of area effect and anti-civilian weapons in general. They are a signed and ratified party to the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention, as well as a full signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What this means is that Iran has legally bound itself not to produce or stockpile Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons for use in armed conflict. Unfortunately, Israel is not a signatory to the same treaties.

There is a lot of circumstantial and in some cases, very questionable evidence that Iran may have or be developing a nuclear weapon, the real and provable facts are very thin and do not back up the claims made by the Western world about the supposed nuclear stance of this Persian powerhouse. Iran has stated that it's Supreme Leader has issued a Fatwa, religious decree, against the country developing or using Nuclear Weapons, and as the entire country tends to follow these decrees, there is no real reason to think that Iran would be secretly developing a nuclear weapon program when it's Religious leaders have said 'No'.

Based on historical documents, Israel has tended to be the aggressor in most of the middle east conflicts it has been involved in against other nation-states. Launching preemptive strikes and invading before the other nation has a chance to really do anything, Israeli troops have managed to dominate their corner of the Arabian peninsula for the past 50 years.

Unfortunately, with the fall of Iraq, Iran is now one of the only nations in the Middle East that maintains an active army, has a solidly anti-US stance, and is willing and able to back itself up with an organized military response to an outside threat. With an estimated 650,000+ member force of standing military and reserves estimated to exceed 10 million, Iran has a significant military force able to march on and attack by ground, sea, and air; if they are attacked and feel the need to retaliate.

It is very doubtful that Iran would ever fire a warhead against Israel on a first-strike basis, but the same does not hold for Israel's response to the perceived threat of attack by Iran.

Israel may well launch multiple nuclear warheads at Iranian targets in an attempt to disproportionately eliminate multiple military offensives as well as intimidate the Iranian people against further action. However, this would more than likely have the directly opposite result of uniting the entire Arabian peninsula against Israel and causing a very prolonged and pretty much defined war of annihilation against the Jewish nation-state. For those who believe in the Bible, this could be the beginning of the book of Revelations, and the foreshadowing of the 'End Times'. as they are supposed to be be ushered in with a failed war against Israel lead by a nation from the North. Although Iran is east of Israel, the nations of Lebanon and Syria to the North. Syria borders on Turkey, and Turkey shares a border with Iran. It is not impossible to accept that a major ground offensive of Iranian National Guard troops may use that corridor to hit Israel from the north and drive deep into the country in the event of an all-out conflict.

In closing, it is my feeling that with the political rhetoric now ramping up, we may be coming close to a very protracted and intense Middle East conflict that may well become the World War 3 that people felt for a long time would be the US against the USSR. This would not be a good thing.

Read More

Political Correctness Is Censorship

So you say that I offended you. I say that is impossible. I cannot offend you. Being offended is something that happens in your head, and I have no control over that. I can push you, I can strike you, I can do all sorts of things that will injure you, but I cannot offend you.

I will go further and state that your declaration that you have been offended is cowardice or at the very least weakness on your part. Cowardice in that you do not have any logical retort to counter whatever statement I made to offend you. You are surrendering your side of a disagreement. You claim to be offended as a shield to hide behind, and I am calling you out as a coward. If you think I am wrong, or you think I am mislead, then use your words as a rational being would, and tell me why I am wrong. Do not throw up the "offended" flag and expect that your claim of offense has ended the conversation. I am telling you that ending the conversation by becoming offended is your admission of the weakness of your argument.

For many years, people who had no logical point to make have shut down discussion under the guise that someone taking offense to a topic or idea was in some magical way a reason to stop talking. This is nonsensical. This is the core of modern censorship and I am appalled by it. There is zero reason that any idea no matter who it offends should be censored. That is exactly what we have done. You can't talk about race or religion or politics because someone might be offended. I say to you now, and I will echo these thoughts for decades to come, that the person who is offended is the problem, and they need to sort it out. If my religious beliefs offend you, then you have a problem not me. There is no logical reason for me to be censored, either by my own self-imposed will to not offend, or by group or government pressure to respect you imaginary right to live free from offense. If my political views offend you, then, under what thinking man's banner can you possibly expect to shut down my opinion? In reality the offense lives in your brain not in my speech. If I am offended by your conduct or speech, do I have the right to stop you, just because I clam an offense, when we know that the only place offense lives in inside of my skull. The only logical answer to that question is no.

What is worse still is that offense is not an equal quantity. Some people can be offended and others cannot. People who are of the majority opinion cannot be offended. That is actually not true, the majority can be offended, but nobody cares. It is the people in the minority who cannot be offended. It is as if some difference in the quality of the human who is offended, not a difference in the opinion or point of view. Our founding fathers were brilliant men. They anticipated the bullying of the majority by groups of the "oppressed." The author of Animal Farm, George Orwell also predicted this special treatment for any group or individual who will claim to be offended.

I for one will not stand for this societal tyranny. I will not abide by these false rules. I will not be censored. If my speech offends you, I don't care, that is your problem. I encourage each and every person who reads this article to make it your mission to go an offend someone and then explain why the problem is all in their head.

America represents freedom. That freedom used to extend to the arena of political, religious, and any other sort of speech. We used to be allowed to criticize and disagree. We used to be able to sort out our differences without some crying that they were offended. As long as we allow the offended to shut down conversations, we will never be a free country again. At some point I will eventually become enraged enough to run for Congress, until then keep an eye out for my future articles.

Read More

On Anti-Scientific and Anti-Intellectual Conmen

Two of the most obnoxious things to have come out of American Right are the anti-scientific and anti-intellectual directions. In both cases we see vast wrong being done.

The truck that the right-winger drives, the TV he watches, and the air conditioning that he uses, all come from science. God did not create these things; scientists did. And without science the American right-winger would be tilling a two-acre plot of land with a horse and a plow and be dying in case of a crop failure. Science is at the root of all technology, which means that it is at the root of everything that business sells. And without science, capitalism would be nothing more than exchange of basic commodities at the level it was in Medieval Persia.

Even more prevalent is the anti-intellectual direction; and here we likewise see vast hypocrisy. America was not founded by God. People in Europe believed in God and in Jesus long before the Americans; and most of the places in Europe that believed in God and in Jesus were poor and corrupt monarchies that allowed no liberty and produced no wealth. America's democratic system was designed by intellectuals schooled in European Enlightenment philosophy, basing their system on the Greko-Roman democracy and the Iroquois Confederacy. America owes to intellectuals its very nationhood.

Aligned with the anti-intellectual direction is the anti-French sentiment; and here we likewise see vast hypocrisy. France was America's first major ally that delivered crucial assistance during the Revolutionary War. America's intervention in France in the wars of 20th century can be seen as repaying the favor for what France did to make America possible in the first place. Without France, American Revolution would have floundered, and the American Republicans would be singing "God save the Queen."

Why are these obvious arguments not being made enough in the public discourse? Probably because nobody wants to get the ire of the people who believe the nonsense that's promulgated by right-wing conmen. As someone who's pissed people off all my life, I am not afraid of these people's anger, and I am willing to say these things because nobody else would.

The anti-scientific and the anti-intellectual sentiments have to go. America owes vastly to both scientists and intellectuals, and that means: Everyone in the country owes to both scientists and intellectuals. Science is at the root of everything that business sells, and the intellectuals are at the root of American system and American nationhood. It is time that credit be placed where it belongs.

And it is time that the conmen who keep misappropriating the credit be seen for the scoundrels that they are and lose their power to shape people's minds.

Read More

Can We Agree On Just One Thing?

You may well have seen the news that on May 9th 2013 the daily reading of atmospheric CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii pasted 400 parts per million (ppm) for a 24 hour period. This is an important location as it was here that we first started taking regular measures of atmospheric CO2 in the 1950's and it provides a clear record of what human activity is doing to the atmosphere.

When the records started in 1958, atmospheric CO2 was 315 ppm. The first few years of measurement showed a slight up and down movement of the readings, which was when scientists realised they were watching the planet "breath". As the majority of the deciduous forests in the north of the planet shed their leaves for winter, levels rose only to fall back again when the new leaf growth appeared in the spring & summer. Over the next few years, though, the trend fell into a stead up-ward trajectory with the first decade of measure showing total concentrations rising by just under 1 part per million per year. As the world's economies grew through the 1970s and 1980s, the rate of increase went up steadily. By 1988, nine years after the US Academy of Science had first warned of the dangers of climate change but before it had become an international issue, the concentration level passed 350 ppm, a level which is now believed to be limit for the relatively benign and safe climate that humans have known throughout their history. To reach 400 ppm is also an unfortunate milestone, not because 400ppm is radically more dangerous than 399 ppm but because for the past 20 years there has been concerted attempts by some major countries to reduce their carbon emissions. The symbolism of the general failure of these efforts to cancel growth in the "developing countries" is hugely important.

Many non-scientists believe that human adaptability means that we do not need to worry about where CO2 levels are as humans will simply adapt to 'new normal'. Except that as CO2 levels rise, our new normal becomes increasingly uncomfortable as weather patterns change and growing food becomes ever more difficult. The UK suffered an appalling summer in 2012, which badly hit many crops: the wheat harvest for example was the worst for 35 years. A major bakery brand who had used the platform of only using 100% British wheat had to abandon that position as shortage of supply forced it to import grain from mainland Europe. While it was rain that spoiled the harvest in the UK, searing droughts in the US, Canada and Australia combined to make world supplies very tight indeed. Continued growth in the concentrations of CO2 will, inevitably, lead to further disruptions in weather patterns and further uncertainty over food supplies.

To secure our food supplies, we need to look at ways to solve climate change. Limiting growth in CO2 levels is a good objective and various concentration levels can carry symbolic meaning but there is nothing more symbolic for modern humans than money. And how we use our money system remains at the core of our problems.

When I consider buying something, the transaction is not merely the exchange of money in return for a thing. It also reflects my feelings about myself, how I got the money in the first place, the thing I am buying, the location I have chosen to make the purchase, the people who work in there, the people who transported the thing there, the people who made the thing and the owners of the companies that did all these tasks. Money has facilitated thousands of connections to bring myself and the thing together and my reaction to the price being asked for it summarises my reaction to all those connections. But what it does not reflect is the impact that making that thing has had on the environment.

Price plays a critical role in markets, but the free market is distorted by treating the Earth's primary resources and atmosphere as the thing that is "free".

The basis of this thinking was the 18th-century Enlightenment, when human population levels were much lower: the assumption we could treat natural resources as being so abundant to be practicably infinite were workable then. A world population of 500 million using a resource at a rate that would appear to have it last 500 years could be forgiven for thinking 10 generations was sufficiently far away to be ignored. But that same quantity of resource being used by a 7 billion population at the same rate would consume it all in just over 35 years. The assumptions we base our economy on may have been workable for pre 20th century population levels but they do not serve us now.

In order to solve climate change we need to restructure our economic activity so that the economy and environment have a symbiotic relationship rather than a destructive one.

Impossible? I think not. Humans are capable of solving any problem they want to focus on. And to solve the problem of climate change we need to start by agreeing just one thing. The Earth is finite so our money system must stop pretending otherwise.

Harold Forbes is Author of "How to be a Humankind Superhero: a manifesto for individuals to reclaim a safe climate".

The book uses the myth of Hercules to provide individuals with twelve impactful action areas to fight climate change. It has been described by Jonathan Porritt, an eminent figure in the area of sustainable development as "An enjoyable read that hits the elusive balance between the analytic and the practical" while author Iain Banks called it a 'fine and heartfelt piece of work'.

Read More

Your Financial Freedom on Your Independence Day

As the fireworks blaze over your head, in celebration of Independence Day, many are still not completely free of the financial issues that bind them. Since the economy has been struggling with the recession, people all over the country are dreaming of financial freedom, but feeling that they are never going to be able to obtain it. As freedom rings all across the country, it is time for a true day of Independence!

The United States celebrates the 4th of each July as Independence Day. This is not simply a holiday where we hold pool parties and grill out, but it is to celebrate our freedom as a country. The signing of the Deceleration of Independence on July 4th 1776 gave us our freedom. We were finally free of Great Britain's rule!

Along the way, the United States has dealt with many issues of personal freedom. Today, we should be very thankful for the freedoms that we have! As you are celebrating your Independence Day, make sure that you are truly free. Are there financial issues that are holding you hostage? If so, there is no better time to gain your financial independence.

People all across the country are finding that they can be free of their bills and of their stress. They are grasping new opportunities and taking hold of their financial futures. Like never before, there is pride in those who have refused to settle for less than the American Dream. Allow me to introduce you to the methods that can change your life.

Since the recession took place, jobs have been scarce and hard to come by. So many workers have been displaced and many are still trying to find work. For those who are working and finding it increasingly difficult to have the desire to clock in each day, there is much more that can be experienced. You do not have to settle for the struggle, when there are easy money online opportunities just waiting for you.

So as the rockets blare over the skies this 4th of July, allow yourself to be truly free of your debt and your financial struggle. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to sit back and enjoy the fireworks this year, while knowing that you have achieved financial stability and success? Now is your moment, today is your day and full financial freedom can be found because there is no better time to experience it than this Independence Day!

Read More

Veterans Are Struggling More Than Ever To Find Jobs

Making the transition from being a soldier to a civilian can be difficult. This is especially true when it comes to finding suitable employment. For those soldiers who have ended their terms in the military, it can be very difficult to find work, in this present job market. Many have been out of the military for as many as two or more years before they are able to secure a job. Many others simply give up and find that they cannot get work no matter how qualified for the job they are.

This job market is hard enough on the average citizen, but can be even more difficult for those who are fresh out of the military and already trying to cope with major life changes. It can be difficult trying to find work that is steady and pays well. Many find that they are either over-qualified or under. Some find that employers are simply hesitant to hire veterans. You would think after serving your country that the job offers would be pouring in, but this is sadly not the case.

There have been some major companies that have reached out to veterans and worked towards putting programs into place that would help veterans to get jobs. Sadly, these programs are not found across the board and are often few and far between. Because of this, many of our veterans are finding life outside of the military very difficult to handle. The day to day struggle can be hard to overcome.

What many veterans are finding is that they need to make their own way in finding work. They are doing this by learning new skills and making new opportunities. It takes a passion and a willingness to learn to step out of your comfort zone and find new ways of looking at opportunities. By accepting change and being willing to embrace it, many are finding that they can create all new opportunities in the jobs market, even creating their own businesses.

If you are a veteran and have served your country proudly, you should be treated with respect and given the opportunity to work and make a living in this great country of ours. It is a shame that there is such a lack of help for veterans to find ample work once they get out of the military. Instead of being stuck in the unemployment line and wondering and waiting for when you will finally find work, you can overcome these obstacles and create your own path.

Read More

Basic Types of Flags and Their Usage

Flags are well designed pieces of fabric materials normally used as symbols. They are usually rectangular in form. They can represent an institution, a country, or an organization. They are also used for decorative purposes. They can be used on military grounds, battlefields, maritime and aviation environments. In any case, there are basic types of flags that are widely used. Let's examine them.

• National Flags
These are emblems that represent various nations of the world. Each nation has its specific details that make up its emblem. The ensigns are usually rectangular in shape. They are often hoisted in embassies belonging to several countries. Various companies and organizations also hoist them on their environments.

• Civil Flags

These are unique emblems that are hoisted on non-governmental installations. They are actually unique versions of national flags. Civilians used them in denoting ships or buildings that are not managed by military groups.

• War Flags
These are special emblems designed for several military forces across the nations of the world. Each military organization in every nation has its unique ensign. It's usually used on battlefields. During the World War 2, various military organizations displayed all kinds of war emblems as they engaged in the war.

• International Ensigns
These are emblems used for international purposes. Among them include flags meant for the United Nations, Word Health Organization, the Olympic game and other international bodies.

• Religious Emblems
These are emblems meant for different religions across the world. Various Christian churches have their unique ensigns. Muslims, Buddhists, and other religious bodies also have theirs.

• Sports Flags
These are unique ensigns meant for various sports clubs across the world. Most soccer clubs, basketball clubs and other sports bodies have their unique emblems. They usually hoist them at their club headquarters. They also use them each time they go out for competitions.

Aside from the above, there are also other unique types of emblems available. They are designed to suit particular purposes. Most of them are made of quality fabric materials. They are produced in a variety of sizes and shapes. They can be customized to suit specific nations, institutions or organizations. They can be produced locally. Nevertheless, there are firms that produce such symbolic items out there. Such firms usually use the best of fabrics and other materials in producing them. Some of the firms operate online. One can always get the best of ensigns at affordable prices through the net.

Read More