Doctor Who: Is Regeneration a Fundamentally Abusive Act by The Doctor? – Houston Press

Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 7 a.m.

Screencap: "The Day of The Doctor"

Heres a dark thought I recently had while contemplating the upcoming end of Peter Capaldi as The Doctor that is almost certainly going to make my Christmas needlessly sad this year: is the act of regeneration a fundamentally abusive one? I dont mean that in a fan way, how we all (rightfully) go on and on about the damage that the show does to us emotionally. I mean in a canonical sense, one that the players experience within the narrative.

Suicide and the threat of suicide are one of the many classifications of emotional abuse. The latter as a means of control, but the former as a means of revenge. Theres a classic example in literature when in the pages of Atlas Shrugged a minor character I dont feel like Googling the name of commits suicide in the bed of a woman who declined his romantic invitations. On her wedding day, no less. The object was clearly to hurt, and real world examples are not hard to find. The phrase, you made me do this sends chills down many peoples spines for a reason.

Of course, the question of whether the regeneration of The Doctor is death as we would understand it is complicated, but for the sake of argument lets take Ten at his word and assume that a new man saunters off with the life of The Doctor while the old one is gone. Lets look at some of those deaths.

Several can be ruled irrelevant to my question. Seven, Eight and the War Doctor died alone and bereft of companions, the last one intentionally so. The Second Doctor also, I feel, should not count in this as he, alone of all The Doctors, actively opposed regeneration and his companions were mindwiped (yes, I know the continuity arguments, but stay focused). The Meta-Crisis Tenth Doctor is also not included in this list for obvious reasons.

But what of the rest?

Almost no Doctor prepares his companions for the process. Ben and Polly were baffled at the change of the First Doctor to the Second. Peri was the same for the Fifth to the Sixth, as was Rose from the Ninth to the Tenth. To these young women (and one man), their dearest friend had been killed, and now they were forced to accept another in his place on his terms. Viewed in a certain light, that is really, really gaslighty, even if we look at things from The Doctors point of view. Nine even went to the trouble to record a farewell primer (which doesnt exactly hurt the suicide analogy), but never thought to mention he might regenerate until the last possible minute.

Even with Clara Oswald, who is ostensibly the only companion present at a non-Meta Crisis regeneration that had to have known the concept even existed, theres something so cruel in it. She literally begs of him, please dont change, even though the change is the end of the weak old man shed met earlier and the start of new adventures.

The simple answer to all of this is that The Doctor is kind of a thoughtless git, and I dare anyone to argue THAT particular point with me. The obvious aside, I see three possible motivations in The Doctors cavalier attitude towards his own death and the emotional damage it inflicts on those he loves (Eight at one point remarks hes going through bodies as if he owns a particularly dangerous bicycle).

The first is that he is constantly hoping to spare them the pain. This rather flies in the face of logic for the Tenth Doctor and his farewell tour, particularly when you consider the guilt Wilfred Mott must have felt at The Doctors sacrifice. Hell, go beyond that to the famous instance of Six trying to kill Peri in his post-regeneration madness, the woman Five had died to save. Having been an apostle of this funny pop culture religion for many moons, I dont think this one has legs.

The second is my original premise. Regeneration is a final act of emotional abuse by The Doctor on those who circumstances have ended his current incarnation. Its a petty moment of hurt amidst all the nobility The Doctor is an avatar for, or maybe

Its a lesson, albeit a very painful one. One of the last things Eleven says as he hallucinates Amy in front of Clara is that Amy was the first face that face ever saw, and Clara immediately becomes the first face Twelve ever sees. Our actions, in The Doctors grasp of time, both save and doom the world. Meeting Amy and Clara were both the trajectory of Elevens life and the catalysts of his final death.

It hurts the ones we love to die, to be no more. Whether there is a Doctor is often immaterial to the fact of whether there is YOUR Doctor. The Doctor, who is unique among Time Lords for actually seeming to care who exactly he is during his incarnations, actually makes meaning of the span each inhabits. As such, he can only hook his fleeting mortality to ours by, well, dying. He dies to show us how life matters, even if that death is cruel.

Theres a literary convention based off a world religion that describes this concept perfectly, but I cant for the life of me recall it at the moment. Something about some resurrecting dude from a place that sounds like Gallifrey, but isnt.

More:

Doctor Who: Is Regeneration a Fundamentally Abusive Act by The Doctor? - Houston Press

Meredith Jorgensen – KCCI Des Moines

Meredith Jorgensen is News 8s Lancaster County reporter.

She joined the News 8 team in July 2003. Merediths goal is to tell the stories of the people of the Susquehanna Valley. She covered the tornado in Campbelltown, Lebanon County, and the Amish School Shooting and the Empire Building Collapse in Lancaster County.

Meredith has won several Associated Press awards and was nominated for an Emmy Award in 2010.

She grew up in St. James, Long Island, N.Y. After graduating from Smithtown High School, she attended Ithaca College in upstate New York, where she majored in broadcast journalism.

She spent a semester in London and interned at NBC'S London bureau. Before joining News 8, Meredith worked for Blue Ridge Cable in Ephrata, anchoring "CNN Headline News Local Edition." Shes a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Meredith makes her home in Lancaster, with her husband Chris and their dogs, Barlie and Molly. Throughout high school and college, she was an avid cross country runner, hurdler and heptathlete.

But Meredith has recently found sitting down to be quite enjoyable.

Her favorite movies are "The Departed" and "When Harry Met Sally."

Her favorite books are "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand and Chelsea Chelsea Bang Bang by Chelsea Handler.

She looks forward to meeting many of you in the months and years to come. Please e-mail her at mjorgensen@hearst.com.

Go here to see the original:

Meredith Jorgensen - KCCI Des Moines

How Conservatives Begat Trump, and What to Do About It – The … – The Objective Standard

In the wake of Donald Trumps ascent to dominance in the GOP, conservative leaders blame Republicans for the calamity. But they shouldnt.

Before we turn to why they shouldnt, consider why they do.

There are many reasons Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, writes Dennis Prager, but the biggest reason is this: The majority of Republicans are not conservative.

David French observes that the party of Lincoln is in ruins, calls for conservatives to stay firm in their opposition to Trump, and scolds GOP leaders for supporting this reprehensible man.

Jay Cost says the Republican party of 2016 is a spectacular failure:

Lacking sufficient organization and largely bereft of vigilant leaders, it has proven itself incapable of refining and enlarging public views around a principled commitment to the national interest. It is little wonder that a demagogic, ill-informed outsider like Trump is on the cusp of capturing its most important nomination. The party lacks the strength to resist him.

And Matt Walsh chastises Trump-supporting Republicans who

turned out in droves for a left-wing vulgarian who, when hes not bragging of his adultery or fantasizing about dating his daughter or mocking POWs and the disabled, has taken to perpetuating conspiracy theories about how his former opponents father killed JFK.

Underscoring the insanity of supporting this mess of a man, Walsh recalls that Trump said himself, he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and these people would still follow himand, nevertheless, millions of Republicans have voted for him. There is no complaining now, Walsh concludes:

We cant whine about our demise. We chose it. Well, some of us did not choose it, yet we live in a country where millions of our fellow Americans did . . . And here we are. Thanks, Republicans.

Thats an indication of where conservatives are placing the blame.

First, let me acknowledge a kernel of truth in what these conservatives say: Every Republican who has supported or voted for Donald Trump is partly to blame for the political ascent of this repulsive, power-lusting opportunist. During the primaries, Republicans had the alternative of supporting and voting for Ted Cruz, a flawed but essentially good candidate, whose ideas and positions on the most pressing issues of the day were infinitely better than anyone elses in the race. So, shame on Republicans who had the means of knowing this, yet supported Trump (or anyone else) instead of Cruz.

But the political rise of Trump is not merely the fault of Republicans. It is also, and more so, the fault of conservativesespecially conservative leaders, both old and new.

The seminal act of conservative culpability in this regard took place in 1957, shortly after the publication of Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged.

In the pages of her revolutionary novel, Rand had handed conservatives, and the world in general, an observation-based, demonstrably true philosophy that, in addition to providing principled guidance for choosing and pursuing life-serving values at the personal level, also provides a rock-solid foundation for supporting and defending freedom and capitalism at the political level. This book was a godsend to everyone who loves life, loves America, and wants to advance the ideal of a government dedicated to protecting individuals rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

What did conservatives do with this gift? They shat on it.

Two months after Atlas was published, William F. Buckleys popular conservative magazine, National Review, ran a review of the book, penned by ex-communist Whittaker Chambers. The reason for the scare quotes around the word review in the previoussentence is that it was not a review but a lie. A big lie. Indeed, it was and remains an unsurpassed (although often aspired to) model of intellectual dishonesty, injustice, malice.

The screed claimed, among myriad additional lies, that From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: To a gas chambergo!

To those who have read Atlas, that one claim is sufficient to convey the jaw-dropping depths of dishonesty involved in the so-called review. For those who havent read Atlas, Ill indicate briefly, without spoiling the plot of the novel, how obscenely dishonest this claim and the entire review it represents are.

Atlas is a story about the role of reason in human lifeabout the fact that the individuals reasoning mind is his only means of knowledge and his basic means of livingabout the principle that each individual is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of othersand about the principle that being moral consists in using ones mind to pursue ones life-serving values while respecting the rights of others to do the same.

Among the countless ways in which these ideas are vividly depicted and illustrated in Rands thousand-page novel, the heroes of Atlas take an oath, which they all uphold unwaveringly: I swearby my life and my love of itthat I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

As part of their commitment to living by this oath, the heroes call for a government that does one thing and one thing only: protects the rights of all individuals by banning physical force and fraud from social relationships so that everyone can act on his own judgment, produce goods and services, trade them with others by mutual consent to mutual advantage, and flourish in a land of liberty.

Also as part of their commitment to living by the principle that no one should ever sacrifice or be sacrificed for anyone, the heroes in Atlas, time and again, refuse to cooperate with government officials or unscrupulous businessmen who seek to violate anyones rights for any reason in any way whatsoever.

From this book, the reviewer for National Review heard a voice commanding: To a gas chambergo?

He did not. He lied.

He lied to discredit Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. He lied to stop people from reading her work or taking her ideas seriously. And William F. Buckley and the editorial staff at National Review not only published this big lie and stood by it in 1957; they also have republished it repeatedly since then, most recently just a few years ago.

Following this initial conservative big lie about Rands ideas, similarly malicious treatments of Rand and her philosophy became the modus operandi of the leaders of the conservative movement. To this day, with few exceptions (Ted Cruz being one), if conservative leaders dont ignore Rands ideas (as Dennis Prager, Jay Cost, and Matt Walsh do), they misrepresent her ideas (as Daniel Flynn, Roger Scruton, Anthony Daniels, Andrew Klavan, Bill Whittle, and countless others do).

With their commitment to ignoring or maligning Rand and her philosophy of rational egoism, individual rights, and laissez-faire capitalism, leaders of the conservative movement have decisively severed themselves and their movement from any affiliation with the one philosophy that could support freedom, capitalism, and the American republic.

Before we turn to the results of such evasions and malice, lets briefly consider the motivations behind them.

If youre a professional intellectual (e.g., a philosopher, an economist, a journalist, or a political talk show host), and if your aim is to defend capitalism, and if an extremely careful thinker writes books with titles such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, might you have a professional responsibility to examine this thinkers arguments and to determine whether her views are true and worth sharingor false and in need of (honest) dismantling?

Why, then, have conservative intellectuals chosen instead to ignore or misrepresent Rands ideas? Why wont they consider the principles of her philosophy, take them straight, represent them accurately, and either acknowledge that they are trueor explain where Rand erred?

Here, we can only speculate. But I think the answer is rather straightforward.

Almost to a man, conservative intellectuals seek to anchor capitalism in religion, faith, and altruism. Rand, however, sawand demonstratedthat doing so is impossible. She showed that capitalism, the political-economic system of individual rights and self-interest, can be supported only by a morality of individual rights and self-interestnamely, rational egoism. Rand further sawand demonstratedthat for a morality to be valid, it cannot be derived from supernature via revelation or faith; rather, it must be derived from actual nature via observation and logic. And Rand not only demonstrated these (and many related) truths; she did so with such clarity and concretization that there is no way to analyze her works and point out where she erred in any substantial or fundamental waywhich is why no one has.

So, people who desperately want Rand to have erred about what is necessary to defend freedom and capitalismand who are unwilling to face the fact that she got these matters righthave two choices: (1) They can ignore her ideas; or (2) They can misrepresent them and thus appear to have acknowledged and dismissed her ideas, while actually having dismissed strawmen.

Why are conservatives unwilling to face the fact that Rand got these issues right? Again, we can only speculate, but, given the nature of Rands ideas along with uncontroversial facts about conservatives, the answer appears clear.

Rands philosophy opposes religious dogma and exposes it as baseless; thus, conservatives who are unwilling to challenge religious dogma cannot bring themselves to give her ideas a fair hearing. Conservatives, by and large, were taught, from Sunday school onward, that reason cant deliver the deepest, most important truthsonly faith can. They were taught that being moral consists in obeying Gods commandments, that selflessness is good and selfishness is evil, that we are our brothers keeper, that we must be openhanded toward the poor and needy, that we know all of this because the Bible tells us soand that none of this is to be challenged.

Well, Rand challenges all of it. And she not only challenges it; she also disproves itby proving (or demonstrating) the contrary in each respective area. For instance:

Conservatives who encounter Rands demonstrations and proofs are thus faced (implicitly or explicitly) with questions such as:

And conservatives answers to such questionsin conjunction with their willingness or unwillingness to face the scoffs and scorn that likely will come their way if they embrace the truths Rand discovereddetermine whether they (a) choose to embrace or at least grapple with her ideasor (b) choose between ignoring or misrepresenting them.

Again, this is speculation. But I cant think of another plausible explanation for why so many conservativesand virtually all conservative leaderseither ignore or misrepresent Rands ideas. (If you know of another plausible explanation, let me know.)

Now, how has the conservatives dismissal of Rands ideas paved the way for the political ascent of Donald Trump?

To answer that, we need only answer the question: What happens when the leaders of a political movement ostensibly dedicated to defending individual rights, freedom, and capitalism ignore the only demonstrably true moral and philosophic foundation for those valuesand, instead, pretend that such values can be defended by means of religion, faith, and altruism?

The answer is: They fail. And they leave a vacuum where the philosophic defense of capitalism should be.

Here we need not speculate, because its simple historic record.

During the past several decades, when conservative-championed political representatives have held office in the White House or Congress or both, they have (in the aggregate) increased government intervention in the economy, increased regulatory burdens on businesses, increased government spending, increased taxation, increased the size and scope of the welfare state, and generally increased rights violations by the government. (For examples of all of this, see The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty; The Republicans Opportunity to Restore America . . . and Their Obstacle; Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis; The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty; The Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here; and The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism.)

Well, when conservative leaders through their representatives in government expand rights-violating policies for decades on end, what do the citizens who were counting on those leaders to constrain government and reduce spending and cut taxes come to think of the ideas behind the movement? Naturally, they come to the conclusion that the ideas arent practical, dont work, and need to be replaced.

Replaced with what?

The answer to that is wide open and depends on what is available and easily digestible when the rebellion begins.

Most Americans are not professional intellectuals. They are not philosophers, economists, journalists, or political talk show hosts. Rather, they run or work in restaurants, doctors offices, tech companies, or countless other kinds of businesses that provide the material goods and services we need in order to live and prosper. In other words, Americans have areas of specialization, and they dont have time to investigate and grapple with every philosophic, economic, or political theory someone claims is true. They count on professional intellectuals to do the heavy lifting in those areas and to convey the essentials in laymans terms so that chefs, waitresses, doctors, and engineers can understand them sufficiently for their purposes. Just as professional intellectuals count on doctors to treat cancer and to explain the essentials of that process in laymans terms, and just as professional intellectuals count on engineers to make electronic devices and to explain in laymans terms how they work, so too doctors, engineers, chefs, and the like count on professional intellectuals to do their job. Its called division of labor.

But conservative intellectuals havent done their job. They havent identified and conveyed the essential ideas and principles necessary to support and defend freedom, capitalism, and America. Theyve chosen instead to ignore or misrepresent those ideas so as to avoid scoffs, scorn, or having to reconsiderwhat they learned in Sunday school. (Thank God the Founders werent conservatives.) And because conservative intellectuals failed to do their job for decades, those who had been counting on them to do their job went looking for someone else to professionally defend freedom, capitalism, and America.

Who did they find?

Well, when Americans looked around to see who might be offering new ideas about how to limit government to its proper function of protecting rights, they saw no professional intellectuals with such ideas. What about Ayn Rands ideas and the handful of professionals who advocate them? Intellectuals from both the progressive left and the religious right had already discredited Rands ideas in the minds of their readers and listeners. Ayn Rand? Isnt she the materialist who says its morally wrong to help other people? Well, thats all I need to know about her and her philosophy. And: Wasnt Rands big book Atlas Shrugged about why men of ability should send lesser people to gas chambers? Thats monstrous. How could anyone even consider her ideas?

So freedom-loving Americans saw no professional intellectuals prepared to defend individual rights, capitalism, and America on solid ground. And they were not about to turn to that horrible Rand person.

Where did they turn?

They looked past professional intellectuals. They looked for a problem-solver of a completely different variety. They looked for someone who is not a conservative but nevertheless is pro-freedom, pro-business, pro-capitalism, anti-left, and maybe even politically incorrect to boot. They looked for someone in the public eye who will say it like it is and cut deals and make America great again.

Enter Donald Trump.

Unlike conservatives, who drone incessantly about Judeo-Christian ethics and the virtues of sacrifice and humility, Trump is a bold, brash, money-loving businessman. Sure, hes crudebut thats good, Republicans figured, because it makes the left apoplectic. And, yes, hes inconsistentbut thats OKtoo, Republicans figured, because hes a pragmatic, reality-oriented businessman who gets things done. And, best of all, they figured, Trump is not a conservativeso hes not going to retry those godforsaken conservative principles that have failed for decades on end to make America great again. Hes going to ditch principles and do what worksand thats what we want.

In short, Trump-supporting Republicans see him as a new, bold, non-conservative problem solverand as a big middle finger to the conservative leaders who have repeatedly let them down. Conservatives, these Republicans have said, Youre fired! Were hiring Trump!

Some may say my analysis is oversimplified. It is not. Nor does it exonerate Trump supporters. They are partly to blame for this nightmare. But conservative intellectuals bear the lions share of responsibility.

That conservative leaders havefor nearly sixty yearsignored or maligned the one philosophy that can support and defend individual rights, capitalism, and the American ideal is an observable fact. That conservatives could have embraced Rands philosophy and used it as a rock-solid foundation for their efforts to establish and maintain a rights-protecting government and a free society is clear as day to anyone who reads Rands work. And that the failure of conservative leaders to do so paved the way forand indeed necessitatedthe rise of someone to fill the void is a matter of natural law: In political philosophy, as in physics, nature abhors a vacuum.

Donald Trump is now the standard-bearer for the Republican Party because when conservative leaderswho, by their chosen profession, had a responsibility to identify, convey, and apply a viable philosophy to support rights, freedom, and capitalismwere handed a philosophy that clearly could do so, they ignored or maligned it. And they did so for decades.

Republican presidential candidate Trump is a product of conservative leaders evasions. Hes their Frankenstein. Hes their fault.

Have other factors contributed to the rise of Trump? Yes, many other factors have. But conservatives evasions are the fundamental cause. If conservative leaders had embraced rather than ignored or misrepresented Ayn Rands ideas, conservative efforts to defend freedom, capitalism, and the American ideal would have been anchored in an irrefutable moral and philosophical foundation; thus, America would now beor would at least be headed in the direction ofthe rights-protecting republic it is supposed to be. In such a context, a vulgar opportunist such as Trump couldnt garner political support from any sizable portion of the population. Instead, hed be using the best words to complain about the difficulty of cutting deals without the coercive power of eminent domain.

So the point here is not that no other factors have contributed to the political ascent of Trump. Rather, the point is that the fundamental cause of his ascent is the evasions of conservative leaders.

What is the solution to this problem?

There is no quick fix. Conservatives evasions have plunged America deep into a swamp of unprincipled politics and philosophic confusion. The only way out of the muck is by means of a new movement led by new intellectuals. The intellectuals needed for this movement are those who are willing to look at reality, to think for themselves, and to embrace and convey the philosophical, moral, and political ideas that actually support a system of individual rights, freedom, and capitalism.

In other words, the solution is for new intellectuals to do what conservative intellectuals should have done but have refused to do ever since 1957: Read Ayn Rands works, see whether her ideasmake sense, and, if they do, embrace them and use them to argue for a return to the American ideal of a government that does one thing and only one thing: protects rights.

Those who want to learn about Ayn Rands ideas can profitably start almost anywhere in her corpus. If you like fiction, you might start with We The Living, The Fountainhead, or Atlas Shrugged. If you prefer nonfiction, maybe start with Philosophy: Who Needs It, or The Virtue of Selfishness, or Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

If you want a quick overview of Objectivism, see What is Objectivism? For an article-length primer on Rands morality of self-interest, see Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rands Morality of Egoism. And for a systematic presentation of her theory of rights, see Ayn Rands Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society.

Wherever you start, know this: Rands ideas challenge the fundamental ideas youve been taught about philosophy, religion, morality, rights, and politics. And bear in mind that Rand is the first to point out that you should not accept her ideasor anyones ideasunless they make sense to you. As she puts it: The most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth.

But if you give her ideas a hearingrather than listen to conservatives who misrepresent them as a matter of courseI think youll see that they make sense, that they are grounded in perceptual reality, and that they support freedom, capitalism, and the American ideal like nothing youve encountered before.

If you do come to see that Rands ideas are sound, you can then join the movement that should have been soaring since 1957 but that conservative leaders chose to cripple with their dishonestythe movement dedicated to supporting individual rights, freedom, and capitalism by reference to the observation-based moral and philosophical foundations on which these values depend: the Objectivist movement.

Related:

Sign up to receive our free weekly newsletter.

Go here to see the original:

How Conservatives Begat Trump, and What to Do About It - The ... - The Objective Standard

Trump’s ‘libertarianism’ endangers the public | GantNews.com – Gant Daily

Republicans are friendly to business and suspicious of regulations. They want minimal government as a matter of principle. But there is another group that wants to shrink government: professional criminals who hate cops. They want no interference when they hurt people.

President Trumps recent executive order, titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Cost, speaks the language of the principled libertarians, but its beneficiaries are likely to be the thugs.

The order prohibits any agency from issuing any new regulation unless it also repeals two regulations that cost as much as the new one. Costs mean the cost of complying with the regulation. The harms that were the reason for the regulation dont count at all.

David Dana and Michael Barsa observe the implications of Trumps order. The Department of Interior created a set of new regulations in response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, in which BP spilled nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It was the largest marine oil spill in history, and, Dana and Barsa wrote, it cost nearly $9 billion for lost fisheries and $23 billion for lost tourism, not to mention the catastrophic effects on marine life and birds. Yet under the presidents order, the only costs that matter are those to the oil companies. Costs to the public and to the environment are completely ignored. The regulations arent cheap; the cost to the industry has been estimated at hundreds of millions. But thats peanuts compared to the costs of another spill.

Trump is a big fan of Ayn Rand. Like her fictional hero John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, he wants to free business from the heavy hand of government. But this is an oddly distorted libertarianism, in which Rands villains masquerade as her heroes: those who talk most of liberty are the looters and moochers.

Conservatives worry about regulatory capture: the danger that regulators will abandon the public interest at the behest of regulated industries, keeping prices high and stifling competition. The solution is to get rid of regulation: the state should butt out and let the market operate. Theres no doubt that capture has sometimes happened. A notorious example is the Civil Aeronautics Board: after it was abolished in 1985, airline competition intensified and prices plunged.

There is, however, another way in which unworthy special interests can seize control of government. They can work to cripple regulation, so that they can hurt and defraud people. Libertarian rhetoric has turned out to be a rich resource for them.

Barack Obama is actually a better libertarian than Trump. He spent years teaching at the University of Chicago, where the idea of regulatory capture was developed. That had an impact: when he was President, he demanded (following a principle laid down by Ronald Reagan!) that any new regulations survive rigorous cost-benefit analysis. That immunizes regulations from capture, and makes sure that regulators take account of just what worries Trump, the cost to businesses. The overall net value benefits minus costs of Obamas regulations was upward of $100 billion.

Trump, on the other hand, has replaced cost-benefit analysis with cost analysis. Benefits are ignored. This isnt even business-friendly. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill destroyed hundreds of well-functioning businesses. On the other hand, the businesses that were crushed were small and had nothing like BPs political connections.

Theres room for reasonable disagreement with Obamas regulations. The calculation of both costs and benefits inevitably involves some guesswork. The cumulative effect of regulation can hamper businesses. The big difference between Trump and the standard conservatives critique of Obama is that Trumps executive order holds, as a matter of principle, that benefits dont matter. Consumer fraud, tainted food, pollution, unsafe airplanes and trains, epidemic disease all have to be put up with, if stopping them would increase the costs of regulation.

Trumps new regulatory reforms show a persistent pattern. One targets a rule that requires retirement advisers to put clients interests ahead of their own. Conflicts of interest in retirement advice, for example steering clients into products with higher fees and lower returns, costs American families an estimated $17 billion a year. You can understand why some parts of the financial industry hated the rule. That $17 billion was going into someones pocket, and that someone finds libertarian rhetoric right handy.

The Libertarian Party, which got more than 4 million votes in the last presidential election, is enthusiastic about the order. It shouldnt be. The order is a deep betrayal of libertarianism, which holds that people should do what they want as long as they dont hurt anyone else.

Freeing businesses to hurt people is not libertarian. The libertarians at least, the ones who dont see through Trump are being played. If the crippling of the state allows economic behemoths to do whatever they like to others, then what libertarianism licenses, in the garb of liberty, is the creation of a new aristocracy, entitled to hurt the commoners. This is just a different kind of mooching and looting.

It is a new road to serfdom. It reinforces the prejudices of those on the left who repudiate capitalism. The libertarians who embrace it, thinking that they are thereby promoting freedom, are useful idiots, like the idealistic leftists of the 1930s whose hatred of poverty and racism led them to embrace Stalin. John Galt is a sap.

More:

Trump's 'libertarianism' endangers the public | GantNews.com - Gant Daily

Eternally frustrated by "liberal" universities, conservatives now want … – Vox

Outside contributors' opinions and analysis of the most important issues in politics, science, and culture.

Iowa state Sen. Mark Chelgren wants to tweak the dossier that candidates submit when they apply to teaching jobs at the states universities. In addition to a CV, sample syllabuses, and some writing samples, hed like one other thing: their party registration.

Im under the understanding that right now they can hire people because of diversity, he told the Des Moines Register. And where are university faculty less diverse than party registration? Thats the theory behind the proposed bill Chelgren has filed, which would institute a hiring freeze at state universities until the number of registered Republicans on faculty comes within 10 percent of the number of registered Democrats.

Bills proposed in state legislatures are easy fodder for outrage some wacky proposals get introduced every year. But Chelgren who, it should be noticed, claimed to hold a degree in business that turned out to be a certificate from a Sizzler steakhouse is not an outlier. In North Carolina, a similar proposal was introduced and then tabled earlier this month. And at CPAC, the conclave for conservatives held in Washington last month, newly appointed Education Secretary Betsy DeVos zeroed in on college faculty. She warned college students in the crowd to be wary of attempts to indoctrinate them: The faculty, from adjunct professors to deans, tell you what to do, what to say, and more ominously, what to think.

Fear of a liberal university faculty has been a feature of modern conservatism for decades, woven into the very foundations of the modern conservative movement although the attacks on universities have not always taken the form of legislation or calls for ideological diversity. The adoption of the language of diversity and pluralism serves mainly as a new way to skewer the left using its own vocabulary.

But no matter how often conservatives call attention to the ideological imbalance in the professorate, they fail to affect the makeup of college faculties. Indeed, faculties are markedly more liberal today than they were when the fight began. But persuading sociology departments to hire more Republicans is not really the point. Instead, these attacks have turned into a tool for undermining higher education, part of a far more serious and far less conservative project of dismantling American universities altogether.

It began with the communists. (Almost everything about modern conservatism begins with the communists.) At the dawn of the cold war, the Red Scare snaked its way through American universities, targeting left-leaning professors who found that not even tenure could save them from political persecution. The scare turned conservatives and liberals alike into happy red-hunters, as administrators and professors entered a contest of patriotic one-upmanship: loyalty oaths, hearings, purges.

Ray Ginger, a historian at Harvard Business School, was forced to resign in 1954 when he refused to take the loyalty oath Harvard demanded of him and his wife. They had to leave their home; his wife, nine months pregnant at the time, was forced to give birth as a charity patient. The marriage soon fell apart, and alcoholism claimed Gingers life at age 50. Rutgers fired two professors and allowed a third to resign after they refused to testify before the Senate red-hunt committee. No US university would hire them, and two were forced out of academia altogether.

The university scare more closely resembled the Red Scare in Hollywood than the one within the federal government. With the government, the fear was straightforward espionage: spies and blackmail and treason. With entertainment and education, it was the more nebulous fear of brainwashing, a worry that there was a softness in the American mind that could be exploited by nefarious filmmakers and professors.

For conservatives, anxieties about communist professors co-existed with anxieties about liberal ones. Indeed, a significant part of the conservative theory of politics was that the slippery slope toward communism began with New Deal-style liberalism. In his 1951 book God and Man at Yale, written in the midst of the university scare, William F. Buckley Jr. had little to say about communists. He instead made the case that Yale University had become infested with liberal professors who, in promoting secularism and Keynesian economics, had torn the school from its traditionally Christian and capitalist roots.

As McCarthyism waned, Buckleys argument became more prevalent on the right. Thanks to growing affluence and the GI Bill, millions more students were entering Americas colleges and universities. They were unlikely to become communists, but Keynesians? That was far easier to imagine.

In a 1963 piece for his Ivory Tower column in National Review (a regular feature on higher education underscoring just how much the state of Americas colleges worried the right), Russell Kirk dismissed concerns with communist professors. People who think that the Academy is honeycombed with crypto-Communists are wide of the mark, he wrote. At most, never more than 5 per cent of American college teachers were Communists. The real threat, Kirk maintained, came from liberal groupthink.

And how had the academy become so biased toward liberalism? Because administrators promoted liberals and demoted conservatives. That was the common conservative critique, anyway. William Rusher, publisher of National Review, laid out the plight of these conservative scholars: They face many tribulations. Advancement comes hard. They are victimized by their departments. Passed over for funds to support their research, Rusher argued, these conservative professors became a neglected generation of scholars.

The arguments that folks like Buckley and Kirk and Rusher were advancing in the 1950s and 1960s are nearly indistinguishable from those conservatives make today. But while the arguments have remained the same, something crucial has changed: the case for what to do about it.

Conservatives are certainly correct in their central claim: In the professoriate at large, and particularly in the humanities, the number of liberals and leftists far outstrip the number of conservative. This varies by field (you will find conservatives in in economics departments, business schools, and some sciences) and by school (Hillsdale College and Bob Jones University are hardly hotbeds of liberalism). But in general, the ivory tower indisputably tilts left. Whether this constitutes a problem that needs solving is open to debate, but even among those who feel it is a problem, solutions are hard to come by.

In God and Man at Yale, Buckley held that left-leaning faculty should be replaced by ones more in line with the universitys more conservative traditions. The best guardians of those traditions, he argued, were not faculty or administrators but alumni, who should be given the power to determine the colleges curriculum. They would do this through the power of the purse: withholding donations until the university administration became so desperate that they restructured the curriculum and changed up the faculty to meet alumni demands.

Whats important here is not the mechanism for change Buckleys alumni model was unworkable (it assumed Yale alumni all agreed with his goals and had more financial leverage than they did) but the theory behind it. Buckley was opposed to Yales liberal orthodoxies not because they were orthodoxies, but because they were liberal. He believed the university should be indoctrinating students; he just preferred they be indoctrinated in free-market capitalism and Christianity.

Over time, conservative efforts shifted from changing the liberal makeup of the university to building alternative institutions and safeguarding conservative students. Organizations like Young Americans for Freedom and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute became gathering spaces for young right-wingers, while a swath of new think tanks were erected for the purpose of getting conservative research and ideas into circulation. By the 1980s, anti-liberal student magazines like the Dartmouth Review served as feeders for Buckleys National Review and other conservative publications.

But what of the professors? They came under fire again in the 1990s and 2000s. Books like Allan Blooms Closing of the American Mind and Dinesh DSouzas Illiberal Education popularized the idea that professors infected their students with relativism, liberalism, and leftism, laying the intellectual groundwork for a new effort to limit the influence of liberal scholars.

But when those attacks came, they came wrapped in an entirely new logic and language: ideological diversity.

Lets pause here for a second, because this is important. In the 1990s, there was a real shift in American culture and politics, centered on multiculturalism and the postmodernism. Multiculturalism held that diversity was a positive value, because people from different backgrounds brought with them different perspectives, and a wide range of perspectives was good for intellectual debate. Postmodernism, a more academic idea, held at least in some of its guises that truth was inaccessible, perhaps nonexistent, that everything might be relative, everything might be perspective.

Conservatives didnt like either one of these shifts. Social conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Bill Bennett saw multiculturalism as a thinly veiled attack on the West (read: white European culture). Likewise, the rejection of knowable truths was an affront to believers in a fixed moral universe based on shared values. Multiculturalism, postmodernism these were anathema to their conservatism.

Except multiculturalism was also incredibly useful. If diversity of perspectives was good, and if universities valued that diversity enough for it be a factor in hiring, then surely the paucity of conservative professors was a wrong to be remedied?

Enter the pro-diversity conservatives, who have taken the arguments of the left and turned them into tools to expand conservatives presence in university faculty. The most visible early proponent of this approach was a former leftist, David Horowitz, who in 2003 founded the Campaign for Fairness and Inclusion in Higher Education (later renamed Students for Academic Freedom). The very name of the campaign suggested that Horowitz was committed to a pluralistic model of higher education dedicated to equity and balance.

The central project of Students for Academic Freedom was the Academic Bill of Rights. In its definition of academic freedom, the Academic Bill of Rights homed in immediately on intellectual diversity. It never mentioned conservatism, but rather advocated protecting students from the imposition of political, ideological, or religious orthodoxy. Given that Horowitz had widely criticized the one-party classroom and the liberal atmosphere of the academy, this equation of academic freedom with intellectual diversity amounted to a call to protect conservative professors and students.

That same framework could also be found in the 2009 book The Politically Correct University, published by the American Enterprise Institute. It included a chapter laying out the route to academic pluralism and another that claimed the academys definition and practice of diversity is too narrow and limited, arguing instead for a more inclusive definition of diversity that encompasses intellectual diversity.

In some rare cases, conservatives borrowed the language not just of diversity but of postmodernism. Horowitz asserted that the reason there needs to be more ideological diversity on campus is that there are no correct answers to controversial issues. This is a long way indeed from conservatives traditional rejection of relativism. Indeed, one could fairly wonder whether there was anything conservative about it at all.

So conservatives found a new argument for hiring more conservative professors. What they had not found was a way to convince universities to actually hire them. And this is the perennial problem with conservative critiques of higher education, the reason they scurried away into think tanks or places like Hillsdale college: There doesnt appear to be any mechanism to make universities hire more conservative faculty members.

This is in sharp contrast to the rights power to shape precollege education. Through school boards and state legislatures, conservatives have had real impact on public school curricula around the nation. They have won wars over textbooks, standards, even Advanced Placement guidelines. But that power smacks into a wall when it comes to higher education, where traditions of academic freedom and shared governance between faculty and administrators create real limits to external meddling.

Which is why conservatives are so often left lobbing rhetorical bombs at universities, and why bills like those in Iowa and North Carolina usually wind up quietly tabled. There is no legislative fix for ideological imbalance in the classroom, nor any general agreement that it is a problem that should be fixed.

The most interesting work being done on the topic on liberal academic groupthink is at Heterodox Academy, directed by the NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. The organization brings together scholars from across the country who are committed to promoting greater viewpoint diversity on campuses. But look through the list of solutions Haidt and his colleagues provide, and you wont find a single piece of legislation among them. Indeed, what youll find reading lists, student government resolutions, college heterodoxy ratings is aimed almost entirely at students, not at hiring committees.

The right is still intent on undercutting what they see as the liberal political power of the university. But theyre taking a different tack, pursuing their goals in more structural ways: weakening tenure, slashing budgets, upping teaching loads. It would be easy to dismiss this as simply a result of austerity programs, which have cut public services to the bone in states across America. But in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina, however, the cuts have been accompanied by rhetoric that makes the true goal clear: attacking curriculums and professors who seem too liberal, and weakening the overall power of the university.

Take North Carolina. Since Republicans took over the state government in the Tea Party wave of 2010, the states universities have been under constant attack. Centers on the environment, voter engagement, and poverty studies have all been shuttered by the Board of Governors, which is appointed by the state legislature.

No sooner had Pat McCrory come into the governors office in 2013 than he began making broadsides against the university, using stark economic measures to target liberal arts programs, like gender studies, with which he disagreed. His stated view was that university programs should be funded based on how many of their graduates get jobs.

Notably, the McCrory campaign was bankrolled by Art Pope, founder of the Pope Center for Higher Education (now the Martin Center), an organization dedicated to increasing the diversity of ideas taught on campus. As its policy director, Jay Schalin, explained in 2015, the crisis at the university stems from the ideas that are being discussed and promoted: multiculturalism, collectivism, left-wing post-modernism. He wants less Michel Foucault on campus, more Ayn Rand.

But bills calling for the banning of works by leftist historian Howard Zinn or hiring professors based on party registration havent yet made it out of the proposal stage. What has? Steep funding cuts that have led to higher tuition, smaller faculties, and reduced access to higher education for low-income students.

That is the real threat to the professorate, and to the university more broadly. And as with the strategic conservative embrace of postmodernism, it also represents an erosion of a worldview that once understood the value of an advanced education beyond mere job preparation or vocational training. Unable to reverse the ivory towers tilt, many on the right are willing to smash it altogether, another sign of the nihilism infecting the conservative project more broadly.

Nicole Hemmer, a Vox columnist, is the author of Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics. She is an assistant professor at the University of Virginias Miller Center and co-host of the Past Present podcast.

The Big Idea is Voxs home for smart, often scholarly excursions into the most important issues and ideas in politics, science, and culture typically written by outside contributors. If you have an idea for a piece, pitch us at thebigidea@vox.com.

More here:

Eternally frustrated by "liberal" universities, conservatives now want ... - Vox

Liberals extend tax credit review beyond 2017 federal budget, keeping an eye on Trump – The Globe and Mail

A federal tax-reform plan will not be concluded in time for Finance Minister Bill Morneaus 2017 budget as the Liberal government waits to see how promised tax changes in the United States will affect Canada.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals pledged to raise $3-billion in new revenue by eliminating tax breaks that primarily benefit wealthy Canadians or are ineffective.

March 22 federal budget will focus on job growth: Morneau (The Canadian Press)

Mr. Morneau had intended the budget to reflect the final results of a review of all tax credits, but sources say the process will extend beyond that date. The budget, to be delivered on March 22, is likely to eliminate some tax credits and will also focus on skills training in response to rapid changes in the work force.

Read more: To paint a portrait of the Liberals federal budget, Morneau will have to get crafty

Our budget will be very much about trying to increase jobs in this country, to create opportunities for people today, for their children and for their grandchildren, Mr. Morneau said. It will be about how we can help Canadians get the skills that they need in a dynamic and changing economy. Mr. Morneau has little room for new spending, so his budget is not expected to include a major change in direction. It will provide new detail on existing government plans for infrastructure spending, innovation and research in addition to the review of tax credits. Business groups had argued that the more complex aspects of the tax reforms would need more debate and consultation beyond the budget date.

Tax credits are worth more than $100-billion a year in forgone federal revenue. They cover everything from tax breaks for apprentice vehicle mechanics buying tools to deductions related to investments such as stock options or the sale of a primary residence.

Extending the tax review would allow the government time to see how U.S. President Donald Trump implements his pledges of major tax reform and factor that in to its own plans. Business groups say Canada could be at a disadvantage when it comes to retaining companies and highly skilled workers if the United States sharply reduces personal and business tax rates.

Sources say the budgets focus on skills will be part of a longer-term approach to the economy as the ratio of working-age Canadians to retirees shrinks. Measures to encourage specific groups including aboriginals, low-income people and women with young children to boost their participation in the work force will be a central theme.

Well be thinking about not only how we can grow the economy, but how we can ensure that Canadians are prepared for the exciting and good opportunities that will come out not only for this generation, but for the next generation as well, Mr. Morneau told reporters after announcing the budget date in the House of Commons.

Conservative finance critic Grard Deltell said he hopes the government shelves the tax credit review in light of the changes in the United States.

If the Trump administration tables some new direction to have less fees and less tax for business, well, we must address it because its very serious, Mr. Deltell said. America, as you know, is our most important partner, but also our most important competitor.

The Conservatives also want a more ambitious timeline for erasing the deficit. A finance department report recently said the budget will not be balanced until the 2050s.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said the Liberals should follow through on closing tax loopholes for the rich and deliver on their promises to Indigenous people.

Mr. Morneaus advisory council on economic growth which worked directly with the Finance Minister and his team over the past year called for an increased focus on skills training in a February report.

The Liberal government was elected on a central plank of running deficits to boost economic growth through infrastructure spending, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer and a Senate committee say the money has been slow to get out the door.

The 2017 budget is expected to provide more detailed breakdowns of the long-term spending plan for infrastructure. The numbers are not likely to change much from what Mr. Morneau outlined in his Nov. 1 fiscal update, which increased the total to $186.7-billion over 12 years.

While some new projects are expected to be highlighted in the budget as examples of what is to come, funding announcements on big projects will have to wait. Ottawa has not formally launched its second phase of funding for large projects, which means provinces have not submitted wish lists.

Mr. Morneaus Nov. 1 update added trade and transportation as well as rural and northern communities to the three categories public transit, green infrastructure and social infrastructure on which the Liberals have promised to focus.

One senior government official said the budget will have more to say on federal efforts to promote trade infrastructure.

John Gamble, president and CEO of the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies Canada, said his members are not seeing evidence of increased construction in spite of promises from the Liberals and the Conservatives before them to hike infrastructure spending.

Were very excited and very supportive of the fact that weve seen three successive budgets, from two governments, and each one of them has legitimately claimed to be the largest infrastructure investment in Canadian history, he said. However, in practical terms, we have just not seen the corresponding level of design activity so far. We know there are a lot of reasons. Were just trying to convey a sense of urgency.

With a report from Robert Fife

Follow Bill Curry on Twitter: @curryb

Link:

Liberals extend tax credit review beyond 2017 federal budget, keeping an eye on Trump - The Globe and Mail

Liberal costings for $2.8 billion worth of projects reasonable, says Treasury – WAtoday

Treasury costings of WA Liberal promises have shown the party's estimates are reasonable.

The Liberals have made more than $2.8 billion in promises, including the controversial Perth Freight Link project.

"The estimates have been based on a sound information set and methodologies," WA's Under-Treasurer Michael Barnes said on Wednesday.

Premier Colin Barnett said earlier on Wednesday he was confident the pledges would be roughly on the money.

"We have taken great care in 70 different policy areas to indicate what we believe the cost of each will be ... totally contingent on Western Power being sold," Mr Barnett told reporters.

"That is in sharp, sharp contrast to the Labor party."

Mr Barnett earlier lashed Labor for not subjecting $5 billion worth of promises, including $2.5 billion for its flagship Metronet rail project, to the same scrutiny.

Rather than hand Treasury its costings details, Labor has enlisted two former senior public servants, including former Public Sector Commissioner Mike Wood, to run the ruler over its numbers.

Labor has questioned the independence of Treasury, accusing the Liberals of planting a stooge in its briefing with the government department ahead of the 2013 state election.

Mr Barnett recently claimed Mr Wood had a close connection to former Labor premier Brian Burke, who was jailed for rorting travel expenses.

WA Labor leader Mark McGowan said he was confident the release of the party's costings on Thursday would rebut Barnett government suggestions they "don't add up".

- AAP

Excerpt from:

Liberal costings for $2.8 billion worth of projects reasonable, says Treasury - WAtoday

How I Learnt That Liberals In India Are Not Really Liberal – Swarajya

If you like Modi so much, why dont you go, sleep with Modi? The first time someone asked me this question was in 2013 when I had just started writing on Facebook about my political beliefs. I was engaged in a fierce debate about Narendra Modi with a few people when this question landed in my comment box.

Thirteen words that changed my world view forever!

I was shocked not so much by the viciousness and venom of the question, but by the identity of the person who asked it. He was a mild-looking 65-year-old man with a flowing white beard. Almost Tagore-like in his looks, he was a self-professed Marxist who claimed to publish a dubious rag called Civil Society! Apparently, his idea of civil society allowed him to throw sexual slurs at a woman he did not even know personally.

It was my first brush with the intolerance of the liberals! Since then, I have been abused, threatened and ridiculed by people who call themselves liberals thousands of times. There are parody pages dedicated to me. Fake profiles are created in my name, and my photographs are morphed and circulated as Facebook and Twitter memes.

All in the name of liberalism, feminism and freedom of expression.

Once I had written about the feminist ploy of generalisation, of demonising all Indian men each time there is an incident of crime against women in India. I was told by someone who called herself a feminist to go back into the kitchen and stay there. Women like you dont deserve the right to speak, she announced rather grandly. This was not the first time I had faced ridicule from self-professed feminists. A supposedly liberal writer had once condescendingly called me a mediocre housewife turned columnist when he couldnt argue cogently about something that I had written.

Apparently, irony as a concept is unfamiliar to some Facebook feminists!

I refuse to label myself as a feminist, only because, at least in India these days, the term is being thrown about very casually. It has come to mean a rabid, blinding hatred of men. But that does not mean I condone gender discrimination.

I am appalled when I see rape threats and sexual slurs being bandied about by some people to silence the voice of women, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they choose to be on. As a woman who has been viciously attacked both in virtual as well as real life for daring to speak up, I can never be on the side of sexism and gender discrimination.

As a child raised by a freedom-fighter and a strong mother, I was always encouraged to speak up, to voice my opinions, to say what I think is right, rather than parrot a narrative that is 'au courant'. I grew up with a deep love for India ingrained in me. I had heard many stories about that tumultuous decade in my fathers life when he was an armed revolutionary fighting for Goas freedom from the Portuguese.

At 21, my father was declared the Most Wanted Rebel by the Portuguese regime for daring to lead a successful raid on a Portuguese armoury. I had seen the scars on my grand-uncles back, mementoes of the time when he was arrested, beaten and tortured by the Portuguese police because they wanted him to reveal information about my father. I had heard first hand, stories about how my father and his colleagues were chased for over eight hours by a Portuguese armoured van mounted with an automatic gun and how they walked 30 km on foot on an empty stomach through the night in a daring escape.

I inherited my love for India and my respect for the armed forces from my father. It was only when I joined the mass communication department of Pune University, to pursue my master's degree, that I realised that patriotism was a bad word in the liberal dictionary. Whenever I spoke in class about India and nationalism, there were voices dismissing it as rubbish sentimentalism.

Humanities students were not supposed to be such bigoted chest-thumping rabid hyper-nationalists, they said. When we were shown Anand Patwardhans movie Ram ke Naam in class, we were supposed to display the requisite feelings of revulsion and horror at the conduct of Hindu nationalists. When some of us felt that the movie was a poorly researched, very biased, one-sided narrative, we were not allowed to voice that thought.

In the brave new world of journalism, patriotism was pass!

After graduating from the University, I started my career in entertainment television, moved on to editing websites, writing freelance for newspapers on varied subjects like culture, travel, education and leisure. I steered clear of politics, for what I saw, sickened me. The convenient one-sided narrative that was being peddled by mainstream media as the only truth led me to question the credibility of mainstream media.

And then, something wonderful happened. The remarkable phenomenon called 'social media'. For the first time, people like me had found a medium to voice our opinions, without any filters, censorship or editorial interference. The average Indian citizen was no longer a passive consumer of news as defined by mainstream media, but she could be an active contributor.

I started writing political blogs from my Facebook page. The first post that went viral was written in January 2013, when Rahul Gandhi was elevated to the vice president of the Congress party. Suddenly, my opinion had gone mainstream without needing the crutches of conventional media, and there were a lot of people out there who agreed with my point of view.

Since then, it has been quite a journey. It has been incredibly rewarding to have complete strangers reach out to tell me that they too are sick of mainstream media demonising the concepts of nationalism, patriotism and love for India. I have had readers approach me in places as far flung as Darjeeling, Sikkim, Kinnaur or Kanchi to tell me that I am voicing their opinion. Luckily, I have an extremely supportive husband and extended family that has helped me remain strong in the face of abuse and personal threats.

I think it was Martin Luther King Jr. who had said, Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

I am glad I chose to live!

See original here:

How I Learnt That Liberals In India Are Not Really Liberal - Swarajya

MPs reject Liberal government’s attempt to gut genetic discrimination bill – CBC.ca

An attempt by the Liberal governmentto gut the genetic discriminationbill was defeated by a coalition of MPs from across party lines Tuesday evening, despite constitutional concerns raised by Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Alberta Liberal MPRandyBoissonnaulthadintroduced a motion in the House to remove key sections of the legislation, including those relating topenalties for genetic discriminationand languageforbidding employers from subjecting job applicants to a genetic test. His efforts to dramatically reduce the bill'sscope weredefeated in a voice vote.

A number of Liberal backbenchers, including Toronto-areaMPs Jennifer O'ConnellandPam Damoff, spoke in favour of Bill S-201 An Act to Prohibit and Prevent Genetic Discrimination as originally drafted by recently retired Liberal senator Jim Cowan.

Conservative and NDP MPs also offered their support and chided the cabinet for accepting the "scaremongering" rhetoricof the insurance industry.

Now, at the request of the government, there will be a recorded vote (also referred to as a standing vote) on Boissonault's amendmentsWednesday evening.

Cowan said in an interview with CBC News Tuesday that the Trudeau cabinet's opposition to the bill is "curious" given the party's vocal embrace ofsuch legislation during the last election campaign and raisedthe possibility that aggressive lobbying efforts by the insurance industrysoured support.

Anna Gainey, the president of the federal Liberals, wroteto the Canadian Coalition for Genetic Fairness in October 2015 promising a Liberal government would "introduce measures, including possible legislative change, to prevent this [genetic] discrimination."

"Today, even people without symptoms can be denied life, mortgage and disability insurance and even rejected for employment based on genetic testing that shows risk of future illness. Many other countries have passed legislation on this problem. Canada is an outlier," she said in the letter addressed to the chair of the coalition, Bev Heim-Myers, and obtained by the CBC News.

Public lobbying records show there have been a number of meetings between the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Associationand ManulifeFinancialand senior members of Wilson-Raybould's office over thelast year where Bill S-201was the subject of conversation.

Liberal P.E.I. MP Sean Casey,who was, until recently,the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, was also lobbied by the insurance associationsix times in the last year.

Cowan, who introduced the legislation in the Red Chamber more than a year ago, pointed to the lobbying efforts as a potential explanation for the cabinet's skittishness.

"All I can say is look at the number of lobbyists from the insurance industry; they have been very, very active at the federal and provincial levels, and they've been lobbying [the government] very heavily, and lobbying MPs and senators. Now, is that the reason [the cabinet] is opposed to this bill? Some would say yes. But, as they say, I couldn't possibly comment."

After a strong commitment for the bill from the party in the last election, "it makes no sense to me," said Cowan.

Records are vague as to what was discussed during these lobbyist meetings, but the industry has not hidden its opposition to Cowan's private member'sbill, a piece of legislation easily passed the Senate last April, and the House of Commons justice committee inDecember.

Bill S-201, introduced by Cowanin December 2015, would add genetic characteristics as a protected ground under the Canadian Human Rights Act, introducepenalties for discrimination, and forbid employers from subjecting job applicants to a genetic test.

Recently retired Liberal senator James Cowan says aggressive lobbying by the insurance industry could be the reason the Trudeau cabinet is now opposed to his genetic discrimination bill. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

The bill would also allow people to refuse to disclose the results of a genetic test to anybody. Medical experts have said the legislation is necessary to counter the fears associated with potentially lifesaving genetic testing, which could produce resultsthat would help doctors better tailor health treatments.

The insurance industry recently committed to never asking an applicant to undergo a genetic test, but said it will ask for and retain the right to potentially use genetic testing information for life insurance applications for coverage over$250,000.

"The $250,000 limit helps ensure that individuals with knowledge of significant health risks through genetic testing information, cannot apply for unusually large life insurance policies without disclosing this information. Otherwise, the cost of insurance would increase for everyone and fewer Canadians would be able to afford coverage," the group said in a statement.

Cowan said there is no proof of widespread fraud in any other jurisdiction that has protections against genetic discrimination, including in the U.S., Great Britain, France and Israel.

"Their initial point was this will ruin the insurance industry as we know it. What's happened in all other countries that have protections like this? As far aswe know the insurance industry is doing just fine," he said.

Wilson-Raybould has said she is opposed to the legislationbecause she believesit treads on provincial jurisdiction over the insurance industry. (The bill does not specifically mention the insurance industry by name.)

She recently wrote a letter to the Council of the Federation, the group that represents the provinces and territories, asking for its opinion on the legislation.Three provinces, B.C., Manitoba, and Quebec,have raised some issues with the bill as written.

NDP MP Don Davies said during the House debate on Tuesday that the government'sclaims of constitutional problems are "a smokescreen and no more."

Cowanadded constitutional experts have been widely consulted on the bill, and have testified beforethe Senate and House committees that Parliament is well within its rights tolegislate in this area.

He said hewrote letters to the provinces when drafting this legislation and not one responded to his inquiries with any concerns about the bill.

CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content

See the original post:

MPs reject Liberal government's attempt to gut genetic discrimination bill - CBC.ca

The Liberal Democrats should learn to respect democracy, even if they don’t like the Brexit result – Telegraph.co.uk

Is there any party less aptly named than the Liberal Democrats? A truly liberal party would embrace the chance to shape Britains future as a self-governing nation outside the EU, free to trade with the world. And a democratic one would respect what the people voted for in one of the biggest exercises of democracy in modern times. Instead, the Lib Dems want to stop Brexit.

With only nine MPs, the Lib Dems can do little harm in the House of Commons, but there are over 100 of them in the House of Lords, many rashly given peerages by David Cameron to placate his Coalition allies. Those peers are seeking to force the Government to hold a second referendum on the final Brexit deal; they say they will vote against the Bill that will authorise Theresa May to trigger Article 50 unless their scheme for another public vote is written into law.

Continued here:

The Liberal Democrats should learn to respect democracy, even if they don't like the Brexit result - Telegraph.co.uk

Liberals threaten Democrats over support for Gorsuch – Washington Times

Liberal activists are increasingly upset at what they see as too little opposition to President Trumps Supreme Court nominee and are even threatening to run primary challengers against Democrats in the Senate who end up supporting Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Nearly a dozen influential liberal groups fired off a letter this week calling Judge Gorsuch an ultra-conservative and demanding a more unified opposition.

We need you to do better, the groups said in the letter, which was organized by NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Several news outlets reported that the groups may even back primary opponents against Democrats who dont show enough opposition.

On Capitol Hill, liberal senators are looking for lines of attack against Judge Gorsuch, who until now has received glowing reviews from many of the senators including Democrats with whom he has met.

Three Democrats held a press conference Tuesday to question Judge Gorsuchs rulings on workers rights, saying some of his decisions as an appellate judge contradict Mr. Trumps promises to empower American workers.

Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat, said Judge Gorsuch has a distinctly anti-worker record.

She pointed to a ruling against a woman who lost her job after a leukemia diagnosis, against a female employees discrimination case and against a truck driver who was fired for leaving his post because of health concerns.

Im very concerned that should he end up on the court, he would side with conservative justices in continuing to undermine worker protections, safety and ability to organize, Ms. Murray said.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel at the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, said Ms. Murray and her colleagues were cherry-picking cases to distort the judges record.

She said Judge Gorsuch, as a lawyer, won a major antitrust case against U.S. Tobacco Co. and, as a judge, wrote a ruling that restored multimillion-dollar penalties against Dow Chemical Co. and Rockwell International.

Early efforts to undermine Judge Gorsuch have fallen flat, leaving ardent Democrats looking for new angles of attack.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, requested documents from the Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, two conservative organizations that helped shape Mr. Trumps list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

The wholesale outsourcing of nominee selection to interest groups is without known precedent, especially for a position as important as associate justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Blumenthal said.

Ms. Murray said liberal groups frustration should be aimed at Mr. Trump.

With all the chaos surrounding this new administration, I want to make it clear I have really serious concerns about moving forward with the nominee at this time, she said.

I think there is a lot going on that makes it very hard to look at anything that they are doing. The hide the ball campaign is real, and this is a serious nomination that should take serious consideration, Ms. Murray said.

Despite the liberal uprising, Judge Gorsuch made rounds Tuesday on Capitol Hill and met with four Senate Democrats.

Sen. Al Franken, Minnesota Democrat, told reporters that he wasnt satisfied with some of Judge Gorsuchs answers to his questions and thought he got into judgespeak.

Hes met with 70 senators, so I think hes probably gotten pretty good at speaking around some things, Mr. Franken said.

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he doesnt expect Democrats to put aside politics because they are furious that the voters would dare vote for a Republican president and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

I have no doubt the Democrats will use whatever procedural tools they have to delay that confirmation, Mr. Cruz said.

See more here:

Liberals threaten Democrats over support for Gorsuch - Washington Times

Document: Pentagon 2016 Freedom of Navigation Report – USNI News

The followings is the Fiscal Year 2016 summary of the Department of Defense freedom of navigation operations.

Albania*

Prior authorization required for foreign warships to enter the territorial sea (TTS); excessive straight baselines.

Brazil

Consent required for military exercises or maneuvers in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Cambodia

Excessive straight baselines.

China*

Excessive straight baselines; jurisdiction over airspace above the EEZ; restriction on foreign aircraft flying through an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) without the intent to enter national airspace; domestic law criminalizing survey activity by foreign entities in the EEZ; prior permission required for innocent passage of foreign military ships through the TTS.

Croatia

Prior notification required for foreign warships to exercise innocent passage in the TTS.

India*

Prior consent required for military exercises or maneuvers in the EEZ; security jurisdiction claimed in the contiguous zone.

Indonesia*

Limits on archipelagic sea lane passage through normal routes used for international navigation; prior notification required for foreign warships to enter the TTS and archipelagic waters; restriction on stopping, dropping anchor, or cruising without legitimate reason in seas adjoining TTS.

Iran*

Restrictions on right of transit passage through Strait of Hormuz to Parties of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; prohibition on foreign military activities and practices in the EEZ.

Italy

Claimed historic bay status for the Gulf of Taranto.

Japan

Excessive straight baselines.

Malaysia*

Prior authorization required for nuclear-powered ships to enter the TTS; military exercises or maneuvers in the EEZ requires prior consent.

Maldives*

Prior authorization required for foreign ships to enter the EEZ.

Malta

Passage by foreign warships through the TTS subject to prior consent or prior notification.

Oman*

Prior permission required for innocent passage of foreign military ships through the TTS; requirement for innocent passage through the Strait of Hormuz (an international strait).

Pakistan*

Prior consent required for foreign warships to conduct military exercises or maneuvers in the EEZ.

Philippines*

Claims archipelagic waters as internal waters.

South Korea

Excessive straight baselines; prior notification required for foreign military or government vessels to enter the TTS.

Taiwan*

Prior notification required for foreign military or government vessels to enter the TTS.

Thailand

Excessive straight baselines; consent required for military exercises in the EEZ.

Tunisia

Excessive straight baselines.

Venezuela*

Prior permission for overflight of the EEZ and Flight Identification Region (FIR).

Vietnam*

Prior notification required for foreign warships to enter the TTS.

* designates multiple challenges to the claim(s) during the reporting period.

Go here to read the rest:

Document: Pentagon 2016 Freedom of Navigation Report - USNI News

Trump’s anti-immigrant policies causing severe pain in Detroit – Michronicleonline


Michronicleonline
Trump's anti-immigrant policies causing severe pain in Detroit
Michronicleonline
Over the past fiscal year, Freedom House has helped 136 people from 26 different countries, 85 percent of whom were from Africa. The average length of stay was 217 days. Additionally, there were 7 percent from the Middle East, 3 percent from Asia, and ...
Attorneys, Refugee Advocates Clash With Trump On Revised Immigration OrderWSHU
Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United StatesThe White House

all 85 news articles »

See the original post:

Trump's anti-immigrant policies causing severe pain in Detroit - Michronicleonline

Mike Pence vs. the House Freedom Caucus? – Washington Examiner

When Paul Ryan wanted to spend more money, his budget got blown up. When John Boehner tried the same thing earlier on, an axe suddenly came down on his head. And now that Obamacare repeal is on the table, Vice President Mike Pence must succeed where those House speakers failed.

Specifically, Pence must win over the combative and determined House Freedom Caucus. Nothing less than the entire White House healthcare agenda rests on his ability to woo 40 of the most conservative representatives in the 435-member House. Already, though, it's been tough going.

In a closed-door meeting on the Hill this morning, Pence warned Republicans not to mount a revolt against a recently released Obamacare repeal package. A few hours later, members of the Freedom Caucus gathered for a press conference in front of the Capitol to give their answer.

"Our goal is real simple," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told a gaggle of reporters, "bring down the cost of insurance for working and middle-class families across the country." Without addressing Pence by name, Jordan dismissed the vice president, describing the American Healthcare Act as "Obamacare in a different form."

Specifically, the feathers of the fiscal hawks have been ruffled by the news Republican leadership planned to install a new system of refundable tax credits and keep Obamacare's Medicaid expansion in place until 2020. Long story short: The Freedom Caucus won't listen.

That's not exactly a surprising development. Both Jordan and Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., told the Washington Examiner that leadership's repeal bill was a non-starter. "It doesn't matter who comes to us and asks us to go along with this devastating program," Brat said late Monday night. "The answer will be no." That's a bitter and personal bummer for everyone involved.

Last September, after Ryan told House Republicans to go their own way, Freedom Caucus members went out campaigning for the Trump-Pence ticket. When the nominee was behind by double digits, Brat and Jordan were climbing onstage next to the vice president in Ohio and Virginia. Ever since Trump won that election, though, the conservative faction has been losing influence.

Like a cheap date, the White House has taken a shine to leadership and left behind the Freedom Caucus. Sure, Trump elevated an original member of the Freedom Caucus, South Carolina Rep. Mick Mulvaney, to head up his Budget Office. Other than personnel changes, though, the administration hasn't followed the group's lead on policy. Soon things will get even more awkward.

Tomorrow, Jordan plans to head to the House floor and introduce a 2015 bill that thoroughly guts Obamacare. But when he dredges up the pastjust three House Republicans voted against the bill before Obama vetoed itthere won't be any going back.

Also from the Washington Examiner

House conservatives aren't jumping on board with the Republican leadership's healthcare plan despite cajoling over the last 36 hours from top lawmakers, and two prominent members are sending out the message that they'll go their own way.

Rep. Mark Meadows and Rep. Jim Jordan, the first two chairmen of the House Freedom Caucus, said Wednesday they're introducing a clean repeal of the Affordable Care Act and they refuse to get on board with the House GOP plan heading to committee Wednesday.

Jordan said on MSNBC that it's fulfilling a promise to the American people.

"Let's do what we told them we're going to do," he said. "Let's do what they sent us here to do.

03/08/17 8:51 AM

Just like they bucked Boehner and Ryan before, the Freedom Caucus will be revolting against the White House. And right now, there doesn't seem like there's anything Pence can do about it.

Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Original post:

Mike Pence vs. the House Freedom Caucus? - Washington Examiner

SRSG statement on the occasion of International Women Day 8 March 2017 Towards equal participation of women in … – Reliefweb

As we celebrate International Women's Day, I think of the courageous Libyan women who played a key role in sparking the 2011 revolution. Today, women play a pivotal role in preserving their families freedom from fear and freedom from want. Unfortunately, they are still too often deprived from a real freedom of speech, and absent from the political life. Only with a fair participation of women in all levels of the Libyan political and social life, can peace security and prosperity be achieved.

Libyan women have provided critical assistance to vulnerable people affected by armed conflict, something that has been recognized beyond the countrys borders. The women of Libyan population are too often the most affected by the conflict. Libyan women and girls are more vulnerable to kidnapping, physical assault and other forms of violence.

Recently, the courage of Libyan women was applauded across the region and the world when they you stood up fearlessly and united against a travel ban preventing them from traveling outside of Libya.

What women are demanding today will shape the future of young girls and generations to come in Libya, to enjoy a life free from fear, violence, and conflict with access to education, technology and knowledge. There can be no claim of democratic and modern state without their full and active participation in political, social and economic initiatives.

As recalled by this years theme of the International Women Day, by 2030, we must achieve a 50-50 representation of women and men in the workplace, including in decision-making positions in state institutions and civil society organizations. The United Nations will always stay committed to support and empower Libyan women as effective agents for peace in Libya.

I wish all Libyan women, girls and men a successful and fruitful International Womens Day. Continue to fight for your rights. We, the people of the United Nations will continue to stand by your side.

Note to Editors

International Womens Day 2017: The official United Nations theme for International Women's Day, 8 March, 2017 is Women in the Changing World of Work: Planet 50-50 by 2030. The world of work is changing, and with significant implications for women. On the one hand, we have globalization, technological and digital revolution and the opportunities they bring, and on the other hand, the growing informality of labour, unstable livelihoods and incomes, new fiscal and trade policies and environmental impacts all of which must be addressed in the context of womens economic empowerment.

Resolution 1325: The Security Council adopted resolution (S/RES/1325) on women and peace and security on 31 October 2000. The resolution reaffirms the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts, peace negotiations, peace-building, peacekeeping, humanitarian response and in post-conflict reconstruction and stresses the importance of their equal participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security. Resolution 1325 urges all actors to increase the participation of women and incorporate gender perspectives in all United Nations peace and security efforts. It also calls on all parties to conflict to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse, in situations of armed conflict. The resolution provides a number of important operational mandates, with implications for Member States and the entities of the United Nations system.

Link:

SRSG statement on the occasion of International Women Day 8 March 2017 Towards equal participation of women in ... - Reliefweb

Game of Thrones gave financial independence to actor Conleth Hill – Bollywood Life

Northern Irish actor Conleth Hill says popular fantasy drama series Game of Throneshas brought some balance in his career, as well as financial independence.

Hill, who is seen as a bald-headed eunuch Lord Varys in the hit TV series Game of Thrones, talked about how his life changed after the series with whatsonstage.com, read a statement from Star World, which airs the show in India.

Asked if the show made it difficult for him to fit in theatre and film too, Hill said not really.

Its such a large cast that you are never overused. Its not so taxing. I suppose earlier in my career I wouldnt have been able to do film and TV as much because I would have been in a play for so long. I did a lot of long runs when I was younger, he said.

Hill also said that with Game of Thrones, they do it six months a year at the most.

So when youre not working on it, you get to do something else. Its a bit like being semi-retired, he said, adding that its a very great and rare thing for an actor to have that.

So I suppose Game of Throneshas given me financial independence. But its never been about the money for me. I always did things I really wanted to do, he added.

The season seven of Game of Thronesis due to be back on Star World Premiere HD in India later this year.

See original here:

Game of Thrones gave financial independence to actor Conleth Hill - Bollywood Life

International Women’s Day – Investing for financial independence – Simple Landlords Insurance (press release) (blog)

People invest in property for all sorts of reasons. Some want it to support them in retirement, some invest to help get their children on the property ladder, childrens education, others for a bit of extra pocket money. For me, it was about independence and having the freedom to make choices about your life.

My personal journey as a landlady started by accident. My marriage had broken down and I was left in the marital home with my baby daughter. Renting out rooms allowed us to survive and pay the bills that kept on coming.

After I trained as a lawyer I saved enough money to invest in buy-to-let properties and became a deliberate landlady. Initially as an amateur landlady, I learnt the hard way and made a lot of expensive mistakes. I then got financially educated and became a multiple award winning property investor. I have always treated my tenants as customers who deserve excellent accommodation and service, and I found this rewarding both ethically and I wanted them to make it their homes and stay for longer and look after the properties.

My investment continued and I was able to fall back on property income again when I lost my six-figure salary job in a law firm during the 2008 recession. When I became seriously ill three years later and was unable to work, the money from my buy-to-let properties once more become a life line and allowed me the time I needed to recover. Property for me is all about choices and preparing for the unknown, the uncertainties of life. I built my portfolio part time and as a single mum. Its something anyone can do with the right guidance and support. We cant ignore the changes in the private rented sector at the moment, and particularly the tax changes coming into force at the moment. These may alter landlords investment strategies such as whether you should buy, renovate, and sell a property, or buy and hold onto it for longer. What it doesnt change is the reality that quality housing in the private rented sector, in the right areas, remains in high demand. Step by step Ive mentored hundreds of buy-to-let beginners and seasoned investors whose ultimate ambition is to become financially free to the point that they can choose to leave their job. My advice is to work towards financial independence milestones in three phases:- 1. Calculate your monthly expenses and aim for your property to pay for those 2. Grow your property portfolio so that the rental income can replace your full monthly take home salary 3. Work out how much you need to support your lifestyle Working in that way is more manageable than setting out with an immediate ambition of huge monthly income and allows you to learn about property investment at a sensible pace. My own portfolio is now worth several million and Ive made plenty of expensive mistakes along the way. So surround yourself with the right knowledgeable experts such lawyer, a skilled accountant, good letting agents, property mentor and be clear about your financial and personal goals. Financial independence is in your reach.

Bindar Dosanjh is an award winning, financially free property investor, mentor, international speaker and lawyer with a portfolio worth several million pounds all done part time and as a single parent. She has mentored hundreds of people just like you to achieve the similar goals. Her motto is if I can do it so can you"

See original here:

International Women's Day - Investing for financial independence - Simple Landlords Insurance (press release) (blog)

Sealand – The Principality of Sealand

The Principality of Sealand, located on an abandoned World War II anti-aircraft platform seven miles (11 km) off the English coast, claims that it is a legitimate independent country, but that's quite doubtful.

In 1967, retired British Army major Roy Bates occupied the abandoned Rough's Tower, located 60 feet above the North Sea, northeast of London and opposite the mouth of the Orwell River and Felixstowe.

He and his wife, Joan, discussed independence with British attorneys and subsequently declared independence for the Principality of Sealand on September 2, 1967 (Joan's birthday).

Bates called himself Prince Roy and named his wife Princess Joan and lived on Sealand with their two children, Michael and Penelope ("Penny"). The Bates' began issuing coins, passports, and stamps for their new country.

In support of the Principality of Sealand's sovereignty, Prince Roy fired warning shots at a buoy repair boat that came close to Sealand. The Prince was charged by the British government with unlawful possession and discharge of a firearm. The Essex court proclaimed that they didn't have jurisdiction over the tower and the British government chose to drop the case due to mockery by the media.

That case represents Sealand's entire claim to de facto international recognition as an independent country.

(The United Kingdom demolished the only other nearby tower lest others get the idea to also strive for independence.)

In 2000, the Principality of Sealand came into the news because a company called HavenCo Ltd planned on operating a complex of Internet servers at Sealand, out of the reach of governmental control.

HavenCo gave the Bates family $250,000 and stock to lease Rough's Tower with the option of purchasing Sealand in the future.

This transaction was especially satisfying to the Bates as the maintenance and support of Sealand has been quite expensive over the past 40 years.

There are eight accepted criteria used to determine whether an entity is an independent country or not. Let's examine and answer each of the requirements of being an independent country with respect to Sealand and its "sovereignty."

1) Has space or territory that has internationally recognized boundaries.

No. The Principality of Sealand has no land or boundaries at all, it's a tower built by the British as an anti-aircraft platform during World War II. Certainly, the government of the U.K. can assert that it owns this platform.

Sealand also lies within the United Kingdom's proclaimed 12-nautical-mile territorial water limit. Sealand claims that since it asserted its sovereignty before the U.K. extended its territorial waters, the concept of being "grandfathered in" applies. Sealand also claims its own 12.5 nautical miles of territorial water.

2) People live there on an ongoing basis.

Not really. As of 2000, only one person lived at Sealand, to be replaced by temporary residents working for HavenCo.

Prince Roy maintained his U.K. citizenship and passport, lest he ends up somewhere where Sealand's passport wasn't recognized. (No countries legitimately recognize the Sealand passport; those who have used such passports for international travel likely encountered an official who didn't care to notice the passport's "country" of origin.)

3) Has economic activity and an organized economy. A State regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.

No. HavenCo represents Sealand's only economic activity up to now. While Sealand issued money, there's no use for it beyond collectors. Likewise, Sealand's stamps only have value to a philatelist (stamp collector) as Sealand is not a member of the Universal Postal Union; mail from Sealand can't be sent elsewhere (nor is there much sense in mailing a letter across the tower itself).

4) Has the power of social engineering, such as education.

Perhaps. If it had any citizens.

5) Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.

No.

6) Has a government which provides public services and police power.

Yes, but that police power is certainly not absolute. The United Kingdom can assert its authority over Sealand quite easily with a few police officers.

7) Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the State's territory.

No. The United Kingdom has power over the Principality of Sealand's territory. The British government was quoted in Wired, "Although Mr. Bates styles the platform as the Principality of Sealand, the U.K. government does not regard Sealand as a state."

8) Has external recognition. A State has been "voted into the club" by other States.

No. No other country recognizes the Principality of Sealand. An official from the United States Department of State was quoted in Wired, "There are no independent principalities in the North Sea. As far as we are concerned, they are just Crown dependencies of Britain."

The British Home Office was quoted by the BBC that the United Kingdom does not recognize Sealand and, "We've no reason to believe that anyone else recognises it either."

The Principality of Sealand fails on six of eight requirements to be considered an independent country and on the other two requirements, they're qualified affirmatives. Therefore, I think we can safely say that the Principality of Sealand is no more a country than my own backyard.

Note: Prince Roy passed away on October 9, 2012, after battling Alzheimer's. His son, Prince Michael, has become the regent of Sealand.

Read more:

Sealand - The Principality of Sealand

Why everyone hates the GOP’s new health plan – The Week Magazine

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Just how pathetic is the contemporary Republican Party?

So pathetic that it voted dozens of times to repeal the Affordable Care Act without having any coherent idea of, or consensus about, what it wanted to pass as an alternative (despite repeated claims to the contrary).

So pathetic that it committed itself to passing a replacement bill on an arbitrary deadline that ensured the end result would be filled with flaws that experts on its own side could identify within a few hours.

So pathetic that it appears not to have realized that an army of conservative activists and right-wing health-care wonks, along with a bevy of Republican politicians, would respond to the American Health Care Act with open disdain.

So pathetic that some liberal commentators have speculated (in a half-serious way) that House Speaker Paul Ryan must have intended for the AHCA to go down in flames, since he couldn't possibly be inept enough to oversee such a debacle of a rollout. (For the record, I don't think Ryan is anywhere close to being clever enough to pull off something of that scope.)

On health care, Republicans know one thing: They despise the ACA with a blinding fury. But beyond that, they have no idea what to do.

How do we know that? Because the AHCA is a sloppy, muddled mess of a bill that's seemingly designed to please no one, except for rich people who want their taxes lowered. (In which case it's hard to understand why the House didn't simply pass a deficit-financed tax cut for upper income families and leave the ACA alone.)

Aside from the perfunctory tax cut, there's really nothing in the bill to satisfy the desires of the hardcore libertarian faction of the GOP that very clearly does know what it wants namely, a "free market" system of health care for everything except bare-minimum catastrophic coverage. That's been the notional goal of Republican reformers at least since the ACA passed in 2010.

The only problem is that the transition to a more market-based system would inflict enormous pain on many millions of Americans who carry forms of insurance that are made available and affordable by the heavily regulated and subsidized system we currently have. Now, some of the Ayn Rand-quoting libertarian true believers who make up the House Freedom Caucus would undoubtedly vote for a such a bill, no matter how much suffering it imposed. Ideologues are like that. But most politicians are far too self-interested to willingly die for a cause.

And so we have the bill unveiled Monday, which, as several commentators on the right have pointed out, keeps the general architecture and assumptions underlying ObamaCare intact while merely fiddling with a lot of the details. Don't get me wrong: Those adjustments will likely hurt plenty of people, though probably a lot fewer than a switch to a genuine market-based approach would have done. But it's hard to estimate precisely what the AHCA's real-world costs or fiscal effects might be because Ryan has decided to move ahead with marking up the bill without first getting it scored by the Congressional Budget Office.

So this is where the Republicans find themselves: trying to pass a bill that's unpopular with the right for compromising too much with ObamaCare and unpopular with moderates for inflicting too much pain on voters. And they're doing all of this while groping around in the dark because Ryan wants to keep the CBO out of the loop (no doubt partly out of fear of provoking even more opposition from the party's deficit hawks, for example).

It's a mess and a completely self-inflicted one.

And that's without even mentioning the extra-large serving of Republican mess that is Donald Trump.

The president described the bill as "wonderful" in a tweet, but he can't possibly be happy with how the rollout has unfolded so far. That's not just because he craves praise and bridles at bad press. It's also because, in the scheme of the contemporary Republican Party, Trump is a radical leftist when it comes to health-care policy.

One reason many rank-and-file Republicans and conservative-movement intellectuals originally denounced Trump as a closest liberal is that he once supported a single-payer system an option so far out in the direction of outright socialism that even Barack Obama and his Democratic majorities didn't dare seriously consider it back in 2009. Trump doesn't explicitly advocate such a radical reform today, but he alone among leading Republicans still talks in terms of providing "insurance for everybody." Trump and the Freedom Caucus may agree, for utterly mysterious reasons, that ObamaCare is an unmitigated "disaster," but they agree about very little else. Bridging that gap may well prove impossible.

The really interesting question is what Trump will do if the AHCA collapses (as it already appears likely to do). Will he encourage the writing of and play a bigger role in drafting a new "replacement" bill that cuts coverage for millions of Americans? Or will he turn on Ryan and much of the rest of his party, demanding that they scrap ObamaCare, not for a free-market utopia but for a single-payer system that provides open access to health care for all Americans?

Such a move would likely tear the GOP apart, while gaining Trump many surprising new allies in the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.

Will it happen? When a party becomes as incoherent as the Republican Party is today, anything is possible.

More here:

Why everyone hates the GOP's new health plan - The Week Magazine

Leanna Curtis claims Oceania BMX crown – Western Advocate

5 Mar 2017, 11:06 a.m.

Leanna Curtis efforts in the opening seconds of the elite womens Oceania BMX Championship final on Saturday were crucial.

SHE may not be happy with her starts, but Leanna Curtisefforts in the opening seconds of the elite womens Oceania BMX Championship final on Saturday were crucial.

A strong start off the eight metre ramp helped give Curtis the lead into the first bend at the Bathurst BMX track and once in front, no-one could catch her.

She added the title of Oceania champion to her status as current Australia champion, holdingoffNew Zealands Rebecca Petch in the closing metres.

The victory came after the Illawarra rider had to settle for second in Friday nights elite womensProbikx UCI Series final, which used the smaller five metre ramp due to wet and windy conditions.

I had a pretty ordinary start, but luckily I feel very confident on this track and I was able to come through, Curtis said.

With my starts, I am still struggling to get my body and legs throwing forward at the same time. Once that happens I will be back on top of them.

Today we started off the eight metre hill, which suits me a little better. The girls I am racing have a bit more power than me down the flat, but the bigger start hill is a bit more about confidence and skills and that was my advantage.

On Friday as Curtis returned to the track where she clinched the 2016 Australia title, she recorded first, second and fourth placings in her Probikx UCI Series motos.

Heading into the final of round three of that national series, Curtis biggest threat shaped as New Zealands Sarah Walker.

The two-time Olympian had the best of the start, Curtis third behind her into the first bend.

While Curtis made up ground over the back end of the course, the 2009 world champion held off the Australian.

I am still nervous about this track. The wind was very strong this afternoon, so I just focused on doing the best start I could and tried to be smooth around the track. I threw in a few extra jumps and manuals in the final, so that helped, Walker, who raced for the first time innine months, said.

Saturday was a different story for Curtis as she chased the Oceania crown. She won each of her three motos and boasted the fastest lap a 48.882 seconds effort heading into the final.

While Petch and fellow Australian Rachel Jones were alongside Curtis early in the decider, she was strong enough to open up a lead and keep it. Her time of 47.982 handed the talent her first major win of 2017, with Walker relegated to seventh.

It was good to finally get that win out of the way, I am really hurting now, Curtis said.

FLYING START: Australian champion Leanna Curtis (#172) was neck-and-neck with Rebecca Petch (#308) and Rachel Jones (obscured) in the opening seconds of the elite women's Oceania Championship final. Photo: ANYA WHITELAW

Go here to read the rest:

Leanna Curtis claims Oceania BMX crown - Western Advocate