I am pleased to report that in the two years since Statcounter has tracked my blog, there have been well over 2,800 visits, not counting my own and only counting hits from individuals at least one hour apart as separate visits. Thank you for your patronage!
Here are the latest statistics. Visits to my blog have come from 85 foreign states, as well as Hong Kong and the Palestinian Territories. My blog has been visited from all 50 American states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. In addition to those who landed on or viewed my blog homepage, visitors have landed on over 170 posts and viewed over 30 more.
The most visitors have come from Malaysia, Algeria, Canada, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Australia and Russia. The most visited post is The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, which has been viewed over 600 times. The next most visited, with over 200 visits, is The Economy, Deficit and Debt and George W. Bush's Inaguration; followed by Radicals in the Obama Administration; Obama Did Not Inherit the Economy from Bush; Follow-up on the Fall of Islamic Civilization; Misleading Media Phrases; Lepanto, by G.K. Chesterton; Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit at the National Constitution Center; A Comparison of the Federal Response to the Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian Earthquake and Herb Denenberg, In Memoriam, all of which were visited 50-100 times.
Since I have also been tracking visits to my blog recorded by Blogger in November, I have noticed far more visits that are not tracked by Statcounter, although the latter picked up some that the former did not. Nevertheless, Statcounter's statistics, which are much more specific than Blogger's, suggest a level of readership of my blog that is much appreciated.
Again, thank you for your patronage. Please visit my blog once or twice a week. As always, your questions, comments or suggestions are always welcome.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Useless Cabinet Departments
Presidential Cabinet-level Departments have grown in both number and size over the last 150 years, while they have generally become more and more useless even as they grow more burdensome.
Beginning in the mid-Nineteenth Century, more and more departments have been created by the federal government and the secretaries who head them made part of the Cabinet. Few of these beyond the original five created by President George Washington, the Departments of State, War (now Defense), Treasury, Justice, Post Office (now an independent agency), are tasked with constitutional federal functions and even of those few that are, none of them ought to rise to the level of the Cabinet.
In fact, much of the work of these Cabinet Departments is not even appropriate for government, let alone the federal government. There is nothing federal about housing or agriculture, for example.
These Cabinet Departments were often created as boondoggles for patronage jobs for political parties. They were created as such or later elevated to cabinet status in order to please some political constituency.
The Cabinet is supposed to advise the President on matters of state. But, does it matter what the Secretary of Education thinks of the latest international crisis? Furthermore, each Cabinet Secretary, no matter how insignificant, inexperienced or unknown to the public is in line to the presidency, according to the Presidential Succession Act.
Cabinet Departments are headquartered in Washington, D.C. in massive buildings full of bureaucrats. It is striking how wasteful they are, considering they serve no valid purpose:
No commerce takes place at the Department of Commerce, except maybe if office vending machines are counted.
No agriculture takes place at the Department of Agriculture.
No one is educated at the Department of Education.
No healthcare is administered regularly at the Department of Health and Human Services.
No housing is provided at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
No energy is produced at the Department of Energy. In fact, it uses energy.
I propose the downgrading to the level of agencies the few Cabinet Departments that manage appropriate federal functions and the elimination of most of the rest of them that have been created since George Washington.
Beginning in the mid-Nineteenth Century, more and more departments have been created by the federal government and the secretaries who head them made part of the Cabinet. Few of these beyond the original five created by President George Washington, the Departments of State, War (now Defense), Treasury, Justice, Post Office (now an independent agency), are tasked with constitutional federal functions and even of those few that are, none of them ought to rise to the level of the Cabinet.
In fact, much of the work of these Cabinet Departments is not even appropriate for government, let alone the federal government. There is nothing federal about housing or agriculture, for example.
These Cabinet Departments were often created as boondoggles for patronage jobs for political parties. They were created as such or later elevated to cabinet status in order to please some political constituency.
The Cabinet is supposed to advise the President on matters of state. But, does it matter what the Secretary of Education thinks of the latest international crisis? Furthermore, each Cabinet Secretary, no matter how insignificant, inexperienced or unknown to the public is in line to the presidency, according to the Presidential Succession Act.
Cabinet Departments are headquartered in Washington, D.C. in massive buildings full of bureaucrats. It is striking how wasteful they are, considering they serve no valid purpose:
No commerce takes place at the Department of Commerce, except maybe if office vending machines are counted.
No agriculture takes place at the Department of Agriculture.
No one is educated at the Department of Education.
No healthcare is administered regularly at the Department of Health and Human Services.
No housing is provided at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
No energy is produced at the Department of Energy. In fact, it uses energy.
I propose the downgrading to the level of agencies the few Cabinet Departments that manage appropriate federal functions and the elimination of most of the rest of them that have been created since George Washington.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Foreign Updates: Portugal, Haiti, Italian Crucifixes in Schools
The opposition of the minority conservative party to the Portuguese government's austerity plan will plunge Portugal into a political crisis. As I had posted previously, the conservatives objected to the Socialist-led coalition government's plan to raise taxes on the poorer classes. The political crisis will probably tip Portugal toward asking for a financial bailout from the European Union.
Haiti's former dictator, Jean Bertrand Aristide, has returned to his home country from exile. I hope that he will share the same fate as Jean Claude Duvalier, who was arrested by the Haitians, as I noted in my post in February.
Italy won its appeal to the full panel of the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of crucifixes in public schools. I had posted about this subject several times. Backed by numerous predominately Catholic and Orthodox secular states, the Italians were successful in arguing that the crucifix is a symbol of Western Civilization, from which European values arise, not the imposition of any religious belief. The Holy See had argued that Europe needs to reaffirm the Christian roots of its culture.
Haiti's former dictator, Jean Bertrand Aristide, has returned to his home country from exile. I hope that he will share the same fate as Jean Claude Duvalier, who was arrested by the Haitians, as I noted in my post in February.
Italy won its appeal to the full panel of the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of crucifixes in public schools. I had posted about this subject several times. Backed by numerous predominately Catholic and Orthodox secular states, the Italians were successful in arguing that the crucifix is a symbol of Western Civilization, from which European values arise, not the imposition of any religious belief. The Holy See had argued that Europe needs to reaffirm the Christian roots of its culture.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Conservative Commentary on the Libyan Crisis
The United Nations Security Council has just approved the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. The unprecedented support for such an action by the Arab League against a fellow Arab state made the difference in the international organization's opinion. The measure had been introduced by the British and French in response to the indiscriminate bombing of cities by Libyan dictator Colonel Muamar Qaddafi.
Contrary to the claims of isolationists, domestic strife is often a cause of international concern, in addition to the necessity of evacuating fellow countrymen. The Libyan Civil War is an example. Libyan refugees have overburdened neighboring Tunisia. Libyans have joined Tunisians and Egyptians who have poured into Italy's Lampedusa Island, between North Africa and Sicily. Italy has gained a committment from the European Union to share the burden for the North African refugees. Also, international trade has been interrupted as Libya's oil production has plummeted while oil speculaters have taken advantage of fears of further supply decreases in order to increase the price of oil. A general international concern is that instability is a danger to peace and commerce, especially in Muslim countries where al-Qaeda or other Islamists might try to take advantage.
Moreover, foreign states must not become morally complicit in crimes against humanity such as are being committed by Qaddafi's regime, which is why they have imposed economic sanctions on Libya, frozen its assets imposed bans on travel by members of its regime, or withdrawn their diplomats. The United States Navy is enforcing the arms embargo on Libya. The French and British even recognized the Libyan opposition government. Meanwhile, the international community is threatening the prosecution of the Qaddafi regime for crimes against humanity, as is its responsbility in order to deter such abuses in the future. There has also been an international effort at humanitarian aid for the Libyan people in the rebel-held areas.
Qaddafi's regime has lost any legitamacy it might have had. After taking power from King Idris al-Sanusi in a military coup d'etat in 1969, Qaddafi became a Soviet client state and a state sponsor of terrorism. The U.S. listed it as a terrorist sponsor and imposed economic sanctions. After a U.S. bombing in 1986, in retaliation for a deadly Libyan bombing in Germany that targeted American soldiers, a member of the Libyan regime orchestrated the bombing of an American civilian airline over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. The terrorist was caught and later succesfully prosecuted, but any orders from Qaddafi were never proven, although recent defectors are now claiming that he was behind the terrorist attack that killed hundreds. Libya did agree to pay reperations for the bombing, as well as a bombing of a French airliner. After the Liberation of Iraq, Libya agreed to give up its weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which included a nuclear program and chemical weapons and materials. It also renounced terrorism.
The international community legitimatized Qaddafi's regime by establishing diplomatic relations and ending its sanctions. However, Qaddafi's regime continued to be problematic. Its human rights record was horrendous, it lashed out at Switzerland over a minor private matter and engineered the early release of the Lockerbie bomber. Meanwhile, it failed to eliminate all of its chemical weapons, as it had promised. The Western hopes that Qaddafi's son would be a more moderate successor have been thoroughly dahsed by his support for his father's brutal crackdown on the opposition. Indeed, there has been a growing fear that if Qaddafi vanquished the opposition, he would revert to terrorism and devloping WMDs.
The actions approved by the U.N. Security Council are serious and risky and may not succeed in protecting Libyan civlians or the rebels, let alone liberating Libya from its tyrant. The no-fly zone may be too late. But the world could not turn its back on the slaughter of innocents and the brutal suppression of a legitimate opposition while leaving such a despot in power. It is hoped that the U.N. action will end the bloodshed and deter further crimes against humanity. The sale of arms to the Libyan rebels ought to be considerd, in addition to sharing intelligence with them.
I hope that the American and other pilots participating in the no-fly zone will be safe and that the nightmare of the Qaddafi regime will end for the people of Libya with the dream of liberty.
Contrary to the claims of isolationists, domestic strife is often a cause of international concern, in addition to the necessity of evacuating fellow countrymen. The Libyan Civil War is an example. Libyan refugees have overburdened neighboring Tunisia. Libyans have joined Tunisians and Egyptians who have poured into Italy's Lampedusa Island, between North Africa and Sicily. Italy has gained a committment from the European Union to share the burden for the North African refugees. Also, international trade has been interrupted as Libya's oil production has plummeted while oil speculaters have taken advantage of fears of further supply decreases in order to increase the price of oil. A general international concern is that instability is a danger to peace and commerce, especially in Muslim countries where al-Qaeda or other Islamists might try to take advantage.
Moreover, foreign states must not become morally complicit in crimes against humanity such as are being committed by Qaddafi's regime, which is why they have imposed economic sanctions on Libya, frozen its assets imposed bans on travel by members of its regime, or withdrawn their diplomats. The United States Navy is enforcing the arms embargo on Libya. The French and British even recognized the Libyan opposition government. Meanwhile, the international community is threatening the prosecution of the Qaddafi regime for crimes against humanity, as is its responsbility in order to deter such abuses in the future. There has also been an international effort at humanitarian aid for the Libyan people in the rebel-held areas.
Qaddafi's regime has lost any legitamacy it might have had. After taking power from King Idris al-Sanusi in a military coup d'etat in 1969, Qaddafi became a Soviet client state and a state sponsor of terrorism. The U.S. listed it as a terrorist sponsor and imposed economic sanctions. After a U.S. bombing in 1986, in retaliation for a deadly Libyan bombing in Germany that targeted American soldiers, a member of the Libyan regime orchestrated the bombing of an American civilian airline over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. The terrorist was caught and later succesfully prosecuted, but any orders from Qaddafi were never proven, although recent defectors are now claiming that he was behind the terrorist attack that killed hundreds. Libya did agree to pay reperations for the bombing, as well as a bombing of a French airliner. After the Liberation of Iraq, Libya agreed to give up its weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which included a nuclear program and chemical weapons and materials. It also renounced terrorism.
The international community legitimatized Qaddafi's regime by establishing diplomatic relations and ending its sanctions. However, Qaddafi's regime continued to be problematic. Its human rights record was horrendous, it lashed out at Switzerland over a minor private matter and engineered the early release of the Lockerbie bomber. Meanwhile, it failed to eliminate all of its chemical weapons, as it had promised. The Western hopes that Qaddafi's son would be a more moderate successor have been thoroughly dahsed by his support for his father's brutal crackdown on the opposition. Indeed, there has been a growing fear that if Qaddafi vanquished the opposition, he would revert to terrorism and devloping WMDs.
The actions approved by the U.N. Security Council are serious and risky and may not succeed in protecting Libyan civlians or the rebels, let alone liberating Libya from its tyrant. The no-fly zone may be too late. But the world could not turn its back on the slaughter of innocents and the brutal suppression of a legitimate opposition while leaving such a despot in power. It is hoped that the U.N. action will end the bloodshed and deter further crimes against humanity. The sale of arms to the Libyan rebels ought to be considerd, in addition to sharing intelligence with them.
I hope that the American and other pilots participating in the no-fly zone will be safe and that the nightmare of the Qaddafi regime will end for the people of Libya with the dream of liberty.
Italians Celebrate 150 Years of Unity
Today, Italians are celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Risorgimento, the “resurgence,” the Unification of Italy. The Italian Republic is planning to observe this major event in world history with a series of commemorations this year.
It may be surprising to many Americans to learn that there had never been an independent state ruled by Italians covering the Italian peninsula until 1861. From the Fall of Roman Empire in 476 A.D. until then, Italy was dominated by foreigners while Italians were also divided into many independent Italian states ruled by, nobles, the Pope or by the people in the form of small republics.
Italians like Dante and Macchiavelli dreamed of a unified Italy. There was a feeling among the people of the Italian peninsula and Sicily of geographical, religious and cultural unity from their common ancient heritage, despite some differences in culture because of foreign influences. Meanwhile, Dante and Petrarch had helped to unify Italy linguistically by establishing the Tuscan dialect as a literary language instead of Latin. Tuscan, with influence from the Sicilian School of Poetry, thus gradually became the modern “Italian” language.
Napoleon established a “Kingdom of Italy” that included northern Italy, but it was ruled by the French. Nevertheless, the idea of a foreign-ruled Italian state only increased Italian nationalism, the object of which was to unite the Italians.
The revolt intended to unify Italy led by Giuseppe Mazzini in 1848 against the Austrians, who were dominating much of northern Italy by that point, failed. Eleven years later, however, the Savoyard King of Sardinia-Piedmont, Vittorio Emanuele II, began a new effort at unification when he traded Savoy to France for French help in driving the Austrians out of Lombardy. Other northern Italian states soon joined to his side, while Giuseppe Garibaldi and his Thousand overthrew the Spanish-ruled Kingdom of the Two Sicilies based in Naples by 1861. Garibaldi saluted Vittorio Emanuele as the first King of Italy. The Kingdom of Italy was declared on March 17, 1861.
Venezia and the Tyrol were won from Austria in 1866 and the Papal States were added in 1870, at which point all Italian states were unified except for San Marino.
The Unification of Italy served as a model for the reunification of Germany ten years later.
After 1946, the monarchy was abolished and Italy became a Republic.
I congratulate the Italians on their accomplishment and wish them continued unity.
It may be surprising to many Americans to learn that there had never been an independent state ruled by Italians covering the Italian peninsula until 1861. From the Fall of Roman Empire in 476 A.D. until then, Italy was dominated by foreigners while Italians were also divided into many independent Italian states ruled by, nobles, the Pope or by the people in the form of small republics.
Italians like Dante and Macchiavelli dreamed of a unified Italy. There was a feeling among the people of the Italian peninsula and Sicily of geographical, religious and cultural unity from their common ancient heritage, despite some differences in culture because of foreign influences. Meanwhile, Dante and Petrarch had helped to unify Italy linguistically by establishing the Tuscan dialect as a literary language instead of Latin. Tuscan, with influence from the Sicilian School of Poetry, thus gradually became the modern “Italian” language.
Napoleon established a “Kingdom of Italy” that included northern Italy, but it was ruled by the French. Nevertheless, the idea of a foreign-ruled Italian state only increased Italian nationalism, the object of which was to unite the Italians.
The revolt intended to unify Italy led by Giuseppe Mazzini in 1848 against the Austrians, who were dominating much of northern Italy by that point, failed. Eleven years later, however, the Savoyard King of Sardinia-Piedmont, Vittorio Emanuele II, began a new effort at unification when he traded Savoy to France for French help in driving the Austrians out of Lombardy. Other northern Italian states soon joined to his side, while Giuseppe Garibaldi and his Thousand overthrew the Spanish-ruled Kingdom of the Two Sicilies based in Naples by 1861. Garibaldi saluted Vittorio Emanuele as the first King of Italy. The Kingdom of Italy was declared on March 17, 1861.
Venezia and the Tyrol were won from Austria in 1866 and the Papal States were added in 1870, at which point all Italian states were unified except for San Marino.
The Unification of Italy served as a model for the reunification of Germany ten years later.
After 1946, the monarchy was abolished and Italy became a Republic.
I congratulate the Italians on their accomplishment and wish them continued unity.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Conservative Commentary on the Pennsylvania Special Election
Because the Democratic candidate won yesterday's Special Election in Pennsylvania's 11th Senatorial District, liberals are potraying it as a referendum on Governor Tom Corbett. They are exaggerating the significance of the election.
The District, wherein I reside, has a nearly two-to-one Democratic voter registration advantage over Republicans. It had been held for 38 years by the late Democratic Senator whose death created the vacancy. The Democratic candidate was a popular former Berks County Commissioner who was known for preserving farmland. She had escaped criticism for her votes to increase taxes 18% and 34%, which have resulted in an unnecessary surplus of $100 million, as well as her votes to increase spending, until the Special Election.
The Republican effort to inform the voters about her taxing and spending record resulted in her underperformance of the voter registration margin by several percentage points. The fact that she was not pro-life, unlike the late Democratic Senator who held the seat, might have contributed to some degree, although it was not a major overt part of the GOP campaign.
Governor Corbett's budget only came out a week before the election, after he had made a campaign appearance for the Republican candidate. In it, he proposes to cut spending without raising taxes, as he had promised during his campaign. However, the Reading Eagle, the only daily newspaper in the district, focused on the cuts to education while largely ignoring the many other, often less controversial, cuts in his budget. Additionally, one of its reporters then took the GOP candidate's remarks (at the appearance I had posted about of Lieutenant Governor Jim Cawley) about Governor Corbett keeping his campaign promises out of context in order to make it appear as if he were gleeful about the painful cuts.
Another factor in the background was fear among organized labor that Pennsylvania would see a replay of the reduction of collective bargaining rights for workers as in Wisconsin, even though Governor Corbett had firmly declared that it would not happen in the Keystone State. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had explained that his state enjoyed the strongest civil protection law in the Union. Moreover, both the Democrats and labor were motivated to regain momentum after the 2010 Elections.
Given the Democratic voter registration advantage and the popularity of the Democratic incumbent, the results of the Pennsylvania Special Election for the 11th Senatorial District suggest that Pennsylvanians prefer cutting spending to raising taxes, despite the negative portrayal of Governor Corbett's proposed budget.
The District, wherein I reside, has a nearly two-to-one Democratic voter registration advantage over Republicans. It had been held for 38 years by the late Democratic Senator whose death created the vacancy. The Democratic candidate was a popular former Berks County Commissioner who was known for preserving farmland. She had escaped criticism for her votes to increase taxes 18% and 34%, which have resulted in an unnecessary surplus of $100 million, as well as her votes to increase spending, until the Special Election.
The Republican effort to inform the voters about her taxing and spending record resulted in her underperformance of the voter registration margin by several percentage points. The fact that she was not pro-life, unlike the late Democratic Senator who held the seat, might have contributed to some degree, although it was not a major overt part of the GOP campaign.
Governor Corbett's budget only came out a week before the election, after he had made a campaign appearance for the Republican candidate. In it, he proposes to cut spending without raising taxes, as he had promised during his campaign. However, the Reading Eagle, the only daily newspaper in the district, focused on the cuts to education while largely ignoring the many other, often less controversial, cuts in his budget. Additionally, one of its reporters then took the GOP candidate's remarks (at the appearance I had posted about of Lieutenant Governor Jim Cawley) about Governor Corbett keeping his campaign promises out of context in order to make it appear as if he were gleeful about the painful cuts.
Another factor in the background was fear among organized labor that Pennsylvania would see a replay of the reduction of collective bargaining rights for workers as in Wisconsin, even though Governor Corbett had firmly declared that it would not happen in the Keystone State. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had explained that his state enjoyed the strongest civil protection law in the Union. Moreover, both the Democrats and labor were motivated to regain momentum after the 2010 Elections.
Given the Democratic voter registration advantage and the popularity of the Democratic incumbent, the results of the Pennsylvania Special Election for the 11th Senatorial District suggest that Pennsylvanians prefer cutting spending to raising taxes, despite the negative portrayal of Governor Corbett's proposed budget.
Monday, March 14, 2011
A Severance Tax Would Be an Extra Tax on Marcellus Shale
Proponents of a severance tax on natural gas drillers in the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania are implying that the gas drillers are not currently paying any state tax. They claim, for example, that Governor Tom Corbett and the Republicans in the General Assembly would not tax the gas drillers. However, their claim is false because the proposed severance tax would be in addition to the corporate taxes the drillers already pay, like all other Pennsylvania corporations.
The severance tax proponents argue that because most other states in the American Union impose a severance tax, Pennsylvania should, too. However, they do not consider that the Commonwealth’s corporate income tax is among the highest in the United States and the world. Pennsylvania is unusual in that it taxes both income and assets (i.e. the Corporate Net Income Tax and the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax). The lack of a severance tax, therefore, helps to balance the high corporate taxes, thus making Pennsylvania attractive enough for gas drillers, who could take their rigs to more competitive states, to operate in the Keystone State.
As I have noted in previous posts, severance tax proponents would kill the goose that laid the golden egg by imposing a severance tax in addition to Pennsylvania’s high corporate taxes. Natural gas drillers operating in the Marcellus formation not only pay corporate taxes to the Commonwealth, they employ tens of thousands of workers who, in turn, pay state and municipal income taxes. The drillers also pay royalties to landowners, thereby increasing the value of land, which, in turn, increases the amount of county, municipal and school real estate taxes paid. In addition, the drillers improve roads, which lessens the need for government to expend public money for that purpose.
Environmental violations, which are usually cited as an excuse to impose a severance tax on Marcellus gas drillers, may be addressed by lawsuits or civil fines, as with any other industry.
Indeed, proponents of a severance tax on top of the taxes corporations already pay would unfairly impose a special tax on one industry that no other industry pays. In short, no one is proposing that gas drillers not be taxed, only that they not pay an additional tax.
The severance tax proponents argue that because most other states in the American Union impose a severance tax, Pennsylvania should, too. However, they do not consider that the Commonwealth’s corporate income tax is among the highest in the United States and the world. Pennsylvania is unusual in that it taxes both income and assets (i.e. the Corporate Net Income Tax and the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax). The lack of a severance tax, therefore, helps to balance the high corporate taxes, thus making Pennsylvania attractive enough for gas drillers, who could take their rigs to more competitive states, to operate in the Keystone State.
As I have noted in previous posts, severance tax proponents would kill the goose that laid the golden egg by imposing a severance tax in addition to Pennsylvania’s high corporate taxes. Natural gas drillers operating in the Marcellus formation not only pay corporate taxes to the Commonwealth, they employ tens of thousands of workers who, in turn, pay state and municipal income taxes. The drillers also pay royalties to landowners, thereby increasing the value of land, which, in turn, increases the amount of county, municipal and school real estate taxes paid. In addition, the drillers improve roads, which lessens the need for government to expend public money for that purpose.
Environmental violations, which are usually cited as an excuse to impose a severance tax on Marcellus gas drillers, may be addressed by lawsuits or civil fines, as with any other industry.
Indeed, proponents of a severance tax on top of the taxes corporations already pay would unfairly impose a special tax on one industry that no other industry pays. In short, no one is proposing that gas drillers not be taxed, only that they not pay an additional tax.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Pennsylvania State Senate Special Election
There will be a Special Election for the 11th Senatorial District of Pennsylvania on Tuesday, March 15 in order to fill a vacancy created by the death of a Democratic Senator who held the seat for 38 years. The seat is based around Reading and much of the greater Reading area in Berks County.
The current composition of the Senate, with the vacancy, is 30 Republicans, 19 Democrats. State Senate seats seldom change party hands in the Keystone State. This election is the only one in the Commonwealth scheduled until the General Election in November, other than the Primary Election.
The Republican nominee is Larry Medaglia, who serves as the Berks County Register of Wills, and is a cousin of mine. He is fiscally conservative, pro-life, pro-gun and committed to advocating for the City of Reading.
It was his candidacy for which the Lieutenant Governor, Jim Cawley, appeared in Reading last week, which I posted about.
Vote on Tuesday, March 15.
The current composition of the Senate, with the vacancy, is 30 Republicans, 19 Democrats. State Senate seats seldom change party hands in the Keystone State. This election is the only one in the Commonwealth scheduled until the General Election in November, other than the Primary Election.
The Republican nominee is Larry Medaglia, who serves as the Berks County Register of Wills, and is a cousin of mine. He is fiscally conservative, pro-life, pro-gun and committed to advocating for the City of Reading.
It was his candidacy for which the Lieutenant Governor, Jim Cawley, appeared in Reading last week, which I posted about.
Vote on Tuesday, March 15.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Abolish Daylight Saving Time
Daylight Saving Time should be abolished. It is not only inconvenient, dangerous and costly, but unnecessary.
It is inconvenient to have to change the clocks twice a year, but this inconvenience extends to the disruption of sleeping and eating patterns. Many people forget to change their clocks, which presents other sorts of inconveniences.
The disruption of sleep is also dangerous in many ways. A further danger to safety is the increase in darkness in the morning hours, which leads to more traffic accidents.
As a conservative, I am particularly disturbed by the costliness, in terms of time and production, to business and even to government of all the clock-changing, which is especially magnified nowadays with computerization. Much unnecessary computer programing and operation is necessitated by this outdated custom.
But my biggest reason for opposing Daylight Saving Time is that it does not save any daylight, as even the most arrogant government cannot change the rising or the setting of the sun. There is still the same amount of daylight under Daylight Saving Time as under Standard time, just at a different time. Moreover, it is implemented at the wrong season, as the time when more daylight in the morning would be appreciated would be in the wintertime, not the summertime.
I propose a common-sense solution: adjust work or school schedules seasonally instead.
It is inconvenient to have to change the clocks twice a year, but this inconvenience extends to the disruption of sleeping and eating patterns. Many people forget to change their clocks, which presents other sorts of inconveniences.
The disruption of sleep is also dangerous in many ways. A further danger to safety is the increase in darkness in the morning hours, which leads to more traffic accidents.
As a conservative, I am particularly disturbed by the costliness, in terms of time and production, to business and even to government of all the clock-changing, which is especially magnified nowadays with computerization. Much unnecessary computer programing and operation is necessitated by this outdated custom.
But my biggest reason for opposing Daylight Saving Time is that it does not save any daylight, as even the most arrogant government cannot change the rising or the setting of the sun. There is still the same amount of daylight under Daylight Saving Time as under Standard time, just at a different time. Moreover, it is implemented at the wrong season, as the time when more daylight in the morning would be appreciated would be in the wintertime, not the summertime.
I propose a common-sense solution: adjust work or school schedules seasonally instead.
Friday, March 11, 2011
March of 2011 Personal Notes
I apologize, dear readers, for not having posted as frequently as usual during the last several weeks, as I have been unusually preoccupied with local political matters.
One major example is that I have decided to seek election to the Reading School Board again, but will hold off on commenting further until I have more time.
Also, I had the honor of introducing the Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania, Jim Cawley, whom I have known since our time in the College Republicans, at tonight's Spring Dinner of the Berks County Republican Committee.
I did, however, post a response to a comment that I appreciated from a visitor from the Philippines to my post from April of 2009, the Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-recent-posts-about-lepanto-and-fr.html. As you can see, I can post the link to previous posts, which I hope will make visitors more likely to view them, instead of relying upon them to use the archive or search functions on the left-hand column, although the link can be established only in posts, not in posted comments.
I hope to post a several more times over the next few days about some timely issues. Please visit again soon. Thank you.
One major example is that I have decided to seek election to the Reading School Board again, but will hold off on commenting further until I have more time.
Also, I had the honor of introducing the Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania, Jim Cawley, whom I have known since our time in the College Republicans, at tonight's Spring Dinner of the Berks County Republican Committee.
I did, however, post a response to a comment that I appreciated from a visitor from the Philippines to my post from April of 2009, the Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-recent-posts-about-lepanto-and-fr.html. As you can see, I can post the link to previous posts, which I hope will make visitors more likely to view them, instead of relying upon them to use the archive or search functions on the left-hand column, although the link can be established only in posts, not in posted comments.
I hope to post a several more times over the next few days about some timely issues. Please visit again soon. Thank you.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Frank Buckles, In Memoriam
Frank Buckles, the last surviving American veteran of World War I, passed away yesterday at the age of 110. He had served as an ambulance driver in France during the “Great War.”
Born in 1901, Buckles had enlisted in the United States Army in 1917 at age 16 by lying about his age after several unsuccessful attempts with the armed services. Buckles was also a civilian prisoner of war for three years in the Philippines after being captured by the Japanese during World War II.
The last surviving “Doughboy” was awarded the Legion of War by the French and honored by President George W. Bush at the White House. Although he did not see combat, Buckles will receive the unusual honor of being buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Representatives of the British and French governments will attend his funeral.
Buckles had campaigned for an American World War I monument on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Although there is a monument there to District of Columbia veterans of the war, there is no monument for the millions of American veterans of World War I. His family is requesting donations be sent to the National World War One Legacy Project. I hope that his death increases awareness of the need for such a monument.
In a completion ceremony at the Reading-Muhlenberg Vocational-Technical School in 2007, I addressed the graduates as President of the Joint School Committee. I cited the example of Frank Buckles who, although he was 107 at the time, was still reading a book about history, in urging them to “never stop learning.”
Born in 1901, Buckles had enlisted in the United States Army in 1917 at age 16 by lying about his age after several unsuccessful attempts with the armed services. Buckles was also a civilian prisoner of war for three years in the Philippines after being captured by the Japanese during World War II.
The last surviving “Doughboy” was awarded the Legion of War by the French and honored by President George W. Bush at the White House. Although he did not see combat, Buckles will receive the unusual honor of being buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Representatives of the British and French governments will attend his funeral.
Buckles had campaigned for an American World War I monument on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Although there is a monument there to District of Columbia veterans of the war, there is no monument for the millions of American veterans of World War I. His family is requesting donations be sent to the National World War One Legacy Project. I hope that his death increases awareness of the need for such a monument.
In a completion ceremony at the Reading-Muhlenberg Vocational-Technical School in 2007, I addressed the graduates as President of the Joint School Committee. I cited the example of Frank Buckles who, although he was 107 at the time, was still reading a book about history, in urging them to “never stop learning.”
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Rest in Peace
Dr. Bernard Nathanson died yesterday at the age of 84. He was famous as a leading abortionist who converted to the pro-life cause.
Dr. Nathanson, an atheist who was an ethnic Jew, had founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (known today as NARAL ProChoice America). He personally conducted or oversaw thousands of abortions. Dr. Nathanson was the first to argue that the child in the womb is only part of “a woman's body,” and was among those who coined the word “choice” to describe the abortion of one's child.
With the advent of modern technology, however, Dr. Nathanson began to have a change of heart. His famous 1985 film, Silent Scream, depicted sonogram images of a real abortion, the first major use of technology on behalf of the pro-life cause. Dr. Nathanson produced another film and authored a number of books. In one of them, he lamented his responsibility for ushering in a “barbaric age” through abortion.
Dr. Nathanson later converted to Catholicism and conducted much penance to atone for his sins. His conversion from the Culture of Death to the Culture of Life was also made by the two women, Jane Roe and Jane Doe, whose United States Supreme Court cases, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton led to legalized abortion in the U.S., meaning that all three of the most important pro-abortion pioneers all converted to the pro-life cause. Dr. Nathanson's testimony inspired many others to convert or to become active on behalf of the Culture of Life.
May the example of Dr. Bernard Nathanson continue to inspire us to defend life and to use technology to better serve God and man. May Dr. Nathanson rest in peace.
Dr. Nathanson, an atheist who was an ethnic Jew, had founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (known today as NARAL ProChoice America). He personally conducted or oversaw thousands of abortions. Dr. Nathanson was the first to argue that the child in the womb is only part of “a woman's body,” and was among those who coined the word “choice” to describe the abortion of one's child.
With the advent of modern technology, however, Dr. Nathanson began to have a change of heart. His famous 1985 film, Silent Scream, depicted sonogram images of a real abortion, the first major use of technology on behalf of the pro-life cause. Dr. Nathanson produced another film and authored a number of books. In one of them, he lamented his responsibility for ushering in a “barbaric age” through abortion.
Dr. Nathanson later converted to Catholicism and conducted much penance to atone for his sins. His conversion from the Culture of Death to the Culture of Life was also made by the two women, Jane Roe and Jane Doe, whose United States Supreme Court cases, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton led to legalized abortion in the U.S., meaning that all three of the most important pro-abortion pioneers all converted to the pro-life cause. Dr. Nathanson's testimony inspired many others to convert or to become active on behalf of the Culture of Life.
May the example of Dr. Bernard Nathanson continue to inspire us to defend life and to use technology to better serve God and man. May Dr. Nathanson rest in peace.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Bush Promoted Freedom, Not Democracy
In one of his last State of the Union Addresses, United States President George W. Bush declared that the policy of the United States would be to promote “freedom.” He did not say that it was the policy of the U.S. to promote “democracy.” These words are incorrectly being used interchangeably by the politicians, the media and other commentators.
Freedom is a state of being. Specifically, it is the state of being free. Democracy, rule of the people, is a form of government. There may be freedom with or without democracy, and democracy with or without freedom.
There is a difference between a democracy and a representative republic. The American Founding Fathers distinguished between these two forms of government (See Federalist #14 by James Madison). Democracy is the direct rule of the people, whereas a representative republic is ruled by representatives. Representatives may be appointed or elected. If they are elected, the form of government is sometimes called “representative democracy.”
When the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq were overthrown in 2001 and 2003, respectively, by coalitions led by the U.S., the Afghan and Iraqi peoples were thereby liberated. Democracy was not “imposed” upon them; they were allowed to be free. Indeed, it is impossible to “impose” freedom, for it is the natural state of being. Although provisional governments were established, as is necessary under a military occupation once major combat operations cease, the Afghans and Iraqis then exercised self-determination in choosing a parliamentary democratic republican forms of government. But they were already free from oppression once their oppressors were no longer in power.
Although freedom is usually associated with democratic states, some rulers get elected and then usurp democracy and govern as tyrants, often much more less free than the non-democratic regime they replace, as I have noted repeatedly. Napoleon and Hitler are infamous examples in world history. There have been numerous examples in the post-colonial period in Africa, most notably Robert Mugabe, who is still in power. Haiti’s John Baptiste Aristide and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez are recent examples about whom I have posted. In 2009, the Honduran President, inspired by Chavez, intended to usurp democracy, but was thwarted constitutionally by the Honduran government (See my post, A Coup for Democracy, from June of 2009).
This phenomenon has also occurred in the Islamic World. The Iranian Revolution was ostensibly democratic, but led to a despotic regime far more brutal than the one it replaced – one that became the greatest state sponsor of terrorism. Lebanon became democratic, but the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorist organization first became part of the governing coalition, and, as I mentioned in my last post, has now become the governing majority of the Lebanese republic. It remains to be seen whether or not it will govern democratically.
It also remains to be seen whether the Tunisian and Egyptian democratic Revolutions I have posted about have been successful. They were ostensibly democratic, but included a significant number of anti-democratic Islamists among the opposition who could get elected like Hezbollah in Lebanon. Whether these revolutions lead to freedom will be the measure of their success, not whether they lead to democracy – especially one that allows anti-democratic forces to usurp freedom.
There have been protests in the republics of Algeria and Yemen and in the absolute monarchies of Jordan and Bahrain, all of which are allies of the United States in the War on Terrorism, as well as in the dictatorships of Syria and Iran, which are both state sponsors of terror. Libya, where there have also been protests, renounced terrorism, but is still ruled by an authoritarian dictator.
I hope that these protests lead to freedom in all of those states, especially if they do not replace allies with foes and do replace foes with allies. If they do lead to freedom, they will represent the fulfillment of Bush’s policy regardless of the forms of government they produce, for it is better to be ruled by a benign dictator while free than to be enslaved by a democrat. Therefore, his successor must take care to focus more on freedom than on the forms of government these regime changes produce.
Freedom is a state of being. Specifically, it is the state of being free. Democracy, rule of the people, is a form of government. There may be freedom with or without democracy, and democracy with or without freedom.
There is a difference between a democracy and a representative republic. The American Founding Fathers distinguished between these two forms of government (See Federalist #14 by James Madison). Democracy is the direct rule of the people, whereas a representative republic is ruled by representatives. Representatives may be appointed or elected. If they are elected, the form of government is sometimes called “representative democracy.”
When the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq were overthrown in 2001 and 2003, respectively, by coalitions led by the U.S., the Afghan and Iraqi peoples were thereby liberated. Democracy was not “imposed” upon them; they were allowed to be free. Indeed, it is impossible to “impose” freedom, for it is the natural state of being. Although provisional governments were established, as is necessary under a military occupation once major combat operations cease, the Afghans and Iraqis then exercised self-determination in choosing a parliamentary democratic republican forms of government. But they were already free from oppression once their oppressors were no longer in power.
Although freedom is usually associated with democratic states, some rulers get elected and then usurp democracy and govern as tyrants, often much more less free than the non-democratic regime they replace, as I have noted repeatedly. Napoleon and Hitler are infamous examples in world history. There have been numerous examples in the post-colonial period in Africa, most notably Robert Mugabe, who is still in power. Haiti’s John Baptiste Aristide and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez are recent examples about whom I have posted. In 2009, the Honduran President, inspired by Chavez, intended to usurp democracy, but was thwarted constitutionally by the Honduran government (See my post, A Coup for Democracy, from June of 2009).
This phenomenon has also occurred in the Islamic World. The Iranian Revolution was ostensibly democratic, but led to a despotic regime far more brutal than the one it replaced – one that became the greatest state sponsor of terrorism. Lebanon became democratic, but the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorist organization first became part of the governing coalition, and, as I mentioned in my last post, has now become the governing majority of the Lebanese republic. It remains to be seen whether or not it will govern democratically.
It also remains to be seen whether the Tunisian and Egyptian democratic Revolutions I have posted about have been successful. They were ostensibly democratic, but included a significant number of anti-democratic Islamists among the opposition who could get elected like Hezbollah in Lebanon. Whether these revolutions lead to freedom will be the measure of their success, not whether they lead to democracy – especially one that allows anti-democratic forces to usurp freedom.
There have been protests in the republics of Algeria and Yemen and in the absolute monarchies of Jordan and Bahrain, all of which are allies of the United States in the War on Terrorism, as well as in the dictatorships of Syria and Iran, which are both state sponsors of terror. Libya, where there have also been protests, renounced terrorism, but is still ruled by an authoritarian dictator.
I hope that these protests lead to freedom in all of those states, especially if they do not replace allies with foes and do replace foes with allies. If they do lead to freedom, they will represent the fulfillment of Bush’s policy regardless of the forms of government they produce, for it is better to be ruled by a benign dictator while free than to be enslaved by a democrat. Therefore, his successor must take care to focus more on freedom than on the forms of government these regime changes produce.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Foreign Digest: Haiti, Portugal, The European Union, Sudan, Lebanon, Egypt
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)