Former Haitian dictator Jean Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier returned to Haiti after more than two decades in exile in France, to which he had fled after being overthrown. The Haitians rightly arrested the man who had oppressed and terrorized them during his rule from 1971-1987 after succeeding his father.
Portugal’s conservative President was reelected. Although he disagreed with the increased taxation of the poor by the government of the Socialist Prime Minister, he has not blocked the government’s austerity program. As I have been noting, Portugal is the next most vulnerable member of the European Monetary Union to financial collapse.
Italy has been attempting to get the European Union to condemn the persecution of Christians in foreign states, but the Europeans have become so secular that they have been unable to bring themselves to specifically condemn the persecution of “Christians,” instead of the persecution of “minorities,” according to ANSA, the Italian news agency. As I have noted, the E.U. refuses to acknowledge the contribution of Christianity to Western Civilization.
The results of the referendum for the independence for Southern Sudan have been announced. An extraordinary, but not unexpected, 98% of Southern Sudanese voted for independence in the referendum, in which voter turnout was high. The northern Sudanese government has accepted the results, although, as I have posted before, citizenship, boundaries (especially over the region of Abyei) and oil remain unresolved issues between the Christian and animist Southern Sudan and the Islamist Arab Sudan to its north. The referendum was the result of the mediation between the parties by the United States during the Administration of President George W. Bush after a two-decade long war that killed one-to-two million people. Southern Sudan will become independent in July.
Lebanon’s pro-Western government collapsed after the Prime Minister supported the United Nations inquiry into the assassination of his father, former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The pro-Iranian terrorist organization Hezbollah and Syria are believed to have been complicit in the murder. Fearing its findings, Hezbollah withdrew as a minority member from the coalition government, thereby precipitating its collapse. A wealthy businessman it supported was named the new prime minister. Syria and Iran now once again dominate politics in Lebanon, which is a vassal state. Hezbollah’s political success underscores the danger of which I have been warning of anti-democratic forces who use the democratic process to gain power.
The military takeover of Egypt was an outcome that I suggested as preferable in my January post, Analysis of the Egyptian Revolution. The Egyptian people are to be congratulated for their accomplishment and the military for its restraint. It is hoped that the military transitions to a representative democracy, as long as anti-democratic forces, such as the Islamists, are not allowed to take advantage under the guise of being democratic, as in Iran in 1979 or Lebanon most recently. A broad base of the Egyptian people must participate in the process, including the Christians, who comprise a tenth of the country’s population. The Obama Administration was right to support freedom, but after initially backing dictator Hosni Mubarak, instead of calling for liberalization and working behind the scenes to nudge Mubarak from power, the Administration abandoned him publicly to such an unnecessary degree that it appeared disloyal to an ally. The Administration’s humiliation of Mubarak undermines other allies’ confidence in the U.S.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
A Historian’s Thoughts on the Reagan Centennial
Today is the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of United States President Ronald Wilson Reagan. The Federal Holiday in February known as “Presidents’ Day” ought to honor him, as well as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, for he was one of the greatest American presidents.
When he left office, Reagan was popular with the American people, but not with the media, economists, historians and liberal Democrats. Although they credited him at least with reducing nuclear weapons through the IMF Treaty in 1988, they reviled him for his policies and dismissed him as simple-minded and simplistic. However, Reagan appears even better now to the public and even to the academics because of perspective and the availability of more historical information.
The subsequent collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the breakup of the Soviet Union particularly vindicated his policies of rebuilding American defenses, placing missiles in Western Europe, supporting freedom fighters against Communist governments (the Reagan Doctrine) and Pope John Paul II and the Solidarity movement in Poland, liberating Grenada, and speaking frankly against the evil of Communism and in favor or human rights. The prosperity of the Reagan Boom of 1982-2008, with the continued low inflation and low interest rates we enjoy today can now be observed more clearly and be attributed to his tax cuts, reduced regulation and optimism and confidence in America. The later discovery of Reagan’s handwritten essays revealed him as an intellectual and original thinker. He was not only a spokesman, but a leader of the conservative movement. Reagan was skeptical of conventional wisdom and delighted in outsmarting the “experts.”
The 40th President’s other most noteworthy accomplishments included firing federal employees for illegally striking (which sent a message to the Communists that Reagan meant what he said), appointing conservative judges (such as the one mentioned in my last post; a legacy that continues), supporting the right to life, beginning the fight against terrorism, tax reform, and the free trade agreement with Canada.
There are two big myths about Reagan that are still widely believed, especially by liberals. One stems from a misunderstanding of his statement that it takes an actor to be president. Reagan did not mean that he was acting in performing the most important role of his life, but that actors were especially skillful at determining whether someone was telling them the truth or not. The other myth is that his tax cuts increased the budget deficit. Revenues to the federal government nearly doubled. Overspending, not tax cuts, were the reason for the deficits. They were held stable relative to the gross domestic product the first several years of his Administration and even declined the last few years.
Some conservatives and others, however, have drawn a wrong lesson from Reagan’s fiscal policies. It is not the government that causes prosperity. Government can only make itself less burdensome (e.g. by lowering taxes, reducing regulation), which provides a better opportunity for the economy to grow. They should also follow Reagan’s example of being optimistic more than they often do, as well as sharing his concern for fellow human beings and belief in resisting evil in all its forms around the world, which some isolationists do not.
I must note that Reagan’s fiscal policies deserve even more credit for winning the Cold War than they are given. It is not only that he bankrupted the Soviets because they were unable to compete in the arms race, it was the prosperity he unleashed that not only funded the American arms buildup, the Strategic Defense Initiative (missile defense) and the Reagan Doctrine, but provided a contrast between the free market and Socialism, a contrast that prior to the Reagan Administration was not nearly as sharp.
Reagan was a heroic, inspirational figure to me personally. He validated my common sense and moral beliefs amid the liberal conventional wisdom that surrounded me. Thus, when he would go over the heads of the arrogant experts, he established a personal connection with the American people the elites could never understand.
I never saw or met this great American, but was privileged to view Reagan’s casket lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda. When I signed his guestbook at the Capitol, I promised as a historian to record Ronald Reagan’s greatness. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to fulfill that promise. May God Bless America.
When he left office, Reagan was popular with the American people, but not with the media, economists, historians and liberal Democrats. Although they credited him at least with reducing nuclear weapons through the IMF Treaty in 1988, they reviled him for his policies and dismissed him as simple-minded and simplistic. However, Reagan appears even better now to the public and even to the academics because of perspective and the availability of more historical information.
The subsequent collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the breakup of the Soviet Union particularly vindicated his policies of rebuilding American defenses, placing missiles in Western Europe, supporting freedom fighters against Communist governments (the Reagan Doctrine) and Pope John Paul II and the Solidarity movement in Poland, liberating Grenada, and speaking frankly against the evil of Communism and in favor or human rights. The prosperity of the Reagan Boom of 1982-2008, with the continued low inflation and low interest rates we enjoy today can now be observed more clearly and be attributed to his tax cuts, reduced regulation and optimism and confidence in America. The later discovery of Reagan’s handwritten essays revealed him as an intellectual and original thinker. He was not only a spokesman, but a leader of the conservative movement. Reagan was skeptical of conventional wisdom and delighted in outsmarting the “experts.”
The 40th President’s other most noteworthy accomplishments included firing federal employees for illegally striking (which sent a message to the Communists that Reagan meant what he said), appointing conservative judges (such as the one mentioned in my last post; a legacy that continues), supporting the right to life, beginning the fight against terrorism, tax reform, and the free trade agreement with Canada.
There are two big myths about Reagan that are still widely believed, especially by liberals. One stems from a misunderstanding of his statement that it takes an actor to be president. Reagan did not mean that he was acting in performing the most important role of his life, but that actors were especially skillful at determining whether someone was telling them the truth or not. The other myth is that his tax cuts increased the budget deficit. Revenues to the federal government nearly doubled. Overspending, not tax cuts, were the reason for the deficits. They were held stable relative to the gross domestic product the first several years of his Administration and even declined the last few years.
Some conservatives and others, however, have drawn a wrong lesson from Reagan’s fiscal policies. It is not the government that causes prosperity. Government can only make itself less burdensome (e.g. by lowering taxes, reducing regulation), which provides a better opportunity for the economy to grow. They should also follow Reagan’s example of being optimistic more than they often do, as well as sharing his concern for fellow human beings and belief in resisting evil in all its forms around the world, which some isolationists do not.
I must note that Reagan’s fiscal policies deserve even more credit for winning the Cold War than they are given. It is not only that he bankrupted the Soviets because they were unable to compete in the arms race, it was the prosperity he unleashed that not only funded the American arms buildup, the Strategic Defense Initiative (missile defense) and the Reagan Doctrine, but provided a contrast between the free market and Socialism, a contrast that prior to the Reagan Administration was not nearly as sharp.
Reagan was a heroic, inspirational figure to me personally. He validated my common sense and moral beliefs amid the liberal conventional wisdom that surrounded me. Thus, when he would go over the heads of the arrogant experts, he established a personal connection with the American people the elites could never understand.
I never saw or met this great American, but was privileged to view Reagan’s casket lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda. When I signed his guestbook at the Capitol, I promised as a historian to record Ronald Reagan’s greatness. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to fulfill that promise. May God Bless America.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Update: Another Federal Judge Rules the Individual Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance Unconstitutional
Federal Judge Roger Vinson of Florida has ruled in favor of the 26 States that sued the Obama Administration for its federalization of health insurance. The judge not only struck down the individual mandate to purchase health insurance as unconstitutional, but the entire health insurance act. Unlike Judge Hudson in Virginia's lawsuit, Judge Vinson ruled the mandate to be not severable from the rest of the act.
The suit was originally filed by Florida. Two judges have now ruled in favor of the States, who have argued, among other things, that their constitutional rights would be violated by mandating their citizens purchase health insurance as a condition of residence in the United States. They argue that the federal goverment has only the power to regulate interstate commerce, not non-activity such as not participating in commerce, lest there be no barrier to the absolute regulatory power of the federal government over all behavior. Two other cases that were ruled in favor of the Administration did not include States. The Obama Administration is expected to appeal the rulings in favor of the States.
The suit was originally filed by Florida. Two judges have now ruled in favor of the States, who have argued, among other things, that their constitutional rights would be violated by mandating their citizens purchase health insurance as a condition of residence in the United States. They argue that the federal goverment has only the power to regulate interstate commerce, not non-activity such as not participating in commerce, lest there be no barrier to the absolute regulatory power of the federal government over all behavior. Two other cases that were ruled in favor of the Administration did not include States. The Obama Administration is expected to appeal the rulings in favor of the States.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Analysis of the Egyptian Revolution
Egyptians are revolting against the regime of dictator Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak, who had been Vice President, became President of Egypt after the assassination of President Anwar al-Sadat in 1981 by Islamists, during which Mubarak was wounded.
Mubarak’s rule is a continuation of the dictatorial regime founded when Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew the king nearly six decades ago. Nasser was more tyrannical than Mubarak, Sadat less. Mubarak has long feared that if he loosened authority, the Islamists would assassinate him like they did Sadat, or that he would lose power to the Islamists like the Shah of Iran did in 1979 after the Americans had urged him to liberalize his country.
A number of factors have combined to threaten Mubarak’s regime. Egyptians, understandably, have grown intolerant of nearly thirty years of oppression and resented his apparent grooming of his son to succeed him, as if he were a pharaoh. The rise of the internet has increased the Egyptian people’s contact with foreigners and allowed the opposition to collaborate. But the recent overthrow of Tunisia’s leader is what precipitated the Egypt revolution and the anti-government protests elsewhere in the Arab world, as Arabs have demanded freedom and democratization, such as they have observed around the world, including even in Iraq, the recent authoritarian trend notwithstanding.
The geopolitical stakes are high. Egypt, the most populous Arab state, has been an ally of the United States in fighting international terrorism and keeping peace with Israel. It was the first Arab state to recognize Israel in 1979 and has blocked arms shipments to Hamas-controlled Gaza across the Egyptian border. Egypt is also of strategic importance because of the Suez Canal. It is a large recipient of U.S. military aid. However, Mubarak is a dictator whom the U.S. has been encouraging under its last two Administrations to liberalize.
The fear among some Egyptians and many in the West is that the Islamists, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest opposition organization, will seize power if Mubarak does not liberalize sufficiently to mollify the populace. The Brotherhood, which wants to implement Islamic law, inspired the Hamas and al-Qaeada terrorist organizations.
It is noteworthy that there has been oppression in particular toward the Coptic Christians, who represent about 10% of Egypt’s population, as well as attacks by Islamists. The Coptic Pope discouraged Copts from participating in the revolution, out of an understandable fear of a worse outcome, but some of them are seizing the opportunity to overthrow the dictatorship, according to the Catholic News Agency. They hope to claim a stake in power by not allowing the Islamists all the credit for the overthrow.
The best outcome for Egypt is either an immediate resignation by Mubarak or an announcement by him that he will not seek reelection in the elections scheduled for September, which he will finally allow to be free and fair, in contrast to the rigged ones held previously, and that the Islamists do not seize power. The Egyptian dictator recently named a Vice President for the first time. The Vice President or the military might be preferable new leaders, or even Muhammad al-Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nobel Peace Prize-winner who has made himself the leader of the opposition. The Americans are right to urge an orderly transition.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Economy Is Irrelevant to the State of the Union
In my post from January of 2010, State of the Union vs. State of the Country, I noted how recent United States presidents regard the American Union as equivalent to the territory of the States that belong to it, which leads these presidents to address constitutionally irrelevant issues, as if the federal government is usurping the States.
My recent historical research confirms my point. The earliest States of the Union addresses read precisely like reports from the chairman of an organization, which is fitting because the president is, indeed, like a chairman of an organization, unlike the governor of a state who presides not only over state government, but must be concerned for the welfare of its citizens. The President presides over the Union of the States under the Constitution, for which his address is a report, while he is supposed to leave internal matters to the States, except only those powers granted the federal government by the Constitution. Indeed, the earlier Presidents sometimes even refer to the federal government as “our organization” because they recognized that they presided over a Union, not a geographic territory. They understood the importance of limited government, the federalist system created by the Framers of the Constitution whereby power was shared by the States and the Union they formed by that document.
Such matters as the economy or health care or insurance, therefore, are not directly relevant to the Union and ought not to be addressed in the annual presidential address to Congress on the state of the Union. Conservatives should call upon presidents to focus only on federal matters and to respect the rights of the States and the people, which would help to restore federalism by educating the electorate and by encouraging the federal government to perform its duty, which is to protect our rights, under those powers delegated to it by the Constitution.
My recent historical research confirms my point. The earliest States of the Union addresses read precisely like reports from the chairman of an organization, which is fitting because the president is, indeed, like a chairman of an organization, unlike the governor of a state who presides not only over state government, but must be concerned for the welfare of its citizens. The President presides over the Union of the States under the Constitution, for which his address is a report, while he is supposed to leave internal matters to the States, except only those powers granted the federal government by the Constitution. Indeed, the earlier Presidents sometimes even refer to the federal government as “our organization” because they recognized that they presided over a Union, not a geographic territory. They understood the importance of limited government, the federalist system created by the Framers of the Constitution whereby power was shared by the States and the Union they formed by that document.
Such matters as the economy or health care or insurance, therefore, are not directly relevant to the Union and ought not to be addressed in the annual presidential address to Congress on the state of the Union. Conservatives should call upon presidents to focus only on federal matters and to respect the rights of the States and the people, which would help to restore federalism by educating the electorate and by encouraging the federal government to perform its duty, which is to protect our rights, under those powers delegated to it by the Constitution.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Sargent Shriver, Rest in Peace
Sargent Shriver passed away last week at the age of 95. The husband of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, he was most famous for being appointed the first head of the Peace Corps by United States President John Kennedy, his brother-in-law, as well as being the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 1972.
As I posted about his wife, the foundress of the Special Olympics, upon her death (See my post from April of 2009, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, Rest in Peace), Shriver, a devout Catholic, was an unwavering and outspoken supporter of the right to life, one of the few remaining pro-life liberals in the Democratic Party who considered loving the most helpless human beings a matter of moral and ideological consistency.
May the example of the Shrivers inspire liberals and Democrats to unite with conservatives and Republicans in building a culture of life in America where the liberty of all human beings is protected.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Update: 27 States Are Now Parties to Lawsuits against the Federalization of Health Insurance
Six more American States have joined Florida's lawsuit against the Obama Administration's federalization of health insurance, making a total of 26 in that civil action. They are suing the federal government over its individual mandate to purchase health insurance and over the unfunded federal mandate on states to pay for the significant expansion of Medicaid.
Florida's lawsuit is separate from Virginia's, which won on a motion for summary judgment that declared the federal mandate unconstitutional, as I had posted last month. All together, then, there are 27 states suing the federal government over the law that federalized health insurance for violating states rights'. The extraordinary fact that a majority of states are objecting to a federal law on constitutional grounds ought to be weighed carefully by the federal courts.
Florida's lawsuit is separate from Virginia's, which won on a motion for summary judgment that declared the federal mandate unconstitutional, as I had posted last month. All together, then, there are 27 states suing the federal government over the law that federalized health insurance for violating states rights'. The extraordinary fact that a majority of states are objecting to a federal law on constitutional grounds ought to be weighed carefully by the federal courts.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Commentary on Liberal Democrats and Congress
I posted this month on the Lame Duck session, but did not find it necessary to post an analysis of the entire 111th Liberal Democratic Congress, as I had posted over its two-year term on its actions as the most spendthrift Congress in American history and as taking over more and more of the free market at the expense of liberty.
The attempt by liberals to blame the attempted assassination of a Democratic member of the United States Congress on conservatives is an attempt to silence criticism. The fact that the would-be assassin, who also killed a Republican-appointed federal judge among other innocent victims, is obviously insane and influenced by irrational far-left wing conspiracy theories, will not deter them from attempting to take political advantage of the opportunity not only to demean conservatives, but to intimidate them from exercising their freedom of expression. This crass liberal attempt reflects their view that there are no evil people in the world, except conservatives. Liberals will also renew their knee-jerk reactions against the right to keep and bear arms, which will distract from a discussion about whether their unsafe policy of no longer institutionalizing insane people is appropriate. Meanwhile, we should all be grateful for the failure of the assassination attempt, as it was an attack on representative government, and continue to pray for the victims and their families. Let us also pray for the failure of the left’s attack on representative government by intimidating their critics.
The discomfort of liberals with the reading of the Constitution in the U.S. House of Representatives by the new Republican majority suggests their lack of reverence for the founding document. It is appropriate that the document that created Congress and provides its authority to act be read before the beginning of every term. As usual, liberals complain that because the Constitution did not immediately free everyone totally, it is so imperfect as not to be revered. They fail to recognize the progress of its federal guarantees of liberty to all persons, including even slaves (which it refers to as “persons”), and its various anti-slavery provisions, while blaming the Founding Fathers for not overruling the states that formed the federal Union. Indeed, liberals confuse one anti-slavery provision, the Three Fifths Rule, with racism. See my post from April of 2009, Two Big Myths about the Founding Fathers: The Myth About the Three Fifths Rule and the Myth that Washington Warned against “Entangling Alliances.” Another odd argument liberals have been advancing again, as they did the last time Republicans won the Congressional majority, is that the Republican proposals for various constitutional amendments is evidence of an anti-Constitutional ideology. Leaving aside the fact that liberals are responsible for many of the Amendments that have been adopted within the last century, in addition to others that they proposed, the amendments proposed by Republicans, are not based upon contempt for the Constitution, but represent the use of its amendment process in order to prevent abuses. Conservatives, unlike liberals, respect that democratic process, instead of overriding it by appointing activists judges who substitute their own whim for constitutional principles.
The attempt by liberals to blame the attempted assassination of a Democratic member of the United States Congress on conservatives is an attempt to silence criticism. The fact that the would-be assassin, who also killed a Republican-appointed federal judge among other innocent victims, is obviously insane and influenced by irrational far-left wing conspiracy theories, will not deter them from attempting to take political advantage of the opportunity not only to demean conservatives, but to intimidate them from exercising their freedom of expression. This crass liberal attempt reflects their view that there are no evil people in the world, except conservatives. Liberals will also renew their knee-jerk reactions against the right to keep and bear arms, which will distract from a discussion about whether their unsafe policy of no longer institutionalizing insane people is appropriate. Meanwhile, we should all be grateful for the failure of the assassination attempt, as it was an attack on representative government, and continue to pray for the victims and their families. Let us also pray for the failure of the left’s attack on representative government by intimidating their critics.
The discomfort of liberals with the reading of the Constitution in the U.S. House of Representatives by the new Republican majority suggests their lack of reverence for the founding document. It is appropriate that the document that created Congress and provides its authority to act be read before the beginning of every term. As usual, liberals complain that because the Constitution did not immediately free everyone totally, it is so imperfect as not to be revered. They fail to recognize the progress of its federal guarantees of liberty to all persons, including even slaves (which it refers to as “persons”), and its various anti-slavery provisions, while blaming the Founding Fathers for not overruling the states that formed the federal Union. Indeed, liberals confuse one anti-slavery provision, the Three Fifths Rule, with racism. See my post from April of 2009, Two Big Myths about the Founding Fathers: The Myth About the Three Fifths Rule and the Myth that Washington Warned against “Entangling Alliances.” Another odd argument liberals have been advancing again, as they did the last time Republicans won the Congressional majority, is that the Republican proposals for various constitutional amendments is evidence of an anti-Constitutional ideology. Leaving aside the fact that liberals are responsible for many of the Amendments that have been adopted within the last century, in addition to others that they proposed, the amendments proposed by Republicans, are not based upon contempt for the Constitution, but represent the use of its amendment process in order to prevent abuses. Conservatives, unlike liberals, respect that democratic process, instead of overriding it by appointing activists judges who substitute their own whim for constitutional principles.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Follow-Up on the Rise of Authoritarianism
I posted in December again about the global rise of authoritarianism. Today, it was reported that Freedom House observed in its annual report a trend toward authoritarianism and away from freedom for a record-breaking fifth straight year, in terms of the number of states in the world regarded as free, partly free or not free. What Freedom House found particularly disturbing was the apparent acceptance by free states of this trend I always respect Freedom House's work on this subject and look forward to its report every year. Up until the last five years, the report had observed great progress toward freedom. Freedom House's report of the authoritarian trend should call attention to the growing menace to liberty.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Foreign Updates: Sudan; the European Union
Southern Sudan is voting this week on its independence referendum, which I had posted about last year. So far, the only violence has been in the Abyei region, the status of which was supposed to be determined in a separate plebiscite, in which the inhabitants would choose whether to be in the north or south. The vote in Abyei, which, like Southern Sudan, is rich in oil, has been delayed indefinitely. The Arab Islamist northern Sudanese government appears resigned to lose the Christian and animist black south, in the hopes of gaining some international support and trade, and possibly the dropping by the United States of its designation of Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism. The independence referendum is the result of the mediation by the Administration of U.S. President George W. Bush that ended the twenty-year long Sudanese Civil War that killed one to two million people that was characterized by atrocities against the south. This conflict is separate from the genocide being conducted by Arabs with northern Sudanese government backing against black Muslims in Darfur, the western part of Sudan, for which the northern Sudanese leader remains under a war crimes indictment that will not be withdrawn even if he accepts the outcome of the Southern Sudanese referendum. I am continuing to monitor the latest developments.
Deeply divided Belgium’s inability to form a coalition government amidst a financial crisis has the potential to spread the contagion further around the European Union about which I have been posting. Belgium is a Dutch and French-speaking state that has failed to resolve its linguistic differences. King Albert will now have to decide whether to allow the caretaker government that has lost its parliamentary majority to continue in power. Meanwhile, Portugal is under increased pressure to accept a bailout, like Greece and Ireland.
Deeply divided Belgium’s inability to form a coalition government amidst a financial crisis has the potential to spread the contagion further around the European Union about which I have been posting. Belgium is a Dutch and French-speaking state that has failed to resolve its linguistic differences. King Albert will now have to decide whether to allow the caretaker government that has lost its parliamentary majority to continue in power. Meanwhile, Portugal is under increased pressure to accept a bailout, like Greece and Ireland.
January of 2011 Blog Report and Notes
According to Statcounter, my blog has been visited for the 2,500th time since April 2, 2009 some time in December. As I noted in my last report, Blogger’s counter is picking up on a much larger number of visits, especially from Europe, although there are some that Statcounter captures that Blogger does not. As always, thank you for visiting my blog.
As you can see, Blogger now allows indentation in posts.
In the meantime, I updated the blogs and links I have posted on my blog. Please take a look at them.
In earlier posts, I cited the Bulletin, Philadelphia’s Family Newspaper, as the “Philadelphia Bulletin,” which was the name under which it operated since the mid 1800s. I still think of it under its old name, but just wanted to clarify the discrepancy.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Survey of Candidates for Permanent Seats of the UN Security Council
I have been considering the question of the expansion of the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council since the issue arose several years ago. It came up again recently in the voting for the rotating membership of the Council. It arose again, on United States President Barak Obama’s trip to India, when he reiterated American support for that large state to be given a permanent seat at the Council.
The five Permanent Members have veto power, unlike the ten rotating members. The current Permanent Members are all great powers: the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. They all have major economies (they rank first, fifth, sixth, twelfth and second, respectively in GDP), significant conventional military forces, and international influence. Additionally, all of the Permanent Members have significant nuclear weapons stockpiles and the ability to deliver them with ballistic missiles. It would be difficult to conceive of any modern state as a great power without nuclear weapons.
A survey of the usual candidates for additional permanent seats, as well as a few other candidates, plus the objections to their nominations would be illuminating:
India
Of all the candidates for permanent membership, India is the lone great power. It is an emergent economic power (with a GDP similar to Russia’s) that meets the other criteria to some degree, with a significant conventional force with strong participation in UN peacekeeping missions and some international prestige. It also has nuclear weapons. However, awarding it a permanent seat on the Security Council could appear to be rewarding India for its illicit acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Pakistan, India’s mortal enemy, and possibly other Muslim states would object to an Indian permanent seat.
Germany and Japan
These two states are economic great powers (with the second and fourth highest GDPs, respectively).
They both have relatively weak conventional forces and no nuclear weapons, however. More importantly, they both have constitutional restrictions on their combat roles that even limit their participation in peacekeeping. Italy objects to Germany's candidacy for permanent membership because of its relative lack of participation in international peacekeeping, especially compared to the Italians. Theoretically, the Italians would have to object to Japanese membership for the same reason. In addition, Japan remains hated in East Asia for its history of imperialism and what its neighbors regard as its failure to acknowledge its crimes. China and the Koreas would vehemently object to Japanese membership, even apart from Japan and South Korea's territorial dispute.
Italy
Italy is an economic great power (it has the seventh highest GDP), with a significant conventional military force and international influence. Indeed, it has been the leading power behind international peacekeeping (which are often UN missions), as well as participating significantly in both the Afghan and Iraqi battles in the War on Terrorism.
Italy, however, does not have nuclear weapons.
Australia
Australia is relatively similar to Italy in regard to sending its troops into peacekeeping or combat roles.
However, its economy is half the size of Italy’s, slightly behind India’s. Australia does not have nuclear weapons.
Brazil
Like India, Brazil is an emergent economic power.
Brazil, however, does not meet the other criteria. The recent decision of its outgoing president not to extradite a suspected terrorist to Italy guarantees Italian opposition.
Although all of these candidate states have larger GDPs than Russia, given that the Security Council is tasked with security, an adequate degree of military power and diplomatic prestige would seem requisite, in addition to economic might. In conclusion, there is currently no ideal candidate for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, although India comes the closet. It would be difficult to nominate only one or two of them, and not most of the rest. The objections that would be raised against these candidates could cause a coalition to coalesce around opposition to any expansion in the number of permanent Council members, at least for now.
The five Permanent Members have veto power, unlike the ten rotating members. The current Permanent Members are all great powers: the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. They all have major economies (they rank first, fifth, sixth, twelfth and second, respectively in GDP), significant conventional military forces, and international influence. Additionally, all of the Permanent Members have significant nuclear weapons stockpiles and the ability to deliver them with ballistic missiles. It would be difficult to conceive of any modern state as a great power without nuclear weapons.
A survey of the usual candidates for additional permanent seats, as well as a few other candidates, plus the objections to their nominations would be illuminating:
India
Of all the candidates for permanent membership, India is the lone great power. It is an emergent economic power (with a GDP similar to Russia’s) that meets the other criteria to some degree, with a significant conventional force with strong participation in UN peacekeeping missions and some international prestige. It also has nuclear weapons. However, awarding it a permanent seat on the Security Council could appear to be rewarding India for its illicit acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Pakistan, India’s mortal enemy, and possibly other Muslim states would object to an Indian permanent seat.
Germany and Japan
These two states are economic great powers (with the second and fourth highest GDPs, respectively).
They both have relatively weak conventional forces and no nuclear weapons, however. More importantly, they both have constitutional restrictions on their combat roles that even limit their participation in peacekeeping. Italy objects to Germany's candidacy for permanent membership because of its relative lack of participation in international peacekeeping, especially compared to the Italians. Theoretically, the Italians would have to object to Japanese membership for the same reason. In addition, Japan remains hated in East Asia for its history of imperialism and what its neighbors regard as its failure to acknowledge its crimes. China and the Koreas would vehemently object to Japanese membership, even apart from Japan and South Korea's territorial dispute.
Italy
Italy is an economic great power (it has the seventh highest GDP), with a significant conventional military force and international influence. Indeed, it has been the leading power behind international peacekeeping (which are often UN missions), as well as participating significantly in both the Afghan and Iraqi battles in the War on Terrorism.
Italy, however, does not have nuclear weapons.
Australia
Australia is relatively similar to Italy in regard to sending its troops into peacekeeping or combat roles.
However, its economy is half the size of Italy’s, slightly behind India’s. Australia does not have nuclear weapons.
Brazil
Like India, Brazil is an emergent economic power.
Brazil, however, does not meet the other criteria. The recent decision of its outgoing president not to extradite a suspected terrorist to Italy guarantees Italian opposition.
Although all of these candidate states have larger GDPs than Russia, given that the Security Council is tasked with security, an adequate degree of military power and diplomatic prestige would seem requisite, in addition to economic might. In conclusion, there is currently no ideal candidate for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, although India comes the closet. It would be difficult to nominate only one or two of them, and not most of the rest. The objections that would be raised against these candidates could cause a coalition to coalesce around opposition to any expansion in the number of permanent Council members, at least for now.
Conservative Analysis of the Congressional Lame Duck Session
United States President Barak Obama late last week signed the final piece of legislation approved by the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress. Now a complete analysis of its eventful lame duck session can be made. The session produced mixed results.
In a major victory for conservatives, income tax cuts were extended by the lame-duck Congress for all. Payroll taxes were also cut 1% for one year, although only for employees, not for employers. As part of the compromise with Obama, unemployment compensation was extended and not offset with spending cuts.
Congress approved the settlement of the Pigford class-action lawsuit, which was based upon alleged discrimination against black farmers, for billions of dollars, despite serious allegations of fraudulent claims that were not investigated.
In another major conservative victory, the massive omnibus spending bill the Obama Administration had proposed was defeated by the lame-duck Congress. Spending was continued at the lower 2010 levels temporarily, which allows the new Republican Congressional majority to pass a less fiscally irresponsible budget. One significant feature of the bill that was killed was funding to initiate Obama’s federalization of health insurance.
In another defeat for Obama, the lame-duck Congress barred funds to try terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay naval base in the U.S. It also approved aid for the September 11 rescue workers. Conservatives, led by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), paired down the bill by billions of dollars by rejecting excessive legal fees so that the all of the $2 billion it approved will go to the workers. A liberal immigration bill was defeated in the lame-duck session. It would not only have allowed the children of illegal immigrants to become citizens if they served in the military, but even if they attended college.
Liberals scored two major victories by allowing gays to serve openly in the military and ratifying the START Treaty with Russia. The strategic nuclear treaty was ratified by the Senate only after Obama promised the requisite funds to renew the aging American nuclear force. The Senate also approved a resolution reiterating the U.S. intent to maintain missile defense, notwithstanding the treaty’s preamble, which Russia considers a legal prohibition of American missile defense.
In short, despite some major liberal victories in the Congressional lame duck session, conservatives extended income tax cuts for all, put themselves in a better position to cut this year’s budget, killed a liberal immigration measure and won support for a renewal of the American nuclear force and continuing missile defense. Considering that the lame-duck Congress was controlled by liberal Democrats and that the President is also a liberal Democrat, it is significant that conservatives achieved any victories. The session suggests that the new Republican majority Congress will be able to win even more.
In a major victory for conservatives, income tax cuts were extended by the lame-duck Congress for all. Payroll taxes were also cut 1% for one year, although only for employees, not for employers. As part of the compromise with Obama, unemployment compensation was extended and not offset with spending cuts.
Congress approved the settlement of the Pigford class-action lawsuit, which was based upon alleged discrimination against black farmers, for billions of dollars, despite serious allegations of fraudulent claims that were not investigated.
In another major conservative victory, the massive omnibus spending bill the Obama Administration had proposed was defeated by the lame-duck Congress. Spending was continued at the lower 2010 levels temporarily, which allows the new Republican Congressional majority to pass a less fiscally irresponsible budget. One significant feature of the bill that was killed was funding to initiate Obama’s federalization of health insurance.
In another defeat for Obama, the lame-duck Congress barred funds to try terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay naval base in the U.S. It also approved aid for the September 11 rescue workers. Conservatives, led by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), paired down the bill by billions of dollars by rejecting excessive legal fees so that the all of the $2 billion it approved will go to the workers. A liberal immigration bill was defeated in the lame-duck session. It would not only have allowed the children of illegal immigrants to become citizens if they served in the military, but even if they attended college.
Liberals scored two major victories by allowing gays to serve openly in the military and ratifying the START Treaty with Russia. The strategic nuclear treaty was ratified by the Senate only after Obama promised the requisite funds to renew the aging American nuclear force. The Senate also approved a resolution reiterating the U.S. intent to maintain missile defense, notwithstanding the treaty’s preamble, which Russia considers a legal prohibition of American missile defense.
In short, despite some major liberal victories in the Congressional lame duck session, conservatives extended income tax cuts for all, put themselves in a better position to cut this year’s budget, killed a liberal immigration measure and won support for a renewal of the American nuclear force and continuing missile defense. Considering that the lame-duck Congress was controlled by liberal Democrats and that the President is also a liberal Democrat, it is significant that conservatives achieved any victories. The session suggests that the new Republican majority Congress will be able to win even more.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
The Ivorian Crisis and the Global Trend toward Authoritarianism
The recent elections in Ivory Coast were essentially similar to the ones in Burma earlier this year and Belarus earlier this month. The incumbent dictatorships in those two states remained in power after winning rigged elections. Unlike the dictators of the other two states, the Ivorian president, Laurent Gbagbo, had been elected originally. He lost reelection recently, but had the election results in favor of the opposition candidate overturned on spurious grounds. Thus, like the Burmese and Belarusian dictators, Gbagbo has remained in power after effectively after thwarting the democratic will expressed in an election.
The opposition Ivorian candidate, Alessane Ouatarra, a Muslim, is supported mostly in the Muslim north, while the Christian Gbagbo’s base of support is in the Christian south. Tensions between these two sides led to a civil war in the mid-2000s, although it was not a relatively bloody one by African standards. The current crisis is causing fear of a renewed outbreak of war, as there has already been some violence over the election dispute. France intervened against the government of the former French colony during the Ivorian Civil War. This time, the West African states are threatening to remove the Ivorian president by force if he does not resign. Although Ouatarra is a Muslim, a source who spent years in Ivory Coast until the outbreak of the Civil War informs me that the opposition candidate is not a militant Islamist.
The undemocratic elections in Burma, Belarus and Ivory Coast, like the rule by decree powers granted to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez that I posted on earlier this month, represent a countertrend toward authoritarianism in response to the more than two-decade-long global trend of democratization. Although representative republics have been established in some states in recent years, like Iraq, there has been a strong authoritarian backlash, most notably in supposedly democratic Russia, while dictatorships have clung to power in several states where their tyranny has been challenged. Russia, Venezuela, Iran and others have developed friendly relations with each other and encouraged the authoritarian trend. Their participation in a de facto Axis of Rogues will be the subject of a future post.
In the meantime, free people and those who wish to be free must stand for self-determination, the rule of law and liberty.
The opposition Ivorian candidate, Alessane Ouatarra, a Muslim, is supported mostly in the Muslim north, while the Christian Gbagbo’s base of support is in the Christian south. Tensions between these two sides led to a civil war in the mid-2000s, although it was not a relatively bloody one by African standards. The current crisis is causing fear of a renewed outbreak of war, as there has already been some violence over the election dispute. France intervened against the government of the former French colony during the Ivorian Civil War. This time, the West African states are threatening to remove the Ivorian president by force if he does not resign. Although Ouatarra is a Muslim, a source who spent years in Ivory Coast until the outbreak of the Civil War informs me that the opposition candidate is not a militant Islamist.
The undemocratic elections in Burma, Belarus and Ivory Coast, like the rule by decree powers granted to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez that I posted on earlier this month, represent a countertrend toward authoritarianism in response to the more than two-decade-long global trend of democratization. Although representative republics have been established in some states in recent years, like Iraq, there has been a strong authoritarian backlash, most notably in supposedly democratic Russia, while dictatorships have clung to power in several states where their tyranny has been challenged. Russia, Venezuela, Iran and others have developed friendly relations with each other and encouraged the authoritarian trend. Their participation in a de facto Axis of Rogues will be the subject of a future post.
In the meantime, free people and those who wish to be free must stand for self-determination, the rule of law and liberty.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Merry Christmas; Thoughts on Christian Pilgrims in the Holy Land and Arab Christians
I wish all of you a Merry Christmas! Thank you for visiting my blog.
I would like to take this opportunity to note my vindication for something I observed two years ago at the first Christmas since I launched this blog. At that time, I noted that there were more Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land than the year before, which had been the first year of an increase in pilgrims after a sharp decline. This year, the number of pilgrims is at a record high. Tens of thousands of Christians have made pilgrimages to the birthplace of Christ to celebrate His birth.
The restoration of the right of Christians to express their religion by making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land without fear of terrorism is one of the most striking achievements of the War on Terrorism, including the Liberation of Iraq, which removed from power Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, who had sent aid to Palestinian suicide bombers who targeted and killed Americans. The passage of time since the last Palestinian intifadah and the relative peace that has ensued has also contributed to a sense of security.
The return of pilgrims to the Holy Land should give hope to the beleaguered Christians in the Middle East, as the pilgrims are not only appreciated for the boost they provide to the economy for the local Jews and Muslims, but serve to remind Arab Muslims that Arab Christians are not practitioners of a foreign, Western religion, but are fellow Arabs who have been practicing their Eastern religion for thousands of years. Therefore, Arab Christians ought to be trusted and respected as loyal, integral members of the Arab nation. May God bless the Christians in the Holy Land. Peace to all men of good will.
I would like to take this opportunity to note my vindication for something I observed two years ago at the first Christmas since I launched this blog. At that time, I noted that there were more Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land than the year before, which had been the first year of an increase in pilgrims after a sharp decline. This year, the number of pilgrims is at a record high. Tens of thousands of Christians have made pilgrimages to the birthplace of Christ to celebrate His birth.
The restoration of the right of Christians to express their religion by making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land without fear of terrorism is one of the most striking achievements of the War on Terrorism, including the Liberation of Iraq, which removed from power Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, who had sent aid to Palestinian suicide bombers who targeted and killed Americans. The passage of time since the last Palestinian intifadah and the relative peace that has ensued has also contributed to a sense of security.
The return of pilgrims to the Holy Land should give hope to the beleaguered Christians in the Middle East, as the pilgrims are not only appreciated for the boost they provide to the economy for the local Jews and Muslims, but serve to remind Arab Muslims that Arab Christians are not practitioners of a foreign, Western religion, but are fellow Arabs who have been practicing their Eastern religion for thousands of years. Therefore, Arab Christians ought to be trusted and respected as loyal, integral members of the Arab nation. May God bless the Christians in the Holy Land. Peace to all men of good will.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Foreign Updates: Venezuela, Iraq, Italy
Venezuela
Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez strengthened his increasingly authoritarian rule by getting the national legislature to allow him to rule by decree. The move by the lame-duck legislature bypasses the incoming legislature, in which the minority opposition won enough seats in the recent election to block the government’s initiatives.
When United States President George W. Bush did not oppose an attempted coup against Chavez, liberal Democrats criticized him for supposedly not supporting democracy because Chavez had been elected. If it were not clear enough for liberals to see then that Venezuela was no longer a democracy, it has become increasingly clear ever since.
Iraq
The Iraqis finalized their government by naming the various ministers and other officers. Shi’ite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties were able to form a coalition several months after elections in which no party had won a majority. Nouri al-Maliki, a Shi’ite, will serve again as Prime Minister in the new government.
I daresay Iraq is more democratic than Venezuela. Liberals who had predicted that Iraq would never become democratic, especially during the several months of negotiations to form the coalition government, have been proven wrong repeatedly by the Iraqi people. The liberals are still complaining that it took the Iraqis so long and are characterizing the coalition as shaky because of Iraq's ethnic tensions, as if they are hoping for Iraq to fail in order not to be proven wrong.
Italy
After being rebuffed by the Union of Christian and Center Democrats, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who had tried to add them to his governing coalition, has regained the support of several Members of Parliament who had joined the Speaker in a vote of no-confidence earlier this month, according to ANSA, the Italian news agency. Berlusconi had obtained the confidence of Parliament by three votes, avoiding his resignation. His success in adding to his parliamentary majority decreases the likelihood of snap elections, at least until after the federalism reforms are passed in a few months.
The recent passage of Italy's budget and its political stability have helped it avoid a wave of downgrades in European bond ratings.
Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez strengthened his increasingly authoritarian rule by getting the national legislature to allow him to rule by decree. The move by the lame-duck legislature bypasses the incoming legislature, in which the minority opposition won enough seats in the recent election to block the government’s initiatives.
When United States President George W. Bush did not oppose an attempted coup against Chavez, liberal Democrats criticized him for supposedly not supporting democracy because Chavez had been elected. If it were not clear enough for liberals to see then that Venezuela was no longer a democracy, it has become increasingly clear ever since.
Iraq
The Iraqis finalized their government by naming the various ministers and other officers. Shi’ite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties were able to form a coalition several months after elections in which no party had won a majority. Nouri al-Maliki, a Shi’ite, will serve again as Prime Minister in the new government.
I daresay Iraq is more democratic than Venezuela. Liberals who had predicted that Iraq would never become democratic, especially during the several months of negotiations to form the coalition government, have been proven wrong repeatedly by the Iraqi people. The liberals are still complaining that it took the Iraqis so long and are characterizing the coalition as shaky because of Iraq's ethnic tensions, as if they are hoping for Iraq to fail in order not to be proven wrong.
Italy
After being rebuffed by the Union of Christian and Center Democrats, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who had tried to add them to his governing coalition, has regained the support of several Members of Parliament who had joined the Speaker in a vote of no-confidence earlier this month, according to ANSA, the Italian news agency. Berlusconi had obtained the confidence of Parliament by three votes, avoiding his resignation. His success in adding to his parliamentary majority decreases the likelihood of snap elections, at least until after the federalism reforms are passed in a few months.
The recent passage of Italy's budget and its political stability have helped it avoid a wave of downgrades in European bond ratings.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Conservative Alternatives to Earmarks
Earmarks are the specific designations by legislators of money appropriated by the Legislative Branch of government. Earmarks do not increase the amount of money spent, but designate it specifically instead of delegating the discretion to spend it to the Executive Branch.
Members of the United States Congress justify earmarking because the federal government takes money from the people of their districts. The representatives of the people seek to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is spent in their district, instead of in other districts, which they accomplish by means of earmarking appropriations for specific purposes. Indeed, earmarks are usually made by legislators for their own districts in order that their constituents receive their “fair share” of the benefits of their taxes.
As a result, earmarks are often made by members of Congress for special interests that might be of importance to a particular congressional district, but not necessarily to the federal Union as a whole, which is why money is not earmarked by the open legislative process, but unilaterally by individual legislators. In other words, earmarks are not considered in committee, debated in public, or ever voted upon specifically either in committee or on the floor of either chamber. Congress considers the approval of the appropriations bill as a whole. Although earmarks do not increase spending, they are symbolic of pork (spending by legislators for particular interests in their individual districts).
The moratorium on earmarks proposed by the incoming Republican Congressional majority would, therefore, increase openness and public debate because specific appropriations would have to be considered in committee and debated there, in addition to on the floor. Thus, the merits of the proposed appropriations would have to be considered instead of slipped into bills without any consideration.
Some legislators have objected to the arguments in favor of ending the practice of earmarking on the grounds that failing to earmark would violate the Separation of Powers. They argue that it is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch to appropriate money, not the Executive Branch. However, Congress has been deferring to the President to a large extent for decades, even in appropriations bills, despite the practice of earmarking. Congress appropriates sums of money, but unless Congress specifies how it is to be spent, it delegates to the President the discretion of how the money is spent. The remedy, therefore, is for the Congress to be more specific in its appropriation. Instead of earmarks, it ought to draft more specific language in appropriations bills. Such a remedy would accomplish the aforementioned benefits of a moratorium of earmarks while maintaining the Separation of Powers.
But I have a more comprehensive proposal – one that would be based upon the principle of federalism intended by the Framers of the Constitution: limit all appropriations by Congress only to matters of federal interest. Members of Congress should restrain their urge to spend money and to be seen as having enough clout to “bring home the bacon” and allow the people to keep their money in the first place, instead of allowing the federal government to take money from the people and then contending with each other over the return of that money. The practice of Congress of overtaxing and overspending and then ingratiating itself with its constituents for what morsels of their money it is able to return to the people after the federal bureaucratic middlemen have taken their cut must end.
Therefore, my solution would restore both federalism and fiscal responsibility. It would restore the rights of the states, as well as increase the liberty of the people to spend their money as they see fit.
Members of the United States Congress justify earmarking because the federal government takes money from the people of their districts. The representatives of the people seek to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is spent in their district, instead of in other districts, which they accomplish by means of earmarking appropriations for specific purposes. Indeed, earmarks are usually made by legislators for their own districts in order that their constituents receive their “fair share” of the benefits of their taxes.
As a result, earmarks are often made by members of Congress for special interests that might be of importance to a particular congressional district, but not necessarily to the federal Union as a whole, which is why money is not earmarked by the open legislative process, but unilaterally by individual legislators. In other words, earmarks are not considered in committee, debated in public, or ever voted upon specifically either in committee or on the floor of either chamber. Congress considers the approval of the appropriations bill as a whole. Although earmarks do not increase spending, they are symbolic of pork (spending by legislators for particular interests in their individual districts).
The moratorium on earmarks proposed by the incoming Republican Congressional majority would, therefore, increase openness and public debate because specific appropriations would have to be considered in committee and debated there, in addition to on the floor. Thus, the merits of the proposed appropriations would have to be considered instead of slipped into bills without any consideration.
Some legislators have objected to the arguments in favor of ending the practice of earmarking on the grounds that failing to earmark would violate the Separation of Powers. They argue that it is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch to appropriate money, not the Executive Branch. However, Congress has been deferring to the President to a large extent for decades, even in appropriations bills, despite the practice of earmarking. Congress appropriates sums of money, but unless Congress specifies how it is to be spent, it delegates to the President the discretion of how the money is spent. The remedy, therefore, is for the Congress to be more specific in its appropriation. Instead of earmarks, it ought to draft more specific language in appropriations bills. Such a remedy would accomplish the aforementioned benefits of a moratorium of earmarks while maintaining the Separation of Powers.
But I have a more comprehensive proposal – one that would be based upon the principle of federalism intended by the Framers of the Constitution: limit all appropriations by Congress only to matters of federal interest. Members of Congress should restrain their urge to spend money and to be seen as having enough clout to “bring home the bacon” and allow the people to keep their money in the first place, instead of allowing the federal government to take money from the people and then contending with each other over the return of that money. The practice of Congress of overtaxing and overspending and then ingratiating itself with its constituents for what morsels of their money it is able to return to the people after the federal bureaucratic middlemen have taken their cut must end.
Therefore, my solution would restore both federalism and fiscal responsibility. It would restore the rights of the states, as well as increase the liberty of the people to spend their money as they see fit.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Beware Clinton Nostalgia
There has been much nostalgia lately for former United States President Bill Clinton. Republicans who were considering a compromise between the current GOP-led Congress and President Barak Obama have been recalling fondly the compromises between the Republican-led Congress and Clinton to cut taxes, balance the budget through spending cuts and reform welfare. In addition, a recent public opinion survey ranked Clinton behind only John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan in popularity among modern presidents. His popularity has even increased. Clinton also recently conducted a press conference at the White House briefing room on behalf of Obama. Finally, Clinton and Obama Administration diplomat Richard Holbrooke was praised in the liberal media after his recent death.
Conservatives should especially beware the Clinton nostalgia. Although Clinton deserves credit for signing key parts of the Congressional Republicans’ Contract with American into law, these acts must be considered in their context. Clinton had raised income taxes, which were not lowered until his successor took office. At the same time, he increased spending, despite the labeling of his tax increases as a “deficit reduction” plan, as I have noted previously. The balanced budget achieved later in his Administration tends to obscure the fact that Clinton’s spending over the course of his two terms in office added nearly a trillion dollars to the federal debt; the temporary budget surpluses of his last years did not make up for the massive deficits he had produced beforehand, despite his drastic cuts to defense and intelligence.
In other domestic matters, Clinton earned the reputation as the “Abortion President” before Obama has since wrested the title from him, he weakened the right to bear arms, and he appointed liberal judges. Except in his trade policy, Clinton was a disaster on foreign policy. His fiasco in Somalia emboldened al-Qaeda by suggesting the U.S. was a pushover that feared casualties more than defeat, he failed to respond adequately to the emerging terrorist threat, he appeased North Korea and he gave missile technology to China.
The praise for Holbrooke is typical of liberals toward fellow liberals who failed. The Clinton Administration did little while a Communist-led genocide campaign called “ethnic cleansing” was being conducted on NATO’s flank in the former Yugoslavia. Only after hundreds of thousands of mostly civilian deaths and even more dislocations did it finally react and force peace negotiations. Holbrooke then negotiated with the Yugoslav Communist dictator, Slobodon Milosovic, legitimatizing this war criminal by using him as a guarantor of the peace accords. The accords accepted the status quo, meaning that instead of insisting upon the right of return for refugees, they ratified the ethnic cleansing inspired by Milosovic. An artificial Bosnian state was created and American “peacekeeping” troops sent in to act as human shields between the divided ethnic groups. Clinton’s policy failed to teach Milosovic a lesson, which required a lengthy U.S. air campaign when the “Butcher of Belgrade” later opened a new ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo. Yet Clinton and Holbrooke have boasted about and been praised for their diplomacy ever since, usually without any objection. But then, Clinton does not have a reputation for honesty.
In short, Clinton might have been better in some respects than the current president on domestic matters, although at least Obama has never raised income taxes, but Clinton was far worse on defense and foreign policy. Conservatives are right to recall the beneficial policies of the Clinton Administration, such as his cut of the capital gains tax, and to use them as examples for Obama, but they should be careful not to get carried away with nostalgia for one of the worst presidents in American history and should consider the entire context of his eight years in office.
Conservatives should especially beware the Clinton nostalgia. Although Clinton deserves credit for signing key parts of the Congressional Republicans’ Contract with American into law, these acts must be considered in their context. Clinton had raised income taxes, which were not lowered until his successor took office. At the same time, he increased spending, despite the labeling of his tax increases as a “deficit reduction” plan, as I have noted previously. The balanced budget achieved later in his Administration tends to obscure the fact that Clinton’s spending over the course of his two terms in office added nearly a trillion dollars to the federal debt; the temporary budget surpluses of his last years did not make up for the massive deficits he had produced beforehand, despite his drastic cuts to defense and intelligence.
In other domestic matters, Clinton earned the reputation as the “Abortion President” before Obama has since wrested the title from him, he weakened the right to bear arms, and he appointed liberal judges. Except in his trade policy, Clinton was a disaster on foreign policy. His fiasco in Somalia emboldened al-Qaeda by suggesting the U.S. was a pushover that feared casualties more than defeat, he failed to respond adequately to the emerging terrorist threat, he appeased North Korea and he gave missile technology to China.
The praise for Holbrooke is typical of liberals toward fellow liberals who failed. The Clinton Administration did little while a Communist-led genocide campaign called “ethnic cleansing” was being conducted on NATO’s flank in the former Yugoslavia. Only after hundreds of thousands of mostly civilian deaths and even more dislocations did it finally react and force peace negotiations. Holbrooke then negotiated with the Yugoslav Communist dictator, Slobodon Milosovic, legitimatizing this war criminal by using him as a guarantor of the peace accords. The accords accepted the status quo, meaning that instead of insisting upon the right of return for refugees, they ratified the ethnic cleansing inspired by Milosovic. An artificial Bosnian state was created and American “peacekeeping” troops sent in to act as human shields between the divided ethnic groups. Clinton’s policy failed to teach Milosovic a lesson, which required a lengthy U.S. air campaign when the “Butcher of Belgrade” later opened a new ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo. Yet Clinton and Holbrooke have boasted about and been praised for their diplomacy ever since, usually without any objection. But then, Clinton does not have a reputation for honesty.
In short, Clinton might have been better in some respects than the current president on domestic matters, although at least Obama has never raised income taxes, but Clinton was far worse on defense and foreign policy. Conservatives are right to recall the beneficial policies of the Clinton Administration, such as his cut of the capital gains tax, and to use them as examples for Obama, but they should be careful not to get carried away with nostalgia for one of the worst presidents in American history and should consider the entire context of his eight years in office.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Berlusconi's Government Wins Its Confidence Vote
The center-right Government of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi won its confidence vote in both houses of Parliament. The lower house today gave its confidence to Berlusconi's government by a 317-314 margin. The vote was sought by the Speaker of Parliament who had split with Berlusconi's People of Freedom Party.
The vote avoids a resignation by the Premier and the formation of a caretaker government. Instead, Berlusconi will be able to try to form a coalition with the Union of Christian and Center Democrats (UDC), a centrist Catholic Party that was a former partner in his previous government. The UDC had joined the opposition on the confidence vote. Failing a coalition with the centrists, Berlusconi would call elections, likely after the federalist reforms demanded by his major coalition partner, the Northern League, are approved early next year.
Italian political stability reassures confidence in the European economy and the European Monetary Union. Instability was the greatest threat to Italy's economy, especially after the approval of its budget, which continues the government's austerity program. Following the bailouts of Greece and Ireland, Pressure remains most immediately on Portugal, while Spain looms as the biggest threat to Europe's economy. The Portuguese are insisting that they will not need a bailout, while Spain is under less financial strain than its Iberian neighbor, but more than Italy.
The vote avoids a resignation by the Premier and the formation of a caretaker government. Instead, Berlusconi will be able to try to form a coalition with the Union of Christian and Center Democrats (UDC), a centrist Catholic Party that was a former partner in his previous government. The UDC had joined the opposition on the confidence vote. Failing a coalition with the centrists, Berlusconi would call elections, likely after the federalist reforms demanded by his major coalition partner, the Northern League, are approved early next year.
Italian political stability reassures confidence in the European economy and the European Monetary Union. Instability was the greatest threat to Italy's economy, especially after the approval of its budget, which continues the government's austerity program. Following the bailouts of Greece and Ireland, Pressure remains most immediately on Portugal, while Spain looms as the biggest threat to Europe's economy. The Portuguese are insisting that they will not need a bailout, while Spain is under less financial strain than its Iberian neighbor, but more than Italy.
Monday, December 13, 2010
“Arabian Gulf” vs. “Persian Gulf”
There has long been a controversy over the name of the gulf in the Indian Ocean between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. The Iranians call it the “Persian Gulf” and the Arabs the “Arabian Gulf.” This controversy has arisen again recently because Iran objects to the United States Navy’s referral of the body of water as the “Arabian Gulf,” as has been its historical practice.
The U.S. Navy’s referral to this body of water as the “Arabian Gulf” validates my argument that the popular name for the Liberation of Kuwait should not be called the “Persian Gulf War,” which was not its official government name. In my post, Media Errors on Afghanistan and Iraq, from May of 2009, I had mentioned more significant factors than the dispute over the name of the body of water in order to make my case: that the war was not fought primarily in or on the shores of the Gulf, unlike the Iraqi-Iranian War, and that the name “Persian Gulf War,” now often called “The First Persian Gulf War” or “Gulf War I” is less distinguishable from the subsequent Liberation of Iraq. I did not mention the name dispute because historical evidence seemed to weigh in favor of the name “Persian Gulf.” But the Naval reference to that body of water as the “Arabian Gulf” proves my point more than I had realized that the war should not be called the “Persian Gulf War” because now it is clear that calling it by that name would violate U.S. practice in favor of the Iran, the mortal enemy of the U.S., whose confidence we ought not to bolster with the honor of using their traditional name. Regardless, the Naval reference also proves that the federal government would not have called the war the “Persian Gulf War” because it would have been inconsistent with its own practice, which proves the point I made in my earlier post that this popular name for the war was made up by the media, not the U.S.
The unelected media, known for liberal bias, as well as factual and grammatical errors, has no authority to name a war. Conservatives should call the first war led by the United States against Iraq “The Liberation of Kuwait” and the second one, which was legally a continuation of the first war because of Iraqi violations of the 1991 cease-fire, “The Liberation of Iraq.” These official names more accurately explain the purposes of these wars than the popular names contrived by the liberal media.
The U.S. Navy’s referral to this body of water as the “Arabian Gulf” validates my argument that the popular name for the Liberation of Kuwait should not be called the “Persian Gulf War,” which was not its official government name. In my post, Media Errors on Afghanistan and Iraq, from May of 2009, I had mentioned more significant factors than the dispute over the name of the body of water in order to make my case: that the war was not fought primarily in or on the shores of the Gulf, unlike the Iraqi-Iranian War, and that the name “Persian Gulf War,” now often called “The First Persian Gulf War” or “Gulf War I” is less distinguishable from the subsequent Liberation of Iraq. I did not mention the name dispute because historical evidence seemed to weigh in favor of the name “Persian Gulf.” But the Naval reference to that body of water as the “Arabian Gulf” proves my point more than I had realized that the war should not be called the “Persian Gulf War” because now it is clear that calling it by that name would violate U.S. practice in favor of the Iran, the mortal enemy of the U.S., whose confidence we ought not to bolster with the honor of using their traditional name. Regardless, the Naval reference also proves that the federal government would not have called the war the “Persian Gulf War” because it would have been inconsistent with its own practice, which proves the point I made in my earlier post that this popular name for the war was made up by the media, not the U.S.
The unelected media, known for liberal bias, as well as factual and grammatical errors, has no authority to name a war. Conservatives should call the first war led by the United States against Iraq “The Liberation of Kuwait” and the second one, which was legally a continuation of the first war because of Iraqi violations of the 1991 cease-fire, “The Liberation of Iraq.” These official names more accurately explain the purposes of these wars than the popular names contrived by the liberal media.
Update: A Federal Judge Rules the Federal Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance Unconstitutional
United States Federal District Judge Henry Hudson granted Virginia’s motion for summary judgment against the federal mandate to purchase health insurance, a key provision of the Obama Administration’s federalization of health insurance.
The judge ruled that the mandate exceeded Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution because it does not regulate an economic activity, but regulates the passive decision not to engage in interstate commerce by not purchasing health insurance. This provision of the health insurance federalization act would be unprecedented, as Congress has never required a resident of the U.S. to purchase a good or service as a condition of residence.
In the Virginia case, the Obama Administration did not rely upon the ridiculous argument advanced by liberal members of Congress, the liberal media and other commentators, and even the President himself, that the mandate to purchase health insurance is like state mandates to purchase car insurance. As I have noted previously, the mandates to purchase car insurance are imposed by states, not the federal government, and are imposed only upon individuals who choose to exercise the privilege to drive on public roads, not upon all residents.
States do not impose upon all residents a mandate to purchase car insurance under the theory that the failure of an individual to purchase car insurance necessarily increases the cost of car insurance for those who do drive, which was the Obama Administration’s theory in the health insurance case. If the Administration had prevailed, then it could impose a penalty on every American resident for the failure to purchase milk, for example, on the theory that such failure increases the cost for everyone else. The Administration’s argument was based in part on the theory that every individual will necessarily use health care at some point in his life. Regardless of this unproven assertion, the Administration also relies upon the liberal assumption that a person who lacks health insurance necessarily cannot afford to pay for health care himself.
The Obama Administration had argued alternatively that the penalty for failure to comply with the mandate was a tax, for which it would have constitutional authority, even though the act refers to the provision as a “penalty.” Regardless of the language of the act, the judge ruled that the provision was intended as a regulation, not to raise revenue.
Virginia’s lawsuit, which certainly will be appealed by the Obama Administration, is separate from Florida’s suit that has been joined by 20 states, with more expected to join. The Administration similarly had failed to win its motion to dismiss Florida’s suit based upon the same issue.
The judge ruled that the mandate exceeded Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution because it does not regulate an economic activity, but regulates the passive decision not to engage in interstate commerce by not purchasing health insurance. This provision of the health insurance federalization act would be unprecedented, as Congress has never required a resident of the U.S. to purchase a good or service as a condition of residence.
In the Virginia case, the Obama Administration did not rely upon the ridiculous argument advanced by liberal members of Congress, the liberal media and other commentators, and even the President himself, that the mandate to purchase health insurance is like state mandates to purchase car insurance. As I have noted previously, the mandates to purchase car insurance are imposed by states, not the federal government, and are imposed only upon individuals who choose to exercise the privilege to drive on public roads, not upon all residents.
States do not impose upon all residents a mandate to purchase car insurance under the theory that the failure of an individual to purchase car insurance necessarily increases the cost of car insurance for those who do drive, which was the Obama Administration’s theory in the health insurance case. If the Administration had prevailed, then it could impose a penalty on every American resident for the failure to purchase milk, for example, on the theory that such failure increases the cost for everyone else. The Administration’s argument was based in part on the theory that every individual will necessarily use health care at some point in his life. Regardless of this unproven assertion, the Administration also relies upon the liberal assumption that a person who lacks health insurance necessarily cannot afford to pay for health care himself.
The Obama Administration had argued alternatively that the penalty for failure to comply with the mandate was a tax, for which it would have constitutional authority, even though the act refers to the provision as a “penalty.” Regardless of the language of the act, the judge ruled that the provision was intended as a regulation, not to raise revenue.
Virginia’s lawsuit, which certainly will be appealed by the Obama Administration, is separate from Florida’s suit that has been joined by 20 states, with more expected to join. The Administration similarly had failed to win its motion to dismiss Florida’s suit based upon the same issue.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Update: The U.S. Senate Convicts a Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge
The United States Senate has convicted Federal District Judge Thomas Porteous and removed him from office. The Senate convicted him on all four Articles of Impeachment approved by the House of Representatives. The charges concerned corruption; the judge had accepted money because of his gambling addiction, among other high crimes and misdemeanors. Porteous, a Democrat from Louisiana, had been appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton.
Porteous becomes only the eighth federal judge ever impeached and convicted. What was novel in this case was that some of the behavior for which he was impeached preceded his appointment to the bench, but proved that he and others had lied during his background investigation.
Porteous becomes only the eighth federal judge ever impeached and convicted. What was novel in this case was that some of the behavior for which he was impeached preceded his appointment to the bench, but proved that he and others had lied during his background investigation.
Foreign Updates: Italy, Georgia, Korea
Italy
Italy has approved its closely-watched 2011 budget, which continues its austerity program that I have posted about previously. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s budget decreases spending in order to reduce Italy’s large deficit significantly, while further cracks down on delinquent taxpayers, ANSA, the Italian news agency, is reporting. The only taxes increased were on gambling, ANSA reported. Italy’s fiscal condition is of critical importance to Europe, which is trying to limit the fiscal contagion from Greece and Ireland, both of which have been bailed out by the European Union. Portugal is under the next most pressure, followed by Spain. The latter has by far the largest economy of the four European states under fiscal strain, and thereby poses the greatest threat of contagion. The Italian economy, the seventh largest in gross domestic product in the world, is significantly larger than Spain’s.
Nevertheless, Berlusconi’s government of faces a no-confidence vote on December 14 after the Speaker of Parliament had bolted from the Premier’s center-right governing party and is forming a centrist coalition to deny the government confidence, ANSA reported. In a parliamentary system, a government must resign if it loses a no-confidence vote. Elections would be called. A caretaker government might be formed in the meantime with or without Berlusconi leading it.
Georgia
Recently leaked cables reveal that the United States suspected Russia of waging a sometimes violent campaign of aggression against Georgia since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, especially after the election of its pro-Western president, Mikheil Saakasvhili in 2004, the Washington Times reported. Russia had blamed the Georgians for provoking the war between the two states in 2008. The cables validate Georgia’s claims that the Russians had been supporting separatist movements in its southern neighbor in the Caucuses, which necessitated a Georgian defense. Russia was allowed to escape unpunished for the war in which it established puppet states in the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which are widely expected eventually to be assumed back into Russia. See also my post from April of 2009, NATO Forgives Russia for Georgian Invasion.
Korea
The new South Korean Defense Minister has threatened to bomb North Korea if the Communist state attacks South Korea again. His predecessor had resigned recently after being criticized for the government’s weak response to the latest North Korean attack, the first one that targeted civilians since the end of the Korean War in 1953. The bloody shelling of a South Korean island followed the North Korean sinking of a South Korean naval vessel by torpedo earlier this year, an attack for which North Korea was left unpunished, except by United Nations sanctions. The UN is not expected to increase sanctions on the rogue regime after the attack because of opposition from Communist China, Communist North Korea’s neighbor and ally. The South Korean threat of a reprisal represents a belated, but sharp shift from the accomodationist policies of the previous liberal government. The North Koreans are usually the ones doing the threatening on the Korean Peninsula. The Communist regime has become accustomed to bullying with impunity, at least in military terms. Sometimes, its threats have even been rewarded with appeasement from their southern neighbors and the United States. A South Korean threat against its northern neighbor might be what is necessary to deter a third attack from the North.
Italy has approved its closely-watched 2011 budget, which continues its austerity program that I have posted about previously. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s budget decreases spending in order to reduce Italy’s large deficit significantly, while further cracks down on delinquent taxpayers, ANSA, the Italian news agency, is reporting. The only taxes increased were on gambling, ANSA reported. Italy’s fiscal condition is of critical importance to Europe, which is trying to limit the fiscal contagion from Greece and Ireland, both of which have been bailed out by the European Union. Portugal is under the next most pressure, followed by Spain. The latter has by far the largest economy of the four European states under fiscal strain, and thereby poses the greatest threat of contagion. The Italian economy, the seventh largest in gross domestic product in the world, is significantly larger than Spain’s.
Nevertheless, Berlusconi’s government of faces a no-confidence vote on December 14 after the Speaker of Parliament had bolted from the Premier’s center-right governing party and is forming a centrist coalition to deny the government confidence, ANSA reported. In a parliamentary system, a government must resign if it loses a no-confidence vote. Elections would be called. A caretaker government might be formed in the meantime with or without Berlusconi leading it.
Georgia
Recently leaked cables reveal that the United States suspected Russia of waging a sometimes violent campaign of aggression against Georgia since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, especially after the election of its pro-Western president, Mikheil Saakasvhili in 2004, the Washington Times reported. Russia had blamed the Georgians for provoking the war between the two states in 2008. The cables validate Georgia’s claims that the Russians had been supporting separatist movements in its southern neighbor in the Caucuses, which necessitated a Georgian defense. Russia was allowed to escape unpunished for the war in which it established puppet states in the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which are widely expected eventually to be assumed back into Russia. See also my post from April of 2009, NATO Forgives Russia for Georgian Invasion.
Korea
The new South Korean Defense Minister has threatened to bomb North Korea if the Communist state attacks South Korea again. His predecessor had resigned recently after being criticized for the government’s weak response to the latest North Korean attack, the first one that targeted civilians since the end of the Korean War in 1953. The bloody shelling of a South Korean island followed the North Korean sinking of a South Korean naval vessel by torpedo earlier this year, an attack for which North Korea was left unpunished, except by United Nations sanctions. The UN is not expected to increase sanctions on the rogue regime after the attack because of opposition from Communist China, Communist North Korea’s neighbor and ally. The South Korean threat of a reprisal represents a belated, but sharp shift from the accomodationist policies of the previous liberal government. The North Koreans are usually the ones doing the threatening on the Korean Peninsula. The Communist regime has become accustomed to bullying with impunity, at least in military terms. Sometimes, its threats have even been rewarded with appeasement from their southern neighbors and the United States. A South Korean threat against its northern neighbor might be what is necessary to deter a third attack from the North.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
December Political Updates: Updated 2010 Elections Figures; Rendell Vetoes the Castle Doctrine
Updated 2010 Elections Figures
Now that the last votes are being counted from the 2010 Elections, I can report more specific numbers. The Republicans have gained a net of 63 seats in the United States House of Representatives, which will give them a 242-192 advantage, their largest in over six decades. The GOP picked up the most seats in New York: six, now that the final outcome in all but one race has been determined, which broke a three-way tie of five seats with Pennsylvania and Ohio. Republicans gained six Senate seats, for a total of 47 out of 100.
The GOP also gained a net of five governor’s offices, for a total of 29, among other statewide offices, numerous state legislative bodies and nearly 700 hundred state legislative seats. In Pennsylvania, the Republicans won 122 of the 203 seats in the state House of Representatives to gain the majority for the first time in four years, while retaining 30 out of 50 seats in the state Senate.
Rendell Vetoes the Castle Doctrine
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat, vetoed the Castle Doctrine bill approved by the General Assembly during its lame duck session. Both chambers of the state legislature had approved it overwhelmingly. Governor-elect Tom Corbett, a Republican, has promised to sign the bill into law. It will have to be reintroduced in the new, GOP majority-General Assembly that takes office in January.
Now that the last votes are being counted from the 2010 Elections, I can report more specific numbers. The Republicans have gained a net of 63 seats in the United States House of Representatives, which will give them a 242-192 advantage, their largest in over six decades. The GOP picked up the most seats in New York: six, now that the final outcome in all but one race has been determined, which broke a three-way tie of five seats with Pennsylvania and Ohio. Republicans gained six Senate seats, for a total of 47 out of 100.
The GOP also gained a net of five governor’s offices, for a total of 29, among other statewide offices, numerous state legislative bodies and nearly 700 hundred state legislative seats. In Pennsylvania, the Republicans won 122 of the 203 seats in the state House of Representatives to gain the majority for the first time in four years, while retaining 30 out of 50 seats in the state Senate.
Rendell Vetoes the Castle Doctrine
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat, vetoed the Castle Doctrine bill approved by the General Assembly during its lame duck session. Both chambers of the state legislature had approved it overwhelmingly. Governor-elect Tom Corbett, a Republican, has promised to sign the bill into law. It will have to be reintroduced in the new, GOP majority-General Assembly that takes office in January.
Second Anniversary of My Blog; Discovery of Its Much Greater Popularity
I am posting this report in commemoration of the second anniversary of my blog, which I launched on November 27, 2008. I am pleased to report that it is much more popular than I realized, apparently by orders of magnitude.
Statcounter tracks pageviews from visitors that do not block its ability to track them. Blogger, the host of my blog, began in June to track and log all pageviews, but with far less specificity. For the first few months, I did not even notice the existence of Blogger’s statistics. Even once I did, I thought they must have been erroneous, as it was reporting far more activity than Statcounter in terms of pageviews (although some of these were my own until I blocked them in order not to inflate the total), countries of origin and particular posts viewed. Because Blogger was reporting the data more imprecisely, however, I could not make sense of it until a fellow blogger who uses the same host mentioned to me privately about those who block the counter’s ability to track all of their pageviews, much as I block its ability to track my own so as not to inflate the total. It was only then that I suddenly realized that Blogger’s statistical information was, in fact, accurate.
What Blogger’s statistics revealed were helpful once I analyzed them more closely, although because it does not track individual visitors, I cannot distinguish between pageviews and visits. Blogger’s statistics reveal that there have been many more pageviews of my blog, both from the United States and around the world. There have been two and a half times more pageviews from foreign states than I had known, especially in Europe! For example, there have been several score pageviews more than I had known from the Netherlands, Russia and Germany each. There have also been dozens from Latvia, from which I previously had been unaware of any, as well as dozens more from France than I had known. The next highest total comes from Poland. Since I have recently begun to observe Blogger’s statistics on a daily basis, I have noticed additionally that my blog has been visited from several other foreign states, from which I had not been aware of any visits, especially from Eastern Europe. Also, not only are some of my posts even more popular than I had known but, more of them have been viewed.
These findings perhaps reveal that what had seemed like a relative dearth of visits to my blog from Continental Europe was not true. They also explain a number of phenomena: the greater number of pageviews of my profile than I had been noticing that Statcounter had tracked, comments on posts that occasionally did not correspond to the times of any visits that day, and private compliments about my blog from acquaintances that I could not identify as having visited it at all.
The main discovery is that my blog is visited significantly more frequently and by a wider audience than I had known. I am grateful to both Statcounter and Blogger for their tracking services, but especially to you, my visitors. You have made this blog successful these first two years. Thank you!
I recommend to my loyal visitors who are fellow bloggers with the same blog host to also analyze Blogger’s statistics.
Statcounter tracks pageviews from visitors that do not block its ability to track them. Blogger, the host of my blog, began in June to track and log all pageviews, but with far less specificity. For the first few months, I did not even notice the existence of Blogger’s statistics. Even once I did, I thought they must have been erroneous, as it was reporting far more activity than Statcounter in terms of pageviews (although some of these were my own until I blocked them in order not to inflate the total), countries of origin and particular posts viewed. Because Blogger was reporting the data more imprecisely, however, I could not make sense of it until a fellow blogger who uses the same host mentioned to me privately about those who block the counter’s ability to track all of their pageviews, much as I block its ability to track my own so as not to inflate the total. It was only then that I suddenly realized that Blogger’s statistical information was, in fact, accurate.
What Blogger’s statistics revealed were helpful once I analyzed them more closely, although because it does not track individual visitors, I cannot distinguish between pageviews and visits. Blogger’s statistics reveal that there have been many more pageviews of my blog, both from the United States and around the world. There have been two and a half times more pageviews from foreign states than I had known, especially in Europe! For example, there have been several score pageviews more than I had known from the Netherlands, Russia and Germany each. There have also been dozens from Latvia, from which I previously had been unaware of any, as well as dozens more from France than I had known. The next highest total comes from Poland. Since I have recently begun to observe Blogger’s statistics on a daily basis, I have noticed additionally that my blog has been visited from several other foreign states, from which I had not been aware of any visits, especially from Eastern Europe. Also, not only are some of my posts even more popular than I had known but, more of them have been viewed.
These findings perhaps reveal that what had seemed like a relative dearth of visits to my blog from Continental Europe was not true. They also explain a number of phenomena: the greater number of pageviews of my profile than I had been noticing that Statcounter had tracked, comments on posts that occasionally did not correspond to the times of any visits that day, and private compliments about my blog from acquaintances that I could not identify as having visited it at all.
The main discovery is that my blog is visited significantly more frequently and by a wider audience than I had known. I am grateful to both Statcounter and Blogger for their tracking services, but especially to you, my visitors. You have made this blog successful these first two years. Thank you!
I recommend to my loyal visitors who are fellow bloggers with the same blog host to also analyze Blogger’s statistics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)