The Panel: Liam Hehir and Tim Batt on euthanasia – Newstalk ZB

Posted on by

Parliament will debate legalising voluntary euthanasia after Act Party leader David Seymour's private member's bill was drawn from the ballot on Thursday.

The controversial bill represents the best chance for voluntary euthanasia to be legalised in New Zealand, although the issue is deeply polarising. Many MPs, including Prime Minister Bill English, are firmly opposed.

The End of Life Choice Bill would allow mentally competent New Zealand adults who have a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months, or have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, the choice to ask a doctor to help end their life at the time of their choosing.

Columnist fortheManawatu Standardand comedian Tim Batt discuss their views on the billand the timing of the debate.

LISTEN ABOVE: Liam Hehir and Tim Batt speak to Andrew Dickens

READ MORE:David Seymour's euthanasia bill drawn from ballot

See original here:

The Panel: Liam Hehir and Tim Batt on euthanasia - Newstalk ZB

The extent to which a state should exist – Being Libertarian

Posted on by

Being Libertarian
The extent to which a state should exist
Being Libertarian
Thus, the elimination of a good justice department that acts to mitigate violation of rights and prevent non-victimless crimes would be detrimental to a libertarian society that embraces freedom. (This is not an endorsement of the US Department of ...

Original post:

The extent to which a state should exist - Being Libertarian

Letter: Deregulation is not always best – Aiken Standard

Posted on by

Once again we have a letter from someone who is convinced that government regulations are what caused the Great Recession.

To make things right we have to give people more freedom in the marketplace. Mr. Stubblefield cites John A. Allisons book as a source for the real truth. Mr. Allison is a member of the Cato Institute a libertarian think tank and a big fan of Ayn Rand.

So, it is no surprise that Mr. Allison would lay the blame for the economic crisis of 2008 and its aftermath on the government.

I, too, have read several books about this economic calamity and all of them have given substantial evidence that the deregulation of the financial sector is the primary cause of that horrific mess. And the basis for the push to deregulate is the world view that is espoused by Mr. Allison, Mr. Stubblefield and far too many others.

The essence of their world view is that people, be they consumers or producers, are protected from bad deals by their own self-interest. So, people should have the freedom to buy what they want and companies should have the freedom to sell what they want.

When the government intrudes into this natural relationship with regulations, it simply mucks things up.

When this world view was applied to the financial sector, industry lobbyists put constant pressure on Congress to allow the financial institutions to modernize. So, the regulations that had protected the financial sector from major catastrophes for 50 years, should be eliminated.

In 1982 the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was enacted which allowed banks to offer a wide variety of mortgages, e.g., ones with adjustable rates, interest-only payments or even negative amortization. Also in the 1980s financial institutions developed derivatives. Credit Default Swap derivatives are bets that some company will or will not default on its loan.

In 1994, Congress passed the Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act which allowed investment banks to securitize mortgage loans, i.e., package them into bond like products called MBSs (mortgage backed securities). They then sold them to hedge funds, pension funds, etc.

Finally, in 1999 Congress overturned the Glass-Stegall Act and approved the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed investment banks, commercial banks and insurance companies to combine into a single firm.

Each of these acts enabled more freedom in the market by allowing consumers a wider choice of products and investment banks to create new markets for risk. There was nothing to fear because Alan Greenspan another devoted advocate of Ayn Rand proclaimed that the sophisticated players in these markets could police themselves. Of course we all know they didnt and what dismal consequences followed thereafter.

The folks who adhere to the simplistic world view outlined above never learn from history. They are so devoted to their theory, that no amount of evidence will ever convince them that it is incorrect. Unfortunately, too many of those with the power to steer us on a more correct course are also beguiled by these ideas.

Tom Tillery

Aiken

Link:

Letter: Deregulation is not always best - Aiken Standard

Northern Exposure Cast Could Make Time In Busy Schedules For Revival – Bleeding Cool News

Posted on by

Home > Film > Northern Exposure Cast Could Make Time In Busy Schedules For Revival

Northern Exposure, the CBS series about weirdos in Alaskathat ran for six seasons from 1990 to 1995, could be coming back to the airwaves. Theres no official plans in the works from CBS, but pretty much everyone on the cast is willing to do it, according to a report from Entertainment Weekly. Cast members Rob Morrow, Adam Arkin, Janine Turner, and Cynthia Gearygot together with series creator Josh Brand and producers Robin Green, Mitchell Burgess, and Cheryl Bloch for a Northern Exposure panel at theATX Television Festival in Austin, Texas this week.

We would love it, said Brand about the prospect of a revival, something that it seems every TV show from the 90s is getting nowadays. Rob has been working trying to get them to do it. Im sure wed all agree we would love to see it because I think it is of a time, but its also not of a time. The show was sort of like salted caramel ice cream, which is the best ice cream because its sweet and its got salt. The show was buoyant and it was optimistic, but if you live on the planet, you experience loss and you feel it.Theres a lot of loss in the show but its not depressing because its a part of living. And thats something that in our culture, our television shows dont like to do.

Thats the sort of insight weve all been missing out on since Northern Exposure went off the air. And as for that reboot, with the success of shows like The X-Files and Twin Peaks, it seems only fair that it be Northern Exposures turn. And pretty much everybody ison board.

We all want it to happen, said Geary. Darrens trying. Robs trying.

So yall write letters or send emails! said Turner, hinting at a streaming service as a possible home. We want to get it streamed.

Please, please god, let this happen, said Morrow, probably, as one of his most recent roles was in the second sequel to the movie adaptation of Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged.

(Last Updated June 10, 2017 3:14 am )

Legendary Batman Actor Adam West Has Died

With Eva Marie And Maybe Paige Gone, Alexa Bliss And Nia Jax Could Join Total Divas Cast

Read the original post:

Northern Exposure Cast Could Make Time In Busy Schedules For Revival - Bleeding Cool News

I find Donald Trump contradictory going by his preferred reading list – Daily Nation

Posted on by

Sunday June 11 2017

US President Donald Trump makes his way to board Air Force One before departing from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on June 9, 2017. PHOTO | MANDEL NGAN | AFP

The Roark character is an architect, a breed of professionals Trump came to know well and work with as a real estate developer.

He came to power claiming affinity with the American working class, not the elites.

The top honchos of the Donald Trump administration have a particular writer they ardently worship.

She is none other than Ayn Rand, a Russian immigrant who made a name in America as a novelist and fringe philosopher. Two of her novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead attracted a cultic following in her day. They still do.

Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, says Atlas Shrugged is his favourite book.

Mike Pompeo, the boss of the CIA, calls Rand a major inspiration. And Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, famously required his staff members to read Ayn Rand as part of their job description.

Trump himself says he is a Rand fan and that he identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist in The Fountainhead.

The Roark character is an architect, a breed of professionals Trump came to know well and work with as a real estate developer.

Roark dynamites a building he had designed because the builders did not follow his blueprints. That is the sort of action Trump would admire.

At some point in our lives, Rand was the kind of writer who would leave us drooling.

We would strut around with her books with a superior air when other colleagues were reading unremarkable West African novellas with cheap themes.

Rand has a very powerful mind and a very compelling way of writing that leaves a deep impression in everybody who reads her.

But once her novelty wears off, you discover you are dealing with an arrogant polemicist peddling a dangerous philosophy.

It is a philosophy which exalts the cult of so-called superior individuals who invent things and run big corporations which produce the goods that the world relies on. These are the people Rand praises as the brains of the world while the rest of humanity are dismissed as second-raters and third-raters who just consume what the supermen produce.

This lower hierarchy of humankind, Rand preaches, are of little consequence in the direction of world history. Such ideas, when you think about them, are outright crazy.

I get puzzled by adults who dont overgrow Rand.

One such was former US Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan.

Most people I know went through her as an infatuation during a particular phase of their lives, not as a lifelong obsession.

I dont know about Trump, but Bill Clinton has a very mature and wide-ranging reading list, from historians like David M. Kennedy to biologists like Stephen Jay Gould.

He even fell for Philip Gourevitchs masterpiece on the Rwandan genocide, We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families.

Trump remains a big contradiction even in his professed love for Rand.

He came to power claiming affinity with the American working class, not the elites.

But again, one can never be sure with Trump. This professed affinity for the ordinary Joe is probably fake. His real aim seems to be to ensure the rich make even more money. Just look at the billionaires who fill up his cabinet.

Trumps economic nationalism would repel Rand, who thought differently on this score. But his proposed budget cuts on non-military spending and his war on Obamacare would gladden her heart. (It threatens to strip health coverage for 24 million low-income Americans.)

I wouldnt know what some of our leaders read. Once upon a time, I read somewhere of Uhuru Kenyatta praising the book titled From Third World To First, authored by Singapores founding leader Lee Kwan Yew.

I too admire Lee but, like with most political tracts, books by politicians tend to veer to the self-promoting and are not always riveting.

Lee was a greater leader than he was writer. Anyway, he never pretended to be otherwise.

As for Raila Odinga, I have no clue the titles he most prefers in his personal library. Still, his unabashed adoration of Nelson Mandela has remained constant.

He has plenty of company there, not least Barack Obama.

In fact, Obama is one of the better writers among contemporary world political leaders, as his book Dreams From My Father amply attests.

However, I do recall a recent American critic who felt parts of it were a bit contrived.

Trump remains a big contradiction even in his professed love for Rand.

According to the Economic Survey 2017, there were 2,720,600 students who enrolled into secondary

Millers have been accused of hoarding the subsidised maize.

Continue reading here:

I find Donald Trump contradictory going by his preferred reading list - Daily Nation

Lawmakers should practice the Golden Rule – Times Daily

Posted on by

During my college years, I took courses in personality theory, group dynamics, organizational behavior, and counseling techniques, which were designed to help students understand and appreciate the differences of people in the workplaces. These courses were presented in the context of sensitivity focus where students need awareness about their own biases and prejudices in confronting other people with similar behavioral references.

The Alabama House is embarked upon sensitivity training after the appearance of an email from Rep. Lynn Greer, R-Rogerville, where he was comparing black lawmakers to a monkey in a cage reaching for a banana in a social experiment. The black lawmakers were rendering their opposition to the new proposed redistricting plan.

Greer later apologized for the offensive analogy; he stated that there was no racist intent.

Whatever sensitivity training the legislators received, the bottom line is knowing, above all, how to practice the Golden Rule Do to others as you want others to do to you in any circumstances.

Words, whether spoken or written, have positive and negative effects. Even the well-intention words may prove offensive to some people. In choosing my words, I consider three questions: Are the words true in content? Are the words honest to believe? Are the words appropriate for situation?

Link:

Lawmakers should practice the Golden Rule - Times Daily

Theresa May must stand up for gay rights, reproductive rights and liberal values – The Independent

Posted on by

The last time this country had a hung parliament, David Cameron and Nick Clegg made brave decisions that, somewhat surprisingly, delivered strong and stable government for five years. We should not be fooled into thinking that this hung parliament is comparable. This time, the 1970s offer a better, and less auspicious, precedent.

We mean no disrespect to the voters of Northern Ireland when we point out that most of the population of the United Kingdom have reservations about some of the policies of the Democratic Unionist Party.

We can accept the logic of support for Brexit providing the glue that would keep a deal together between the Conservatives and the DUP. Although it should be pointed out that in Northern Ireland the majority voted to remain in the EU, and that the DUP is just as opposed to the imposition of a hard border between the North and the Republic as any other party. How Northern Ireland can leave the EU and keep an open border with the EU is one of those you should have thought of that earlier questions.

However, it seems that Theresa May has in mind something more than an arms-length deal intended to protect her Governments business in the House of Commons. She has sent Gavin Williamson, her Chief Whip, to Belfast to try to negotiate a full coalition, including, as we report today, a seat or seats for the DUP at the Cabinet table.

This reflects the weakness of her position after losing her majority. The DUP is the only party to which she can turn. The Liberal Democrats oppose Brexit, commendably. They thought they could secure some of their policies in 2010 and indeed they did secure significant gains for liberalism and social justice but now the gulf between them and Ms May is too wide. The only other party that could deliver a Conservative government, the Scottish National Party, has made its implacable opposition to Ms Mays party well known.

The DUP knows what a strong position it is in. Its leaders remember how unionist parties used their leverage in the dying days of John Majors government (which lost its majority through deaths and by-elections in December 1996) and more significantly after the breakdown of the Lib-Lab pact in 1978. James Callaghans minority Labour government needed unionist votes to survive. It was a complete coincidence, of course, that the number of Northern Ireland seats was subsequently increased from 12 to 17.

This is a test, then, of Ms Mays integrity. If she deals with the DUP, she must do so without compromising her Governments support for gay rights, reproductive rightsand liberal values. She must stand by the assurances she gave to Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives on Friday. I was fairly straightforward with her and I told her that there were a number of things that count to me more than party. One of them is country, one of the others is LGBTI rights, Ms Davidson said. She said that Ms May agreed to try to use her influence to advance LGBTI rights in Northern Ireland.

At that stage, however, Ms Davidson was under the impression that the Prime Minister has already made it clear that it is not going to be a formal coalition. Ms Mays position as Prime Minister is already precarious enough. If she fails to stand up for equal rights, reproductive rightsand liberal values, she will find it unsustainable.

Go here to see the original:

Theresa May must stand up for gay rights, reproductive rights and liberal values - The Independent

The Problem With Liberal Opposition to Islamophobia – Truth-Out

Posted on by

Afaf Nasher, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in New York, bows while speaking on the murder of Imam Alauddin Akonjee outside City Hall in Manhattan, August 18, 2016. Activists and members of the city's Muslim community condemned the attack and continued calls for the authorities to classify the killings as a hate crime. (Photo: Bryan R. Smith / The New York Times)

Between Donald Trump's Muslim ban and the murder of six Muslim men in a mosque in Qubec City, the debate around Islamophobia has again taken center stage in North American politics. On the other side of the Atlantic, anti-Islam groups like Pegida, the Front National and Wilders' Freedom Party are gaining growing public support. Central to all of this is the rise of a militant xenophobia, with hatred of Muslims as one of its cardinal principles. At the same time, anti-racist organizers are also coming together -- building our analysis, fortifying our ability to defend ourselves in the face of increasing and rampant bigotry, and mobilizing to turn the tide.

Unfortunately, however, many of the arguments against Islamophobia in anti-racist circles turn out to replicate rather than subvert the underlying logics that attack, demonize and dehumanize Muslims. Challenging the Islamophobic far-right cannot simply be about upholding the same capitalist and imperialist -- even if slightly less racist -- stances that have destabilized much of the Global South in recent decades, furthering war and displacing Muslims who have travelled to Europe's shores only to be met with an explosion of nativist hatred.

With the departure of Barack Obama from the White House, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has become a global icon of this supposedly progressive anti-racist politics. A self-professed feminist who flew in 25,000 Syrian refugees and greeted them with hugs and winter coats at the airport, Trudeau is often perceived as being emblematic of everything that fascists are not. Yet even under his government, many of the same anti-social policies that brought Donald Trump to power in the United States are now being intensified, while anti-immigrant measures remain on the books.

For this reason, it is crucial to critically assess some of the liberal arguments against Islamophobia that are often put forward by people like Trudeau, as well as by many activists who would situate themselves to the left of him. Many of these arguments, while appearing to be anti-Islamophobic, actually uphold the national security state's framing of issues. In doing so, the dominant economic and social framework that underlies Islamophobic laws and policies, and the racist ideas incorporated within it, remains in place -- thereby impeding our ability to move beyond it.

Argument 1: "Counter-Radicalization Is More Effective Than Harsh Counter-Terrorism"

When the previous Conservative government in Canada introduced a wide-ranging surveillance and policing bill -- Bill C-51, theAnti-Terrorism Act, 2015 the public outcry was swift. Bill C-51 was dubbed the Secret Police Act, and hundreds of thousands of people signed multiple petitions against it. Central to the outcry was the argument that the bill was "ineffective." The "more effective" strategy being proposed in Canada, and across Western Europe and the United States, would involve "counter-radicalization" or "counter-extremist" programs. Such supposedly pragmatic calls for counter-radicalization have gained increasing support -- including by the Canadian Liberals under Trudeau -- without any critical reflection on the deeper problems with such programs.

In a report released last February, the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights Ben Emmerson criticized the prevailing approach towards counter-radicalization as conceptually flawed and ineffective, noting that "states have tended to focus on those [areas] that are most appealing to them, shying away from the more complex issues, including political issues such as foreign policy and transnational conflicts," preferring instead to emphasize "religious ideology as the driver of terrorism and extremism."

The American Civil Liberties Union, Article 19, and the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University pointed out similar objections in a joint letter to Ben Emmerson, writing that counter-radicalization "initiatives in the United States and Europe focus overwhelmingly on Muslim communities, with the discriminatory impact of stigmatizing them as inherently suspicious and in need of special monitoring."

Trump's announcement that counter-radicalization programs in the US will now exclusively target "Islamist extremism" elicited a fair amount of outrage -- but the reality is that such programs have long subjected Muslims to disproportionate attention, even if this was not always as explicit prior to Trump's presidency. For instance, 68 percent of the 1,747 children and teenagers referred to the UK's counter-radicalization program, Channel, between March 2014 and March 2016 were Muslim, while Muslims constitute only 8 percent of the population. Last March, a four-year-old Muslim boy was sent to Channel when his drawing of a cucumber was misconstrued as a cooker-bomb.

Central to the assertions that counter-radicalization is a more effective mode of counter-terrorism is the assumption that there is in fact an existential threat to Western societies from groups of individuals wishing to cause it harm, many if not all of whom are considered Muslim. Terrorism as a concept itself remains unquestioned, and the state-sponsored project of defending "us" against "them" is legitimized -- although using an ostensibly softer touch than the hard violence of war and criminalization. Instead of developing community-based or individual-focused programs to counter radicalization, the Islamophobic laws, policies and imaginaries that represent Muslims as a fundamental threat to Western society must be dismantled.

Argument 2: "Inclusion Is the Answer"

Greater inclusion of Muslims in white-normative societies is often posited as the solution to Islamophobia -- and, from a national security perspective, to the alienation that supposedly produces the radicalization of young Muslims. Social inclusion is widely seen as a counterpoint to the exclusionary nativist rhetoric of Islamophobes and fascists. For example, the recent decision by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to permit women wearing the hijab to join the federal police force has been hailed as a positive move against the exclusion of Muslims. Similar examples of Muslims taking on roles in policing agencies are heralded the world over.

Such arguments for greater inclusion, however, often fail to challenge or transform the problematic dynamics of the entities within which inclusion for Muslims is being sought. The RCMP, for instance, has its roots in the North West Mounted Police, the settler-colonial police force developed to surveil and attack indigenous communities. Racial and gendered violence continues to pervade the everyday practice of the RCMP, and the presence of Muslims did not dampen the force's deep-seated Islamophobia, but was actually exploited to entrap vulnerable Muslims in false terrorist plots staged by undercover agents presenting themselves as Islamic authorities. This experience parallels the FBI's use of Muslim informants to build its surveillance dragnet of Muslim communities.

Inclusion of Muslims, then, does not necessarily eliminate or reduce Islamophobia. On the contrary, inclusion may perpetuate institutional racism by recruiting Muslims into existing structures of power -- while at the same time making it more difficult to detect, since there is no overt exclusion involved. Instead of aiming for inclusion in existing power structures and institutions, the fight against Islamophobia must aim to dismantle institutions that sustain themselves through practices of racialized surveillance and criminalization.

Argument 3: "Islamophobia Plays Into the Hands of ISIS"

A common refrain heard in recent arguments against Islamophobic policies and anti-Muslim polemics is that the latter "play into the hands of the terrorists." It is widely claimed, for instance, that the hateful rhetoric espoused by Islamophobic populists like Donald Trump and Geert Wilders actually reinforces ISIS' narrative of a Manichean world divided between Islam and the West -- a world in which there are no gray zones where Muslims can live harmoniously with non-Muslims.

In this framing, Islamophobia is considered objectionable mainly because of how ISIS might exploit it, rather than for its own intrinsic violence. Islamophobic statements are represented as the trigger or pretext for Muslims' violence, rather than as something that is itself a source of violence -- like illegal and aggressive wars, extrajudicial drone killings, torture, secret detention, hate crimes, invasive state surveillance, and so on. While Islamophobia may be the immediate object of critique, it is still Muslims and their supposedly terroristic propensities that feature as the fundamental problem in such narratives.

As a result, the argument re-directs attention away from Islamophobia and back towards Muslim violence, even while claiming to do the opposite. Our gaze ends up being diverted from the structural racism woven into the warp and woof of Western liberal democracies -- a racism that has already undergirded the destruction of many Muslim societies in the name of fighting terrorism.

Argument 4: #NotAllMuslims -- "Islam Is Peace"

In response to prevailing stereotypes that Islam is fundamentally a religion of violence, promulgated by extremist far-right ideologues, Muslims and anti-Islamophobic allies often insist that Islam is a religion of peace. Both sides of the argument -- Islam means violence versus Islam means peace -- cite portions of Islamic religious texts, particularly the Quran, to demonstrate some authentic true nature of Islam and Muslims.

The problem with such readings is that they perpetuate the orientalist assumption that all actions performed by Muslims are somehow determined by scripture -- a reductionist conceptualization of Islam that does not reflect how Muslims have actually engaged with religious texts for centuries, through rich and diverse interpretive traditions. Theological and intellectual debates about interpretation that have gone on for 1,500 years are thus roundly ignored, and the vast cultural, political and social history of over a billion people that shapes Islam is subsumed in limited translations of particular verses.

Instead of propagating essentializing constructions to rehabilitate the image of Islam and Muslims, an anti-Islamophobic stance should focus on critiquing the state policies and public discourses that have made such rehabilitation efforts seem necessary in the first place: policies and discourses that criminalize, incarcerate and wage war against Muslims, while providing a cover for civilian attacks like the shooting at the Muslim community centre in Qubec City.

Argument 5: "Non-Muslims Are Also Terrorists"

To counteract the overwhelming tendency by fascists and other right-wing extremists to equate the concept of terrorism with acts of violence committed by Muslims, it is essential to point out that significant amounts of political violence in both North America and Europe are committed by non-Muslims, in the name of causes like white supremacy, anti-immigrant activism and nationalism. However, the assertion that all these various forms of violence should also be labeled terrorism, as Prime Minister Trudeau recently did for the Qubec mosque attack carried out by a self-avowed white supremacist, fails to challenge the legitimacy and cogency of terrorism as a concept.

This is undesirable for at least two reasons. First, because certain types of violence against civilians -- most importantly, violence committed by states -- still tend to be excluded from or marginalized in the definition of terrorism. The primary focus remains on non-state actors, even though states are the most significant purveyors of violence in our world.

Second, it is undesirable because many governments have claimed that the existential threat posed by terrorism requires the expansion of their own powers: through implementation of emergency laws, for example, and deterioration of the rights of individuals, through measures like preventive arrests and detentions. Broadening the category of "the terrorist" may therefore serve states -- from the American to the Syrian -- seeking to rationalize their own violence as necessary for fighting terrorism.

Instead of widening the scope of who is considered a terrorist to include white supremacists and fascists, the notion of terrorism must be deconstructed altogether: to demonstrate that the term depends on spurious criteria to distinguish some forms of violence (delegitimized as terrorism) from other, equally terrorizing forms of violence (legitimized as counter-terrorism).

Argument 6: "Muslim Women Are Not Oppressed -- They Choose How to Dress"

In North America, as in several European countries, Muslim women's attire has become a primary focus for Islamophobic attacks -- by the state as well as by individuals. In Canada, for example, the Conservative federal government that preceded Trudeau's issued a policy manual in 2011 preventing women wearing the niqab from swearing the oath of citizenship (this policy was eventually overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal). And there have been several efforts in the province of Qubec to pass legislation barring women in niqab from receiving or delivering public services. In these initiatives, the niqab and hijab are represented as inherently oppressive pieces of clothing imposed on Muslim women by religion, community and/or family. State prohibition is pitched as an attempt to save Muslim women from sartorial subjugation.

In response, arguments against niqab and hijab bans often emphasize that Muslim women actually choose to veil. In doing so, they reaffirm the problematic premise that the value and legitimacy of a person's actions should be judged by whether they are an expression offree choice: choice exercised without any limitations or restrictions. But choice -- all choice -- is of course fraught: the ability to see choices and pick between them is always constrained by one's upbringing and social context. Individuals never have full information or full agency. Choice also changes, and can be misconstrued.

Furthermore, the ideology of free choice has often been allied with imperial projects of violence. From the French colonization of Algeria to the American invasion of Afghanistan, multiple wars have been waged around the world in the name of bringing choice to Muslim women. But individual choice is not necessarily seen in all places and times as the central organizing principle of human life, as it is within liberal states. As Lila Abu-Lughod, Professor of Anthropology and Women's and Gender Studies at Columbia University, appropriately asks: "Might other desires be more meaningful for different groups of people? Living in close families? Living in a godly way? Living without war?"

Responses to anti-hijab laws and rhetoric cannot begin and end by valorizing choice. Rather, they must be about limiting the power of the state to withdraw benefits and services from its constituents as punishment for living lives that may not accord with liberal norms and priorities.

Argument 7: "Muslims Are Citizens Too"

The assertion that Islamophobic counter-terrorism measures violate the rights of Muslim citizens of Western liberal democracies -- who should be treated equally, without any discrimination on the basis of race or religion -- is a popular theme in organizing against such measures. However, it is inadequate to simply defend the rights of citizens while ignoring the situation of those who are not citizens of the state, but made subject to its power and violence in the name of national security. As University of Toronto law professor Audrey Macklin observes, Canadians have long tolerated serious abrogations of rights and freedoms for non-citizens that would likely be considered unacceptable against citizens. The same is true in the United States and across Europe.

In Canada, for instance, many cases involving terrorism have not been tried using criminal law, but dispatched with using immigration law, enabling the deportation or indefinite detention of suspects under a lower standard of proof and without many of the procedural safeguards (such as they exist) of criminal trials. The argument that Muslim citizens should not have to suffer Islamophobic laws and policiesbecausethey are citizens perpetuates the disadvantage and vulnerability of non-citizens.

Furthermore, in settler colonial states like Canada and the United States, the institution of citizenship is built on a foundation of indigenous genocide and dispossession. In these contexts, the quest for inclusion in citizenship risks normalizing the colonization of indigenous nations. Upholding citizenship as the ultimate source of rights, freedom and belonging tends to prevent critique of the violence and exclusion embedded within citizenship: against indigenous peoples and against migrants. The struggle ahead must be about collective liberation beyond inclusion in liberal frameworks of citizenship.

Argument 8: "Obviously Innocent Collateral Damage"

Cases of white progressive activists monitored as national security threats are frequently cited to demonstrate the absurd overreach of counter-terrorism. The injustice involved in these cases is meant to be apparent and inarguable. The protagonists are represented as obviously innocent collateral damage of counter-terrorism, and their entrapment in the expansive net of national security as a manifest wrong.

Such examples are considered persuasive because the victims are not generally regarded as legitimate objects of suspicion. This is in stark contrast to Muslim, South Asian, Black and Arab men, who are consistently demonized as national security threats, and who have suffered extreme state abuse because of this -- extraordinary rendition, torture, secret and/or indefinite imprisonment, and so on. The innocence of this demographic is not taken as obvious, but must be proven time and time again against a default presumption of guilt. Unlike the targeting of "obviously innocent collateral damage," the state's surveillance and securitization of brown- and black-skinned men is not widely treated asinherentlyirrational.

For example, Professors Deepa Kumar and Arun Kundnani observe that while the exposure of the National Security Agency's massive warrantless data collection program generated widespread condemnation, the revelation that Muslims were specifically targeted for surveillance attracted far less attention and outrage. While many objected to the US government collecting private data on ordinary citizens, Muslims tend to be seen as reasonable targets of exceptional surveillance -- simply because they are Muslim.

Arguments invoking the obvious innocence of certain victims of national security problematically entrench the problematic distinction between those who do not deserve to be treated with suspicion. They perpetuate the state's normalized suspicion of precisely those groups that are most vulnerable to the violence of counter-terrorism.

Moving Beyond Liberal Anti-Islamophobia

Critiquing common liberal arguments like these can help organizers imagine and articulate other types of responses to Islamophobia: responses that do not merely shift the position of Muslims in the state's existing racial landscape, but upheave and re-make this terrain altogether. Doing so is particularly important in our present political moment, when the ostentatious Islamophobia of far-right organizations and the Trump administration is often understood as exceptional -- occluding continuities and similarities with the Islamophobia of liberal governments like Obama's or Trudeau's. This in turn perpetuates the dangerous illusion that liberal politics are a refuge from right-wing racism, when the truth is that they are constructed of many of the same components.

Of course, opposition to Islamophobia should not remain limited to the discursive field. It should also include -- and in fact prioritize -- building and organizing within racialized communities to assert dignity, power and freedom. Examples of such organizing abound. For instance, the first iteration of Trump's Muslim ban was met by a general strike by the primarily Muslim New York Taxi Workers Alliance, whose inspiring actions set off a spate of airport shutdowns that were crucial to defeating the administration's first set of executive orders. Similarly, hours after the Qubec shooting, Muslim organizers and their allies issued a call for days of action across Canada against Islamophobia, white supremacy and deportations.

Deconstructing widespread liberal fallacies is therefore by no means a comprehensive or sufficient approach to a genuinely anti-Islamophobic politics. What it may do, however, is strengthen and further our collective struggle against the intertwined scaffolding of racism, patriarchy, colonialism, imperialism and capitalism upon which the Islamophobia of the neoliberal security state and the neo-fascist right continues to rest. Deepening our analysis in the days to come, when it may seem easier not to, would be a critical first step in building towards the worlds we want to live in.

Read more from the original source:

The Problem With Liberal Opposition to Islamophobia - Truth-Out

On the liberal plantation – The Times and Democrat

Posted on by

When considering the implications of Bill Mahers latest antics, it is important to state that Maher has over the years become the trusted media host for black left-wing intellectuals. His roster of guests includes a whos who of the black intelligentsia from old stalwart Cornel West to MSNBC host Joy Reid. So given this history, it would seem surprising that Maher would so readily toss his friends under the bus by his casual on-air use of the n-word.

But if one really considers Maher and his history, a more complicated story emerges. Maher is a liberal prognosticator who exhibits a pretense of tolerance and open-mindedness thereby giving him comedic license to offend.

Mahers latest missive responding to Sen. Ben Sasses exhortation to engage in grassroots field: political organizing in Nebraska with the dismissive remark, Senator, Im a house n***er, is not surprising. But the remark was so out of context that it could not have been anything other than a strategically timed joke one that unfortunately missed the mark.

Read in the context of Mahers irreverent stance on many issues it seems that the use of the n-word was meant to remind black liberal intellectuals that they are the wholly owned property of the liberal elite. It was an open admission of something conservatives have noted all along black intellectuals do not have an actual ownership stake of the liberal establishment, but in fact serve at the pleasure and whim of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Whether Maher, a 61-year-old white guy who has been employed by HBO for the past 14 years, actually considers himself a house negro is not whats significant here. He in fact may identify his job with that of a well-kept slave on the media plantation.

That Maher chose to use the n-word on his scripted talk show (deceptively named Real Time) was undoubtedly a calculated act. This was probably not the first time Maher has used the n-word in the presence of African-Americans. He probably believes that since he allows many of them to come on to his show and debate, and that he sticks up for them against conservative straw boogeymen, he therefore has earned license to use the term. Maher didnt ask any black person for such license of course, yet he assumed it, in the storied tradition of liberal arrogance and privilege of which he is a proud descendant.

It goes without saying that the n-word is a vulgar, disgusting term, with a history fraught with pain. As someone who grew up in the deep South at a time when many parents and relatives were openly and customarily called the n-word by whites, I know first-hand how hurtful it is. The word is an obscene smear created for the specific purpose of putting black people in their place relegating them to second-class citizenship, and alerting the intended victim that he is less than human. I have personally never used the term (nor any form of obscenity), and regard it as one of the most abhorrent terms in the English language. I dont like it when black entertainers use it, and I certainly dont like it when whites use it either. The word has no place in public discourse, much less in the enlightened sphere of intellectual debate.

Curiously, the reaction among black intellectuals to Bill Mahers verbal attack has been typically passive. They seem to have taken it on the chin and let him off the hook. No one has seriously demanded Mahers resignation from HBO, and there has been no organized boycott of his sponsors at the network. Can you image the reaction if a conservative host on Fox or any conservative media channel was caught using the n-word? The black community would be in total uproar, on the warpath, seeking blood, guts and retribution. And yet weve heard barely a peep from the black intellectual elite that polices conservatives speech like a mall cop on steroids.

The reason black intellectuals wont challenge Maher and the reason he still has a show after the incident is because they cant. Maher is smart. He calculates that he can get away with a lot more offense now that Trump is in the White House. With a guy like Trump on the other side of the street, he reasons, where are black folks going to go? They have no choice but to stay on the liberal plantation, no matter how much abuse the liberal elite heaps on them. Sadly, Mahers cynical calculus seems to be correct.

Now that he has gotten away with it, Mahers behavior, despite his tepid apology, is likely to get worse, not better. In the meantime, black intellectuals will undoubtedly accept these betrayals as the so-called price of progress. They will lie to themselves and justify such open racism because at the end of the day, they think it preferable to be kept on at the Democratic plantation than to leave and have to face big, bad Donald Trump on their own.

Armstrong Williams is owner of Howard Stirk Holdings, which owns TV stations in Charleston, Myrtle Beach and other cities. He was the SGA president from 1979 to 1981 at South Carolina State University.

See more here:

On the liberal plantation - The Times and Democrat

Leading liberals develop blueprint to expand ‘deep state’ and undercut Trump – Washington Examiner

Posted on by

Forlorn liberals took refuge at the American Constitution Society's national convention in Washington this week, discussing whether to encourage the growth of the "deep state" resistance inside the government or fight President Trump from outside.

"The election of Donald Trump was an assault on the federal bureaucracy," William Yeomans said to a room full of students and civil servants, including those recently displaced by Trump's administration. "His values are simply not consistent with the values of people who are committed to public service and who believe deeply in the importance of public service."

Yeomans, an American University law professor with more than 25 years of experience at the Justice Department, was holed up inside the Capital Hilton hotel downtown on a sunny Friday afternoon leading a panel of bureaucrats and scholars divided about how best to fight Trump.

UCLA law professor Jon Michaels said he favors filling the Trump administration with liberals opposed to Trump's agenda.

"We hear a lot of language about draining the swamp and this idea about a deep state that somehow was going to thwart the intentions or the political mandate of the president," Michaels said. "I kind of embrace this notion of the deep state.'"

Michaels listed his ideas for how to ensure the success of the "deep state." Act as a group a department, across agency lines, as a community rather than as an individual when pushing back against Trump from the inside, he said. Once such a coalition is formed, he suggested "rogue tweeting" or "leaking to the media" as options for fighting the president.

"It's hard to figure out exactly what [way is best], I don't think we've hit our stride on that," Michaels said. "But from my understanding people are still kind of probing and poking around at what can be done and the creativity and resourcefulness of people is in some ways boundless and so I imagine what I would hope to see is kind of organic, loyal opposition is probably too strong, but ways of having well-prepared, well-defined boundaries of opposition."

The anti-Trump career bureaucrats named the people in Trump's administration who appear to be causing the most consternation. Yeomans listed Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt as outspoken opponents to the mission of the agencies they have been tasked to run.

Mustafa Santiago Ali, a panelist alongside Michaels, worked for the EPA for 24 years but quit his job rather than pursue his quest for environmental justice from inside the Trump administration. He sounded conflicted about whether joining the "deep state" is a universally good approach.

"I think it's important to have strong folks both inside and outside [of government]," Ali told the room. "On the issues that I work on, that has always been a part of the overall strategy to be able to move forward."

He said he chose to leave government work after he determined Pruitt's actions would lead to Americans dying across the country.

"When I looked at what the administration and Administrator Pruitt were proposing, I knew that those values and priorities were vastly different than mine and the work and the communities that I had dedicated my life to for over two decades," Ali said. "I also knew because I believe in real talk that the choices that they were making were literally going to be devastating to those communities and they would actually cause more folks to get sick and unfortunately more folks were going to die, and I couldn't be a part of that."

Ali also said "there is some appropriateness" to leaking information to the media if the leak would reveal information about a matter that could cost lives.

While Ali and company debated how best to thwart Trump, other liberals at the convention planned the best way to go on the offensive.

At a discussion about "progressive federalism," Yale Law School professor Heather Gerken supported her left-wing colleagues' interest in becoming active at the state and local levels.

"Federalism is for everyone. I have been making that argument for a little while now, I find that progressives are much more attuned to that argument in recent months for reasons that you might imagine," Gerken tells the crowd. "But I just want to say to you, you fair weather federalism folks, welcome to the dark side."

Some speakers discussed bringing specific legal challenges for issues pertaining to civil rights that Trump's Justice Department likely would view differently than the Obama administration. But several speakers also challenged liberal orthodoxy on issues such as income inequality.

Yvette McGee Brown, a partner at global law firm Jones Day and former Ohio Supreme Court justice, encouraged the audience to build coalitions with conservative and Republican women on the issue of women's reproductive rights. She also said every national election cannot involve discussion of taxing the wealthy to single-handedly solve income inequality.

"We've got to figure out how to take the dollars that we're already sending to the government and figure out a way to make our communities better without demonizing people who make whatever they make and supporting people who need a leg up to get access to the middle class," Brown said. "It can't just be that if we have more tax dollars and we take it from people like me, who I don't apologize for what I make. I worked my ass off to get here and I don't want to pay more in taxes. I don't think that makes me a bad person."

Another liberal speaker took an even larger step away from liberal dogma. Terry Goddard, former Arizona attorney general and former mayor of Phoenix, praises the libertarian benefactor Koch brothers as "one of the great advocates for prison reform right now." Goddard showcased liberals' favorite bogeymen as having successfully "gone after city councils, school boards, secretaries of state and attorneys general" in a manner liberals should pursue.

Gerken, however, went to great lengths to warn that the liberal convention-goers cannot "lawyer our way out of this" problem of being in the minority.

"Politics are what matter more," Gerken told the crowd gathered in the hotel's Presidential Ballroom. "The reason why progressives are in the fix they're in is because they lost elections. They lost elections at the local and the state and the federal level and this is what happens when you lose elections. It's a mistake to think ... that law is going to save us."

While Gerken, Goddard and Brown discussed the left-wing ideas best capable of moving public opinion in their direction, it's clear that many of the attendees had not gotten over the results of the 2016 elections. During a panel session regarding immigration policy, American Civil Liberties Union senior staff attorney Jennifer Chang Newell described the aftermath of the election in post-apocalyptic terms.

"Basically the day after the election, I think a lot of us were walking around like zombies wondering what just happened," Newell said. "Feeling sad, depressed. Fear, definitely."

"One of the nice things about working where I work is that I went to work in the office the next day. Right away, [we] sat down and said what are the threats, what are the threats we need to start preparing for?"

Others in attendance could not bring themselves to utter the word "election" to describe the cause of Trump entering the White House. Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee member, referred to Trump's election win as only "the very unlikely results of what I call the 'incident' or the 'event' last November.

"Donald Trump's presidency is a stress test for our country," Hirono said during a speech she prepared for the convention. "And to survive this stress test, we must work to protect the independence of the federal judiciary and we must ensure that nobody is above the law."

Read this article:

Leading liberals develop blueprint to expand 'deep state' and undercut Trump - Washington Examiner

Lopez wins duel, lifts Larks to win over Liberal | Sports | hdnews.net – Hays Daily News

Posted on by

The series opener between the Hays Larks and Liberal Bee Jays on Friday night was the textbook definition of a pitchers duel.

Larks starter Alex Lopez won the individual battle with Liberal starter Darin Cook. Lopez picked up his second win of the season with seven shutout innings, scattering five hits in the outing.

Through two starts, Lopez has a pair of wins and is yet to give up a run.

It feels pretty good right now, the Texas Wesleyan product said. Coming back out to Hays is always a great time. It was really good to start off this year with some good games.

Hays manager Frank Leo has come to expect nothing but quality from the second-year Lark.

It helps when youve seen a guy for a year. Its a guy you ran out in the championship game of the (NBC) World Series, Leo said. That tells you we have confidence in him.

Lopez retired the Bee Jays in order in the top of the first before the Larks plated the games only run.

Catcher Nick Jones ripped a one-out double before Jacob Boston plated him with a single for the games only run.

Lopez worked around a two-out single in the second before another 1-2-3 inning in the third. After the Larks stranded two in the bottom half, Lopez had to get himself out of a jam in the fourth.

An error, the only one of the game, put a man on before a single and a walk loaded the bases with two outs. Lopez made one of his better pitches on the night, catching Liberals Zac Cook looking on a 3-2 pitch to get out of the inning unharmed.

Hes an experienced guy that isnt going to get shook out there, Leo said. If he gets himself in a jam, he can step back and make pitches when he needs to.

Hays second baseman Johnathan Soberanes started a 4-6-3 double play to end the Liberal half of the fifth before the Bee Jays had their best opportunity in the sixth.

Jaron Robinson opened the top of the sixth with a double to the gap before Cale ODonnell singled, putting runners on first and third with no outs. Lopez got a strikeout before getting he got Bee Jay catcher Garrett Scott to ground into a double play.

It makes things really easy, said Lopez of pitching in front of a defense he trusts. You can just fill up the zone, and you know theyre going to have your back no matter what happens.

Hays outfielder Trevor Boone smacked a one-out double in the bottom of the sixth but stayed there after a pair of fly outs.

Lopez returned for his final inning in the seventh and sat down the Bee Jays in order, getting a ground out and his sixth and seventh batters.

Alex was really good, Leo said. He made pitches when he had to. Thats a sign of an experienced guy.

The seventh was the pitchers 12th consecutive scoreless inning to open the season. In Fridays seven innings, he said he rarely used his offspeed pitches.

Really working the fastball in on both sides of the plate was really good for me tonight, Lopez said.

Lopez handed it off to Ryan Kotulek for the eighth. After a leadoff single, Boston snagged a liner at short and threw to first for a double play. After playing third and short last year, Boston started the year handling most of the action in right field. With Trey Ochoa gone for the weekend, Leo was comfortable sliding Boston back into one of the most important defensive spots.

Hes a great utility guy, Leo said. Hes a very good athlete. He can handle a lot of spots for us.

Boston led off the bottom half with a walk and moved to second on a Boone single with one out. That ended Cooks night after 7.1 innings. The Liberal starter worked around 10 hits and struck out two with a walk. Derek Craft came on and got a fielders choice that moved Boston to third for Hays third baseman Alex Weiss. Weiss flared a pitch to right but saw it snagged by the Liberal outfielder.

It was far from the only time the Larks sent hard-hit balls right to Liberal fielders.

He barreled too hard, Leo said of Weiss. We did that several times during the night. Im encouraged by what were seeing.

Tyler Starks took the mound in a save situation in the ninth. After a lead off single, the Hays closer got Scott to ground out to Larks first baseman Jace Selsor. Selsor was able to step on first and throw to Boston at short, who tagged ODonnell for the second out of the inning. Starks recorded the save with a called third strike.

The Stephen F. Austin product appears to be in line to hold down the closer role this summer.

Hes the guy, Leo said. He wants the baseball. Hes used to that. Hes a competitor. Hes got the right demeanor for that situation.

The Larks looked to take the series in Saturdays Game 2.

Hays 1, Liberal 0

Liberal 000 000 000 0 7 0

Hays 100 000 00X 1 10 1

Lopez, Kotulek (8th), Starks (9th) and Jones. Cook, Craft (8th) and Scott. W Lopez. L Cook. S Starks. 2B Jones, Boone (Hays); Robinson (Liberal).

Continued here:

Lopez wins duel, lifts Larks to win over Liberal | Sports | hdnews.net - Hays Daily News

John Hood: Teetotaler says alcohol laws too restrictive – Winston-Salem Journal

Posted on by

RALEIGH I am a teetotaler who believes that my fellow North Carolinians should be free to buy and consume the alcoholic beverages of their choice from the vendors of their choice.

They dont currently possess that freedom. Our state places significant limits on the sale of beer, wine and spirits. Above a low statutory cap, breweries are not allowed to market their wares directly to retailers. Distilleries are even more encumbered, both in how much liquor they can sell directly to consumers and in the range of retailers they can use namely, only the government monopoly of ABC stores.

North Carolina actually fares relatively well in assessments of personal freedom, according to analysts at the Cato Institute. Their Freedom in the 50 States report uses three categories of variables: fiscal, regulatory and personal. North Carolinas overall freedom ranking is 19th, but we do best in the personal freedom category, where we rank 13th.

By this broad measure, North Carolina is the freest state in the Southeast. Still, wed be even higher on the list if our alcohol laws werent so restrictive, ranking us 35th in the country in this area.

There are two movements underway in North Carolina that, if successful, would improve the situation. One of them began at the General Assembly this year as House Bill 500. As originally written, it would have allowed craft breweries to distribute up to 200,000 barrels of beer directly to retailers, rather than having to use a state-sanctioned cartel of wholesalers. The current cap is 25,000 barrels.

The wholesalers prevailed in the initial legislative battle, so the version of the bill that ultimately passed the House in late April would only modestly expand the ability of some breweries and wineries to sell their products as they wish. In response, some craft breweries have filed a lawsuit to strike down the states distribution cap and franchise laws as a violation of the state constitution.

The other measure, Senate Bill 155, would allow distilleries to sell up to five bottles directly to visiting consumers, up from the current annual limit of one bottle. It would also loosen limits on the sale of spirits at festivals and conventions, while allowing restaurants and retailers to sell alcohol after 10 a.m. on Sundays, two hours earlier than the current limit (which is why the legislation is known as the brunch bill). It has already passed the Senate and is now awaiting action in the House.

Some opposition to alcohol deregulation comes from interest groups, public and private, that benefit from the current system. No one should be surprised by their special pleading, which is always skillfully delivered.

But others inside and outside the General Assembly argue that North Carolinas regulatory scheme is designed to curb alcohol abuse, which they tie to such social ills as drunk driving and domestic abuse. I think their concerns deserve more respect, although I dont ultimately agree with their conclusions.

As I said, Im a teetotaler. One reason is that my family has often suffered the ravages of alcoholism. As the family historian, Ive chronicled numerous cases. The great-uncle for whom I was named, for example, was struck and killed on the railroad track behind our house either because he had fallen down drunk or because hed first been beaten to unconsciousness by fellow drunks. His uncle, in turn, had been murdered decades before during an alcohol-fueled gunfight. Other close relatives have had less deadly but still debilitating experiences with alcohol.

But if your conception of freedom is that it ought only to extend to behavior with which you personally agree, youve conceived it out of existence. The state should certainly punish actions that violate the rights of others, such as drunk driving or violent crimes committed while inebriated. The adult consumption and sale of alcohol, however, are not the proper concern of the state.

Most drinkers arent drunks, most drunks arent dangerous, and most governmental attempts to save people from themselves create more problems than they solve.

The John Locke Foundation

Go here to read the rest:

John Hood: Teetotaler says alcohol laws too restrictive - Winston-Salem Journal

A Terrible Argument For Economic Nationalism In The National Review – Forbes

Posted on by
A Terrible Argument For Economic Nationalism In The National Review
Forbes
In more detail, how many people are employed inside the US economy depends upon the monetary policy (from the Fed) and the fiscal policy (when we have one, from Congress) in place in the US economy. ... Then there's this about freedom and liberty:.

The rest is here:

A Terrible Argument For Economic Nationalism In The National Review - Forbes

Two 6% dividends to help you achieve financial independence … – AOL UK

Posted on by

Being able to achieve financial independence is the goal of almost every investor. Without a doubt, dividends are crucial to meeting this target. Research has shown that dividends will double your investment returns over the long term, and the higher the yield is, the better.

Kcom(LSE: KCOM) has all the hallmarks of an excellent dividend stock and at the time of writing shares in the telecommunications company support a dividend yield of 6.5%.

Over the past few years, Kcom has struggled with rising customer churn thanks to increasing competition, two factors that have weighed heavily on the company's share price. Management has also been investing heavily in the group's offering. For the year to the end of March, the company reported a pre-tax profit of 30.5m, down from 88.7m in the year-ago period as operating costs rose to 299m from 257m.

This restructuring is expected to simplify the group and improve profit margins. Management has aligned all of Kcom's businesses under one brand and is focusing on the operational performance of two segments, Hull & East Yorkshire and Enterprise. In these two markets, the company has almost no competition. Itis now focused on investing in its fibre network within these two regions which should drive long-term growth for both the company and shareholders, without distractions.

Excluding last year's poor performance, between year-end 31 March 2013 and 31 March 2016, the company generated an average annual pre-tax profit of 51m compared to a total dividend cost of around 30m. If the company can return to this historic level of profitability, it looks as if the group's highly attractive dividend yield is here to stay.

Insurance services provider Redde(LSE: REDD) also appears to be a top dividend stock. At the time of writing, shares in the company support a dividend yield of 6.3%. For the year ending 30 June, analysts have pencilled-in earnings per share of 10.5p, the same level as the dividend payout, giving a dividend cover of just one. These figures may not suggest that Redde's dividend is really all that sustainable but just like Kcom, looking at the company's cash figures gives a different picture.

Cash flow from operations is a more reliable indicator of dividend strength than earnings per share, as the latter metric is easily manipulated. If a company does not have the cash to fund a dividend, no matter how strong its earnings are, the payout is not sustainable. For the six months to the end of December, Redde earned cash from operations of 22.3m; dividends paid cost the group just under 15m, easily covered by operational cash flows.

Based on these figures then, Redde's 6.3% dividend yield looks safe and highly attractive in the current low-interest rate environment.

Dividends are essential for building wealth over the long term and thanks to the miracle of compounding,they can significantly increase your chances of being able to retire early and achieve financial independence.

And if financial independence is your goal, the Motley Fool is here to help. Our analysts have recently put together this brand new free report titled The Foolish Guide To Financial Independence, which is packed full of wealth-creating tips. The report is entirely free and available for download today

Click here to download the report. What have you got to lose?

Rupert Hargreaves has no position in any shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors.

See the article here:

Two 6% dividends to help you achieve financial independence ... - AOL UK

Top 5 tips to achieve financial independence | Mpumalanga News – Mpumalanga News

Posted on by

There are no short cuts to attaining financial independence; it requires discipline and limitation of wasteful spending, especially on non-essential items.

Ester Ochse, Channel Head of FNB Financial Advisory, says Financial independence is the ability to live a financially independent life that neither relies solely on debt as a form of survival or living expenses. The main reason most people grapple with the concept of financial independence is because of a lack of discipline. The National Savings Rate shows that South Africans prefer to spend rather than save and people over extend themselves in as far as credit is concerned.

Theres no truth in the belief that you can only achieve financial independence when you are wealthy, it all depends on developing good money management skills.

In order to see the full worth of your money, you must manage whatever little you have prudently on a consistent basis. Achieving financial independence is an ongoing process; its a behaviour pattern that must be practised consistently.

Here are some tips for achieving financial freedom:

Avoid using debt to fund your lifestyle

Never use debt to fund your lifestyle; the use of credit to fund a particular lifestyle will only move you backwards. Only fall on debt when you absolutely have to and also make sure you understand the impact of the debt on your finances over the long-term. Make both medium and long-term commitments to rid yourself of debt.

Cut expenses

Conduct a careful analysis of where most of your money is spent and you may notice there are expenditures that are unnecessary and can be removed from your list. This is all about gauging whats important enough for you to spend your money on. If you are spending money on things that have no direct benefit to your financial wellness then you will never realise financial freedom.

Save and Invest

Start a savings and investment plan that will cater for your financial needs both over the short and long term. By putting money aside you are letting your money work for you instead of just spending it compulsively.

Examine your financial decisions carefully

Before making any financial commitments look at your financial situation holistically, for example, instead of buying something you really want on credit, rather save for it. Remember that if interest rates increase you may end up paying more to settle that debt. Its better to save for the items you want to buy, its delayed gratification but much cheaper.

Remain consistent

Staying financially independent is an ongoing process, even after you have realised your goal of financial freedom, you need to ensure it stays that way. Ensure that you stay abreast with economic conditions and how they affect you personally. Your financial needs will change according to your life stage; ensure that your finances are also modelled according to the stage of your life.

A mind-set change is the first step, you must change the way you perceive money and what you aim to achieve with whatever amount you earn, adds Ochse.

Visit link:

Top 5 tips to achieve financial independence | Mpumalanga News - Mpumalanga News

Royal Caribbean Post Round-Up: June 11, 2017 – Royal Caribbean Blog (blog)

Posted on by

Royal Caribbean Blog (blog)
Royal Caribbean Post Round-Up: June 11, 2017
Royal Caribbean Blog (blog)
Our goal has been to provide our readers with expansive coverage of all aspects of the Royal Caribbean experience. Whether you cruise multiple times per year or you're new to cruising, the goal of Royal Caribbean Blog is for it to be a useful resource ...
World's largest cruise ship, Symphony of the Seas, takes to water for first timeUSA TODAY
Royal Caribbean Floats Out World's Biggest Cruise Ship, Symphony of the SeasCruise Critic
World's largest cruise ship gets first taste of waterOrlando Sentinel
TravelPulse -Travel Agent
all 92 news articles »

Read this article:

Royal Caribbean Post Round-Up: June 11, 2017 - Royal Caribbean Blog (blog)

Latin America and the Caribbean promotes an international code of conduct to prevent and reduce food losses and waste – Reliefweb

Posted on by

The region will submit a proposal to the Committee on World Food Security at the end of June.

June 09, 2017, Santiago, Chile - Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean today announced their interest in promoting an international code of conduct to serve as a global guideline to prevent and reduce food losses and waste.

FAO has supported countries in the region to create a technical support note for the code, which will be submitted to the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) in June.

The note that will be presented to the CFS contains a methodological framework to identify critical points, practices and key actors associated with losses and wastes.

This proposal was debated by parliamentarians, government officials, representatives of the private sector, civil society and the academy of sixteen countries of the region during the III Regional Dialogue on Food Loss and Waste.

"That a great part of the food produced in the world ends up in the garbage, when more than 795 million people are still suffering hunger all over the planet, it is a real crime," said Julio Berdegu, FAO's Regional Representantive, during the dialogue.

If accepted by the international community, the proposal will serve as a basis for constructing a non-binding legal instrument - such as that for pesticide use - that will enable countries to meet target 12.3 of the Sustainable Development Goals, which aims at at 50% cut in per capita food losses and waste by the year 2030.

The Code of Conduct will enable the overall response to be coordinated through a shared vision and strategies involving all actors in the food system.

By identifying the critical points at each stage of the food life cycle, countries will be able to prevent and reduce losses throughout the food chain. By linking local, regional and global strategies, it will serve as a reference to create laws and foster cooperation between the parties involved.

The region strengthens its laws and institutions

Since 2015, several countries in the region have incorporated this theme into their legislative agendas and their institutions.

During the regional dialogue, Chile announced the creation of an intersectoral committee on this subject, adding Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Colombia, Dominican Republic and Uruguay. Ecuador, Honduras and Paraguay have already started similar processes.

Currently, there are about 19 bills related to the losses and waste that being debated in the parliaments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay.

During the regional dialogue, ten members of the Parliamentary Front against Hunger in Latin America and the Caribbean participated in a special training session and defined a joint road map to drive these initiatives.

"Legislation is needed to minimize food loss from a multidimensional and preventive approach, not only linked to punishment," said Mexican Senator Luisa Mara Caldern, General Coordinator of the Parliamentary Front Against Hunger.

According to the FAO, one of the outstanding challenges is to advance not only in the reduction but also in the prevention of losses and wastage at all stages of the food supply chain.

A problem with multiple repercussions

Food losses and waste have important environmental, economic and social implications, and have great negative impacts the sustainability of food systems.

While in developing countries 40% of the losses occur in the post-harvest and processing stages, in industrialized countries more than 40% of losses occur in retail and at the consumer level.

According to FAO, about 1.4 billion hectares of land are used each year to produce food that is not consumed, a larger area than that of Canada and India as a whole.

Media Contacts

Benjamn Labatut Santiago, Chile tel: (+56) 229 232 174 e-mail: benjamin.labatut@fao.org

Continued here:

Latin America and the Caribbean promotes an international code of conduct to prevent and reduce food losses and waste - Reliefweb

Dominica seeks to attract more Caribbean tourists – St. Lucia Times Online News (press release)

Posted on by

June 11th, 2017 0 comments

Dominica is looking to the Caribbean to boost its tourist numbers with a new campaign launched in time for summer 2017.

The Meet Me In Dominica, Summer 2017 campaign targetsCaribbean people for a summer of adventure, nature and events for singles, couples and families.

The campaign was launched by Discover Dominica Authority; the agency responsible for marketing the Nature Island of the Caribbean. It will run from June 1-August 31, 2017.

Dominicas Tourism Director, Colin Piper said With 2017 labeled as the Year of Adventure, Dominica has positioned itself to embrace visitors from the region and beyond for an unforgettable experience in Dominica.

Piper added that hotels and tour operators have come on board to offer exciting specials and activities as part of the campaign, all in an effort to ensure that every day of your vacation is a day spent outside enjoying the Nature Island.

Read this article:

Dominica seeks to attract more Caribbean tourists - St. Lucia Times Online News (press release)

Offshoring – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Offshoring is the relocation of a business process from one country to anothertypically an operational process, such as manufacturing, or supporting processes, such as accounting. Typically this refers to a company business, although state governments may also employ offshoring.[1] More recently, offshoring has been associated primarily with the outsourcing of technical and administrative services supporting domestic and global operations from outside the home country ("offshore outsourcing"), by means of internal (captive) or external (outsourcing) delivery models.[2]

India has emerged as a key offshoring destination over the past 15 years. The term is in use in several distinct but closely related ways. It is sometimes used broadly to include substitution of a service from any foreign source for a service formerly produced internally to the firm. In other cases, only imported services from subsidiaries or other closely related suppliers are included. A further complication is that intermediate goods, such as partially completed computers, are not consistently included in the scope of the term.[3]

Offshoring can be seen in the context of either production offshoring or services offshoring. After its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, the People's Republic of China emerged as a prominent destination for production offshoring. Another focus area has been the software industry as part of global software development and developing global information systems. After technical progress in telecommunications improved the possibilities of trade in services, India became a country leading in this domain,[citation needed] though many parts of the world are now emerging as offshore destinations.

The economic logic is to reduce costs, sometimes called labor arbitrage, to improve corporate profitability. Jobs are added in the destination country providing the goods or services (generally a lower-cost labor country), but are subtracted in the higher-cost labor country.[4] The increased safety net costs of the unemployed may be absorbed by the government (taxpayers) in the high-cost country or by the company doing the offshoring. Europe experienced less offshoring than the United States due to policies that applied more costs to corporations and cultural barriers.[5]

Offshoring is defined as the movement of a business process done at a company in one country to the same or another company in another, different country. Almost always work is moved because of a lower cost of operations in the new location. More recently, offshoring drivers also include access to qualified personnel abroad, in particular in technical professions, and increasing speed to market.[2] Offshoring is sometimes contrasted with outsourcing or offshore outsourcing. Outsourcing is the movement of internal business processes to an external organizational unit. Outsourcing refers to the process by which an organization gives part of its work to another firm / organization and makes it responsible for most of the applications as well as the design of the enterprise business process. This process is done under restrictions and strategies in order to establish consistency with the offshore outsourcing organizations. Many companies nowadays outsource various professional areas in the company such as e-mail services, payroll and call center. These jobs are being handled by other organizations that specialize in each sector allowing the offshoring company to focus more on other business concerns. However, subcontracting in the same country would be outsourcing, but not offshoring. A company moving an internal business unit from one country to another would be offshoring or physical restructuring, but not outsourcing. A company subcontracting a business unit to a different company in another country would be both outsourcing and offshoring.

Related terms include nearshoring, which implies relocation of business processes to (typically) lower cost foreign locations, but in close geographical proximity (e.g., shifting United States-based business processes to Canada/Latin America); inshoring, which means picking services within a country; and bestshoring or rightshoring, picking the "best shore" based on various criteria. Business process outsourcing (BPO) refers to outsourcing arrangements when entire business functions (such as Finance & Accounting, Customer Service, etc.) are outsourced. More specific terms can be found in the field of software development - for example Global Information System as a class of systems being developed for / by globally distributed teams.

A further term sometimes associated with offshoring is bodyshopping which is the practice of using offshored resources and personnel to do small disaggregated tasks within a business environment, without any broader intention to offshore an entire business function.

Production offshoring, also known as physical restructuring, of established products involves relocation of physical manufacturing processes to a lower-cost destination. Examples of production offshoring include the manufacture of electronic components in Costa Rica, production of apparel, toys, and consumer goods in China, Vietnam etc.

Product design, research and the development process that leads to new products, are relatively difficult to offshore. This is because research and development, in order to improve products and create new reference designs, require a skill set that is harder to obtain in regions with cheap labor. For this reason, in many cases only the manufacturing will be offshored by a company wishing to reduce costs.

However, there is a relationship between offshoring and patent-system strength. This is because companies under a strong patent system are not afraid to move work offshore because their work will remain their property. Conversely, companies in countries with weak patent systems have an increased fear of intellectual property theft from foreign vendors or workers, and, therefore, have less offshoring.

A major incentive for physical restructuring arrived when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) made it easier for manufacturers to shift production facilities from the US to Mexico. This trend later shifted to China, which offered cheap prices through very low wage rates, few workers' rights laws, a fixed currency pegged to the US dollar, (currently fixed to a basket of economies) cheap loans, cheap land, and factories for new companies, few environmental regulations, and huge economies of scale based on cities with populations over a million workers dedicated to producing a single kind of product. However, many companies are reluctant to move high value-added production of leading-edge products to China because of lax enforcement of intellectual property laws.[6] NAFTA has increased the velocity at which physical restructuring is occurring.

The growth of IT-enabled services offshoring is linked to the availability of large amounts of reliable and affordable communication infrastructure following the telecommunication and Internet expansion of the late 1990s. This was seen all the way up to the year 2000. Coupled with the digitization of many services, it was possible to shift the actual production location of services to low-cost countries in a manner theoretically transparent to end-users. Services include administrative services, such as finance and accounting, HR, and legal; call centers; marketing and sales services; IT infrastructure; application development; and knowledge services, including engineering support, product design, research and development, and analytics.

India first benefited from the offshoring trend, as it has a large pool of English speaking people and technically proficient manpower.[7] India's offshoring industry took root in low-end IT functions in the early 1990s and has since moved to back-office processes such as call centers and transaction processing. This spawned the neologism Bangalored, used to indicate a layoff, often systemic, and usually resulting from corporate outsourcing to lower wage economies derived from Bangalore in India, where some of the first outsource centers were located.[8]

Currently, India's low-cost labor has made it an offshoring destination for global firms like HP, IBM, Accenture, Intel, AMD, Microsoft, Oracle Corporation, Cisco, SAP, and BEA[disambiguation needed].

Because of inflation, high domestic interest rates, robust economic growth and increased IT offshoring, the Indian IT sector has witnessed 10 - 15% wage growth in the 21st century. Consequently, Indian's operations and firms are concerned that they are becoming too expensive in comparison with competition from the other offshoring destinations. To maintain high growth rates, attempts have been made to grow up the value chain and diversify to other high-end work in addition to software and hardware engineering. These jobs include research and development, equity analysis, tax-return processing, radiological analysis, medical transcription, and more.

The choice of offshoring destination is often made according to cultural concerns. Japanese companies are starting to outsource to China, where large numbers of Japanese speakers can be found particularly in the city of Dalian, which was Japanese-occupied Chinese territory for decades (this is discussed in the book The World is Flat). German companies tend to outsource to Eastern European countries, such as Poland and Romania, where proficiency in German is common.[9] French companies outsource to North Africa for similar reasons. For Australian IT companies, Indonesia is one of the major choice of offshoring destination. Near-shore location, common time zone and adequate IT work force are the reasons for offshoring IT services to Indonesia.

Other offshoring destinations include Mexico, Central and South America, the Philippines, South Africa and Eastern European countries.

The Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) made nearshoring more attractive between the Central American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic and the US.

Once companies are comfortable with services offerings and started realizing the cost savings, many high-tech product companies, including some in Silicon Valley, started offshoring innovation work to countries like Belarus, South Africa, India, China, Mexico, Russia and Ukraine. Accessing the talent pools in these countries has the potential to cut costs or even shorten product lifecycles. Developing countries like India are also involved in this practice.

When offshoring knowledge work, firms heavily rely on the availability of technical personnel at offshore locations. In order to secure access to talent, Western firms often establish collaborative relationships with technical universities abroad and thereby customize university programs to serve their particular needs. Examples include universities in Shanghai, such as Tong-Ji University, where German firms and scholars co-sponsor labs, courses, and provide internships. Similar examples of collaborative arrangements can be found in Eastern Europe, e.g. Romania.[9] Additionally, EU companies looking for IT innovation often setup collaboration with universities in countries such as Belarus and Ukraine, which have a high percentage of ICT graduates and overall a very skilled IT labor.[10]

"Re-shoring", also known as "backshoring"[11] or "inshoring"[12] is offshoring that has been brought back onshore.[13]

John Urry (distinguished professor of sociology at Lancaster University) argues that the concealment of income, the avoidance of taxation and eluding legislation relating to work, finance, pleasure, waste, energy and security may be becoming a serious concern for democratic governments and ordinary citizens who may be adversely affected by unregulated, offshore activities. Further, the rising costs of transportation could lead to production nearer the point of consumption becoming more economically viable, particularly as new technologies such as additive manufacturing mature [14]

Offshoring is often enabled by the transfer of valuable information to the offshore site. Such information and training enables the remote workers to produce results of comparable value previously produced by internal employees. When such transfer includes protected materials, as confidential documents and trade secrets, protected by non-disclosure agreements, then intellectual property has been transferred or exported. The documentation and valuation of such exports is quite difficult, but should be considered since it comprises items that may be regulated or taxable.

Offshoring has been a controversial issue spurring heated debates among economists, some of which overlap those related to the topic of free trade. It is seen as benefiting both the origin and destination country through free trade, providing jobs to the destination country and lower cost of goods and services to the origin country. This makes both sides see increased gross domestic product (GDP). And the total number of jobs increases in both countries since those workers in the origin country that lost their job can move to higher-value jobs in which their country has a comparative advantage.

On the other hand, job losses and wage erosion in developed countries have sparked opposition to offshoring. Experts argue that the quality of any new jobs in developed countries are less than the jobs lost and offer lower pay. Economists against offshoring charge that currency manipulation by governments and their central banks causes the difference in labor cost creating an illusion of comparative advantage. Further, they point out that even more educated highly trained workers with higher-value jobs such as software engineers, accountants, radiologists, and journalists in the developed world have been displaced by highly educated and cheaper workers from India and China. On May 1, 2002, Economist and former Ambassador Ernest H. Preeg testified before the Senate committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs that China, for instance, pegs its currency to the dollar at a sub-par value in violation of Article IV of the International Monetary Fund Articles of Agreement which state that no nation shall manipulate its currency to gain a market advantage.[15] Traditionally "safe" developed world jobs in R&D and the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields are now perceived to be endangered in these countries as higher proportions of workers are trained for these fields in developing nations. Economists such as Paul Craig Roberts claim that those economists who promote offshoring misunderstand the difference between comparative advantage and absolute advantage.

The Economist reported in January 2013 that: "High levels of unemployment in Western countries after the 2007-2008 financial crisis have made the public in many countries so hostile towards offshoring that many companies are now reluctant to engage in it."[16] Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2007 that while free trade among high-wage countries is viewed as win-win, free trade with low-wage countries is win-lose for many employees who find their jobs offshored or with stagnating wages.[17] Two estimates of the impact of offshoring on U.S. jobs were between 150,000 and 300,000 per year from 2004-2015. This represents 10-15% of U.S. job creation.[18] U.S. opinion polls indicate that between 76-95% of Americans surveyed agreed that "outsourcing of production and manufacturing work to foreign countries is a reason the U.S. economy is struggling and more people aren't being hired."[19][20]

The increased safety net costs of the unemployed may be absorbed by the government (taxpayers) in the high-cost country or by the company doing the offshoring. Europe experienced less offshoring than the U.S. due to policies that applied more costs to corporations and cultural barriers.[5]

Japanese companies use offshoring to exploit foreign laborers, particularly Chinese and Vietnamese, in violation of the Employment Security Act and Labor Standard Act guidelines set by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. Article 44 of the Employment Security Act implicitly bans unauthorized companies supplying domestic/foreign workers, regardless of their operating locations. The laws apply if at least one party among suppliers, clients and workers reside in Japan, and if the workers are part of the integral part of the chain of command of the client company or the supplier:

The Employment Security Act sets punishment guidelines as follows:

Victims can lodge a criminal complaint against the CEO's of the suppliers and clients to the Labor Standards Inspection Office (in the case of the Labor Standards Act) or Public Prosecutor's Office in the company's location. Due to the risk of CEO's arrest, Japanese companies tend to privately settle with plaintiffs, offering between 20 and 100 million JPY (approximately 200,000 - 1 million USD) in damages.

With the offshoring of call-center type applications, debate has also surfaced that this practice does serious damage to the quality of customer service and technical support that customers receive from companies who do it. Many companies have caught much public ire for their decisions to use foreign labor for customer service and technical support, mostly because of the apparent language barrier that it creates. While some nations have a high level of younger, skilled workers who are capable of speaking English as one of their native languages, their English skills have caused debate in North America and Europe.[citation needed]

Criticisms of outsourcing from much of the American public have been a response to what they view as very poor customer service and technical support being provided by overseas workers attempting to communicate with Americans.

Some claim that companies lose control and visibility across their extended supply chain under outsourcing, creating increased risks. A 2005 quantitative survey of 121 electronics industry participants by Industry Directions Inc and the Electronics Supply Chain Association (ESCA) found that 69% of respondents said they had less control over at least 5 of their key supply chain processes since the outsourced model took hold, while 66% of providers felt their aggregate risk with customers was high or very high.[citation needed] 36% of providers responded that they felt an increased risk of uncertainty compared to their uncertainty risk before the rise to prominence of the outsourced model.[citation needed] 62% of respondents described as "problematic" at least two core trading partner management practices, which included performance management and simple agreement on results.[citation needed] 40% of all respondents encountered resistance to sharing risk in outsourced partnership agreements, according to the research.[citation needed]

The transfer of knowledge outside a country may create competitors to the original companies themselves. Chinese manufacturers are already selling their goods directly to their overseas customers, without going through their previous domestic intermediaries that originally contracted their services. In the 1990s and 2000s, American automakers increasingly turned to China to create parts for their vehicles. By 2006, China leveraged this know-how and announced that they will begin competition with American automakers in their home market by selling fully Chinese automobiles directly to Americans. When a company moves the production of goods and services to another country, the investment that companies would otherwise make in the domestic market is transferred to the foreign market. Corporate money spent on factories, training, and taxes, which would otherwise be spent in the market of the company is then spent in the foreign market. As production increases in the foreign market, qualified and experienced domestic workers leave or are forced out of their jobs, often permanently leaving the industry. At some point, dramatically fewer domestic workers are left who are qualified to perform the work. This makes the domestic market dependent on the foreign market for those goods and services, thereby strategically weakening the "hollowed-out" domestic country. In effect, offshoring creates and strengthens the competitive industries of the foreign country while strategically weakening the domestic country.[dubious discuss]

However, employment data has cast doubt on this claim. For example, IT employment in the United States has recently reached pre-2001 levels[22][23] and has been rising since. The number of jobs lost to offshoring is less than 1 percent of the total US labor market.[24] According to a study by the Heritage foundation, outsourcing represents a very small proportion of jobs lost in the US. The total number of jobs lost to offshoring, both manufacturing and technical represent only 4 percent of the total jobs lost in the US. Major reasons for cutting jobs are from contract completion and downsizing.[25] Some economists and commentators claim that the offshoring phenomenon is way overblown.[25]

One solution often offered for domestic workers displaced by offshoring is retraining to new jobs. Some displaced workers are highly educated and possess graduate qualifications. Retraining to their current level in another field may not be an option because of the years of study and cost of education involved. Anecdotal evidence also suggests they would be rejected for being overqualified.

According to classical economics, the three factors of production are land, labor, and capital. Offshoring relies heavily on the mobility of two of these factors. That is, how offshoring affects economies depends on how easily capital and labor can be repurposed. Land, as a factor of production, is generally seen to have little or no mobility potential.

The effects of capital mobility on offshoring have been widely discussed. In microeconomics, a corporation must be able to spend working capital to afford the initial costs of offshoring. If the state heavily regulates how a corporation can spend its working capital, it will not be able to offshore its operations. For the same reason the macroeconomy must be free for offshoring to succeed. Generally, those who favor offshoring support capital mobility, and those who oppose offshoring call for greater regulation.

Labor mobility also plays a major role, and it is hotly debated. When computers and the Internet made work electronically portable, the forces of free market resulted in a global mobility of work in the services industry. Most theories that argue offshoring eventually benefits domestic workers assume that those workers will be able to obtain new jobs, even if they have to obtain employment by downpricing themselves back into the labor market (by accepting lower salaries) or by retraining themselves in a new field. Foreign workers benefit from new jobs and higher wages when the work moves to them.

Offshoring faces criticism from labor scholars who argue that global labor arbitrage leads to unethical practices, connected to exploitation of workers, eroding work conditions and decreasing job security.[26]

In the developed world, moving manufacturing jobs out of the country dates to at least the 1960s[27] while moving knowledge service jobs offshore dates to the 1970s [28] and has continued since then. It was characterized primarily by the transferring of factories from the developed to the developing world. This offshoring and closing of factories has caused a structural change in the developed world from an industrial to a post-industrial service society.

During the 20th century, the decreasing costs of transportation and communication crossed with great disparities on pay rates made increased offshoring from wealthier countries to less wealthy countries financially feasible for many companies. Further, the growth of the Internet, particularly fiber-optic intercontinental long haul capacity, and the World Wide Web reduced "transportation" costs for many kinds of information work to near zero.[29]

With the development of the Internet, many new categories of work such as call centres, computer programming, reading medical data such as X-rays and magnetic resonance imaging, medical transcription, income tax preparation, and title searching are being offshored.

Before the 1990s, Ireland was one of the poorest countries in the EU. Because of Ireland's relatively low corporate tax rates, US companies began offshoring of software, electronic, and pharmaceutical intellectual property to Ireland for export. This helped create a high-tech "boom" and which led to Ireland becoming one of the richest EU countries.[29]

In 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect. As concerns are widespread about uneven bargaining powers, and risks and benefits, negotiations are often difficult, such that the plan to create free trade areas (such as Free Trade Area of the Americas) has not yet been successful. In 2005, offshoring of skilled work, also referred to as knowledge work, dramatically increased from the US, which fed the growing worries about threats of job loss.[29]

By sector:

Read more from the original source:

Offshoring - Wikipedia

Competition for offshore wind ramps up in Massachusetts – ABC News – ABC News

Posted on by

Massachusetts' bid to become the nation's leader in offshore wind power is ramping up.

The state's electric utilities National Grid, Eversource and Unitil are slated to release by June 30 their requirements for projects seeking to develop the state's first ocean-based wind farm.

That sets in motion an ambitious effort to put Massachusetts ahead of states like New York, New Jersey and Maryland also seeking to establish their presence in the nascent U.S. industry. Here's a primer on where things stand:

NEW ENERGY LAW

A state law passed last year to boost Massachusetts' use of renewable energy outlines the process for developing offshore wind power.

The law calls for generating at least 1,600 megawatts of power, roughly enough electricity to power 750,000 homes annually, from offshore wind by 2027.

To accomplish this, the utilities are required to secure long-term contracts with wind farm developers in at least two phases: a bid request this June and another in 2019.

The law also calls for generating up to 1,200 additional megawatts from other clean energy sources, including hydropower, onshore wind power and solar power by 2027.

KEY PLAYERS

At least three companies have expressed interest in the bid: Rhode Island's Deepwater Wind, Denmark's DONG Energy and Vineyard Wind of New Bedford, Massachusetts.

Those three have already taken the key step of securing federal leases to develop offshore wind farms miles of the coasts of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, where the state is focusing its offshore wind efforts.

Each firm comes with its industry bonafides.

Deepwater Wind opened the nation's first offshore wind farm off Block Island last year a five-turbine project generating 30 MW.

DONG Energy has installed hundreds of turbines in waters off Europe and has partnered with Eversource on its Massachusetts venture.

And Vineyard Wind is partly owned by Portland, Oregon renewable energy developer Avangrid Renewables and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners of Denmark.

ROUGH DRAFT

The utilities in concert with state agencies have been developing their bid requirements for months.

The most recent draft calls for proposals generating between 400 to 800 megawatts of power and outlined key dates, including a December deadline for submitting applications and a May 2018 deadline for picking a winner or winners.

But the utilities have also sought input from offshore wind companies and other stakeholders, so it remains to be seen if those specifics are further tweaked.

SIZE MATTERS?

As the utilities have drafted their bid requirements, there's been some debate about the right size for the wind farms.

DONG Energy argues that larger projects generating up to 800 megawatts provide "efficiencies of scale" that would lead to lower electricity costs for ratepayers.

Vineyard Wind believes the more practical approach is developing four projects of 400 megawatts each. And Deepwater Wind has argued for a range of projects of varying sizes.

"We think a more gradual approach makes the most sense," said Jeffrey Grybowski, Deepwater Wind's CEO. "You need to walk before you run."

TOO SLOW?

Timing also has been a concern among some stakeholders.

The Conservation Law Foundation, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, has advocated for an accelerated timeline that would allow construction to start as soon as next summer and the wind farm to be operational by 2023.

Vineyard Wind CEO Erich Stephens warns that a prolonged selection process makes it harder for firms to maximize their benefit from federal investment tax credits that are gradually being phased out. That, he said, could ultimately impact costs passed to ratepayers.

"Even just a few months makes a huge difference," Stephens said.

THE TRUMP EFFECT

Offshore wind developers seem united on at least one point: they're not overly concerned about President Donald Trump's policies on renewable energy just yet. Trump was a vocal critic of offshore wind technology as a candidate and businessman.

The companies note that states play a vital role in setting the nation's energy priorities since they regulate utilities, and Massachusetts' Republican Governor Charlie Baker has reaffirmed the state's commitment to its clean energy goals despite the country's withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreement.

"There's no pause for us," said Thomas Brostrom, president of DONG Energy's North American operations. "We're remain really committed to the market here in Massachusetts and the U.S."

Follow Philip Marcelo at twitter.com/philmarcelo.

View original post here:

Competition for offshore wind ramps up in Massachusetts - ABC News - ABC News