Daily Archives: February 29, 2020

The all-volunteer force has been one of Americas great success stories over the past five decades. In 1973, the United States eliminated the draft, creating the military as it is today. While far from perfect, the U.S. armed forces have never been more professional, educated, or capable. With such willing and able volunteers, it should come as no surprise that most Americans consistently oppose military conscription.

After two decades at war, however, a group of prominent defense critics now argue the all-volunteer force is unfair, inefficient, and unsustainable. They argue that it contributes to the nations civil-military gap and threatens the social fabric of our democracy. Congress has even chartered a national commission to consider and develop recommendations concerning the need for a military draft.

The United States should maintain the all-volunteer force, however, despite this criticism. While the civil-military divide is large and growing, reinstating conscription will not address the problem. Moreover, short of an existential threat to the nation, a draft is not politically feasible, publicly acceptable, or militarily suitable. The success of the all-volunteer is due to the lasting impact and enduring influence of the Presidents Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force (or Gates Commission), which presented its final report to President Richard Nixon in February 1970 fifty years ago this month. This history of the commission and how it reached its conclusions offers lessons for the present day, and should inform our understanding of the U.S. military.

Nixons Campaign Promise

With a strong commission chair, an inclusive information-gathering process, and a coherent political strategy, the Gates Commission (named for its chairman, former Secretary of Defense Thomas Gates) helped bring an end to conscription in the United States and usher in the all-volunteer force. The commission included cabinet secretaries, politicians, retired generals, captains of industry, seasoned educators, civil rights activists, famed economists, and even a law student. It convincingly argued that military conscription amounted to an unjust government tax with inequitable human, cultural, social, and economic costs for a generation of draftees, and unanimously recommended an end to the draft. The commissions final report also recommended a more generous compensation and benefits package to recruit and retain servicemembers in a competitive market-based economy. Taken together, the Gates Commission is arguably the most successful blue-ribbon defense commission in U.S. history.

Throughout the 1960s, opponents of selective service openly criticized the draft as individuals found various ways to avoid conscription through delays, exemptions, and deferments. The deferment system was a particular source of angst for many Americans, as the public widely viewed it as exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities between rich and poor: The upper class went to college while the working class went to war. And the American war effort in Vietnam continued to escalate with no end in sight. By late 1968, nearly 37,000 U.S. troops had died in the war. According to the New York Times, the Pentagon estimated that roughly 33 percent of Americans killed in combat were draftees.

Meanwhile, domestic opposition to the war reached a crescendo at home. This opposition manifested itself through draft-resistance movements, widespread protests, and outright political disillusionment. For instance, a retrospective in the Washington Post described a massive, three-day protest outside the Pentagon in October 1967 as a cultural touchstone of the decade [and] defining moment of American history. Protests continued across the country, contributing to the nations divisive cultural and political climate and to President Lyndon Johnsons decision not to seek re-election in 1968.

In late 1966, Nixon was in the early stages of his own campaign for the White House. The former vice president began by forming an inner circle of like-minded advisers including Columbia University professor Martin Anderson, an economist by training to counsel him on all matters of public policy. At a March 1967 campaign meeting in Manhattan, Anderson recommended that candidate Nixon reverse his longstanding position favoring conscription and come out publicly against the draft. Asking for time to study the issue before eventually presenting his findings to the group, Anderson proposed, What if I could show you how we could end the draft completely and increase our military power at the same time?

After weeks of research, Anderson submitted a position paper to Nixon for review. In his memo, Anderson argued that the draft constitutes two years of involuntary servitude to the State and eliminating it would actually strengthen our security. Though Nixon expressed initial interest in the idea, several months passed without so much as a formal discussion or campaign meeting on the topic. But on Nov. 17, 1967, a young reporter from the New York Times asked Nixon for his thoughts on the draft. Anderson recalled, Nixon smiled and replied evenly, I think we should eliminate the draft and move to an all-volunteer force. The next day, the Times published an article titled, Nixon Backs Eventual End of Draft. With that, Nixon became the countrys most prominent public champion for the creation of an all-volunteer force. One year later, the American people elected him the 37th president of the United States.

In January 1969, Arthur Burns, a member of the Nixon campaign team, sent the president-elect a report outlining suggestions for early action, reminding him that one of your strongest pledges during the campaign was the eventual abolition of the draft. Burns recommended Nixon appoint a special Commission charged with the task of developing a detailed plan of action for ending the draft. Living up to his campaign promise, Nixon announced the commission by proclaiming, I have directed the Commission to develop a comprehensive plan for eliminating conscription and moving toward an all-volunteer armed force. The Commission will study a broad range of possibilities including increased pay, benefits, recruitment incentives, and other practicable measures to make military careers more attractive to young men. With that, Nixon set the slow wheels of government in motion.

Beyond staff, office space, and an operating budget, a blue-ribbon defense commission of this caliber would also require a cadre of prominent private citizens and former public officials to serve as commissioners and give this massive undertaking the public attention and credibility it deserved. Anderson recalled, The members of the commission were carefully chosen. It is relatively easy to select members of a commission so that the result is predetermined. We deliberately at some risk chose not to do that. Instead, we decided to appoint five people who were for the idea, five who were against it, and five who, while they had no clear position, were men and women of integrity. With this strategy in mind, the president asked former Secretary of Defense Thomas Gates, an all-volunteer force skeptic, to lead the commission. To his credit, Nixon knew that without a strong and well-respected commission chairman in the lead, any report recommending the transition to an all-volunteer force would be dead-on-arrival in Washington.

A Strong Chair at the Helm

An Ivy Leaguer, investment banker, and Navy veteran, Thomas Gates held several senior positions in the Eisenhower administration, including undersecretary of the Navy, secretary of the Navy, deputy secretary of defense, and secretary of defense. With an unparalleled Pentagon rsum, Gates was larger than life and highly respected among defense insiders. He enjoyed the gravitas necessary to lead such a consequential commission because he had been widely credited with major management innovations within the Department of Defense.

As chairman, Gates fostered a collegial commission environment where dissent was welcome. For instance, fellow commissioner Crawford Greenwalt asked Gates whether the Commission was obligated to recommend an all-volunteer force plan since his only concern was that he be free to reject the all-volunteer solution. Gates told him that it was not necessary for the Commission members to assume at the outset that an all-volunteer force solution was either feasible or desirable. According to Stephen Herbits, one of the last surviving commissioners who agreed to an interview for this research, We asked ourselves whether an all-volunteer force was both desirable and doable. Skeptics raised the question as to whether it was desirable. Proponents were not afraid to explore the question because they never doubted the wisdom of an all-volunteer force.

Reflecting on Gates leadership, famed economist and fellow commissioner Milton Friedman recalled, Tom Gates was a splendid, open-minded, even-handed chairman, who gradually shifted his position to become a convinced supporter of an all-volunteer army. Similarly, Herbits recalled, Everyone in the room respected Gates. He was thoughtful and never raised his voice. He never ruled with an iron hand and when he wanted to move on to another topic, everyone agreed. His sheer personal charisma and authority moved the process along. Clearly, Gates was the perfect choice to chair Nixons commission.

An Inclusive Information-Gathering Process Meets a Coherent Political Strategy

With less than a year to report his findings, Gates decided not to hold any public hearings on the commissions work. However, he did demand an otherwise exhaustive information-gathering process. This included briefings from senior Pentagon bureaucrats, meetings with the service chiefs and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visits to Capitol Hill, and thorough analyses from the commission staff. Beyond defense officials, the Gates Commission also heard private testimony from prominent veterans organizations like the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars. Indeed, the commission understood the implications of its work for the American people, designing its final report to be a persuasive public document which presented the economic, social, and political arguments for a volunteer force and a rebuttal to the arguments against a volunteer force. Of course, this final report would not have come to pass were it not for the commissions preceding staff reports and studies. The staff director, William Meckling, organized the commissions research under directors responsible for total force manpower requirements; supply of officers; supply of enlisted personnel; and historical, political, and social research.

On Dec. 20, 1969, after months of study and debate, the commissioners unanimously concluded that an all-volunteer force was the most desirable solution, but not without some remaining internal differences. On Jan. 9, 1970, the commissioners met one last time to address their lingering disagreements. Gates facilitated a tense discussion wherein the commission argued over the wording and the feasibility of the [all-volunteer force] at particular force levels. This internal tension also stemmed from a debate over the war in Vietnam. Herbits, a Georgetown Law student at the time, objected to a draft version of the commissions final report, which included language supporting the Vietnam War. Herbits, usually deferential to the elder statesmen on the commission, spoke up in defiant opposition to the other commissioners. After arguing that the ongoing conflict was beyond the scope of the commissions work, Herbits threatened to vote against the final report as drafted. He recalled exclaiming, Do you really want the youngest member of this commission telling the country he doesnt agree with its report? In search of unanimity, Gates brokered a deal between the quarrelling commissioners by conceding Herbits point and omitting language supporting the war.

With a unanimous agreement secured, Gates shifted his attention to combating opposition to the final report. According to Gus Lee and Geoffrey Parker, Mr. Gates thought it was essential that the commission squarely face all major objections to the volunteer force, and eventually a complete section of the report was set aside to refute common criticisms of the volunteer force concept. As such, the commissioners socialized their final recommendations over dinner with key stakeholders, including Secretary of the Army Stanley Resor. Bernard Rostker writes, As the Gates Commission proceeded to prebrief the services on their emerging recommendations, it became clear that the commissioners views were different from those prevailing in the Pentagon.

The next morning, Resor attended the commissions meeting to formally deliver the Armys official response to the reports findings and recommendations. Throughout the meeting, Resor frequently referred to would-be volunteers as mercenaries. According to Martin Anderson, At some point, [Milton] Friedman couldnt take it anymore and responded to Resor, Look, lets make an agreement. If you promise to stop calling my volunteers mercenaries, I will promise to stop calling your draftees slaves. To that end, the commissioners argued conscription imposed social and human costs by distorting the personal lives and career plans of the young and by forcing society to deal with such difficult problems. Volunteers, on the other hand, would maintain a high quality force that is more experienced, better motivated, and has higher morale. Tensions remained high as the commission prepared to publicly issue its final report. To get ahead of any Pentagon misinformation campaign, Gates went out of his way to visit the Senate Armed Services Committee and allay lingering congressional concerns. By engaging Washington stakeholders throughout the process, Gates clearly understood his central role in ensuring the commissions success.

In close consultation with the White House, the commission published its final report through the Government Printing Office and Macmillan Company. The Nixon administration would ensure maximum public exposure of the Gates Commission report by printing 5,000 hardcover books and another 100,000 paperback copies by March 1970. This proved to be a smart and wildly successful public information campaign. Gates showed remarkable leadership in the final stretch as he led the commission to settle its remaining differences and eventually persuaded all members to sign without a single dissenting opinion. The importance of the commissions unanimity on an all-volunteer force cannot be overstated. The commissioners, representing a veritable cross-section of society, signaled to the defense establishment that the American people were ready to embrace a historic policy change by replacing conscription with an all-volunteer force.

Keep the All-Volunteer Force

The inequitable human, cultural, social, and economic costs of conscription during the Vietnam War robbed a generation of draftees of their youth. The Gates Commission deserves a great deal of credit for helping to end military conscription in the United States and laying the intellectual foundation for the advent of the all-volunteer force three years later. Ultimately, the Gates Commission succeeded because Gates led an inclusive information-gathering process, satisfying stakeholders, and employed a coherent political strategy, overcoming opposition.

Indeed, the all-volunteer force is the cornerstone of the modern American military. The U.S. military today is a more effective, just, equitable, and meritorious institution, thanks in large measure to the commissions foundational work 50 years ago.

Like conscription, however, the all-volunteer force has come at a significant cost. While the Gates Commission asserted that conscription offers the general public an opportunity to impose a disproportionate share of defense costs on a minority of the population, the same could be said for the all-volunteer force today. In fact, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates illustrated this point during a 2010 lecture: Yet even as we appreciate, and sometimes marvel at, the performance of this all-volunteer force, I think it important at this time to recognize that this success has come at significant cost. Above all, the human cost, for the troops and their families. But also cultural, social, and financial costs in terms of the relationship between those in uniform and the wider society they have sworn to protect. After two decades at war, the 50th anniversary of the Gates Commission serves as a timely reminder that military service is a costly endeavor, for volunteers and their families alike.

Maj. Brandon J. Archuleta, Ph.D. is a strategic planner in the Army war plans division and author of the forthcoming book, Twenty Years of Service: The Politics of Military Pension Policy and the Long Road to Reform. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, or U.S. government.

Image: U.S. Army Recruiting Battalion Oklahoma City (Photo by Amber Osei)

More:

Fifty Years After the President's Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force - War on the Rocks

Banks will stay closed from Eight to 15 March. There are Sundays on March 8, the birthday of Hazrat Ali on 9, Holi on 10, bankers' strike on 11, 12 and 13, the second on 14 and Sunday on 15. Due to this individuals could need to face problem. Checks price crores of rupees can get caught. Various companies akin to mortgage disbursements might be affected.

->Cash deposit and withdrawal wont be doable. Due to long-term financial institution closure, the quantity in ATMs may also be exhausted. However, its not a lot of an issue for these doing digital transactions, as a result of money disaster, the colours of Holi dont fade, so do the vital work beforehand.

So strike

According to Amardeep Kaushik, the official of the Joint Forum of Bank Associations (UFBU) in Agra, the Indian Banks Association has proposed a 12.5 % improve in salaries, which isnt acceptable.

Bank staff will go on strike for 3 days from March 11 to 13, after negotiations with the Indian Banks Association failed on pay revision.

The financial institution union calls for that the wage be elevated by no less than 20 %, banks have a five-day workday, merger of particular allowances in primary pay, abolition of NPS, pension updation and so forth.

Originally posted here:

Banks will probably be closed for Eight consecutive days in March, deal with all of your work beforehand - Sahiwal Tv

Armed with machetes and pitchforks and uttering chants of Freedom or Death, hundreds of men and women made their way along a 26-mile route along the River Parishes of Louisiana.

The spectacle which I witnessed in November 2019 in St. John the Baptist Parish, in the heartland of Louisianas sugar cane and oil industries was a reenactment of what historians believe was the largest slave rebellion in United States history, the 1811 German Coast Uprising.

That winter, along the east bank of the Mississippi River, Charles Deslondes, an enslaved man believed to have arrived in Louisiana from Haiti, led a group of about 30 enslaved people in an uprising at a plantation owned by Manuel Andry. They killed Andrys son, Gilbert, and then set out to establish a black state along the banks of the Mississippi. As the movement continued, the uprising grew to about 500 people headed for New Orleans.

In real life, a group of 100 armed bounty hunters put the uprising down. Dozens of the rebels were subjected to a monstrous public punishment that included torture and execution. Many were decapitated their heads placed on spiked poles along a 60-mile stretch of the Mississippi River in a message meant to frighten other enslaved people who might have dared to resist.

In the reenactment, which artist Dread Scott is making into a documentary film that is set to be released in October 2020, the revolt ends in victory.

As a scholar who studies race and how historical events are represented and remembered, I see Scotts forthcoming film as an opportunity to correct a glaring problem with the way that slavery is taught or not taught in U.S. schools. And that is, the history of slavery in America is often either excluded or taught in ways that humiliate students and sympathize with slaveholders.

The history of slavery is also usually not taught as something that was created by white supremacy, and protected and sanctioned by the Constitution.

Scotts film which is being produced with a US$1 million budget deliberately reimagines the outcome for one of several slave revolts an aspect of slavery that scholars believe has not gotten its due.

Though some might criticize this cinematic interpretation as historically inaccurate, I believe the reenactment can generate important classroom discussions about historical memory and the history of slavery.

What does it mean, for instance, to imagine freedom as something that happened instead of something that was destroyed for those who participated in slave revolts? What does it mean to transform their death and public punishment into an uplifting narrative of hope and freedom?

How to confront the histories and afterlives of slavery is a central concern for Dread Scott, whose artist name pays homage to the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court case that ruled against an enslaved mans bid for freedom.

Scott says it was an ethical decision to refuse to replicate a massacre of black people at the hands of white bounty hunters who would earn money from their deaths.

As Scott has stated, the reenactment is interrupting the historic timeline.

Scott is not a historian but an artist who calls upon the public to imagine speculative histories. In this respect, I believe that his work examines freedom struggles and abolition across time. Scotts endeavor contributes significantly to a much-needed conversation about slavery and the violence that it entailed. It leaves open the challenge of how to reimagine art for arts sake, and to instead use art for the sake of social action.

Revisiting histories like the history of slavery is a painstaking and painful task. The difficulties are not only about asking the nation to confront the legacy of racial supremacy. Rather, the 1811 Slave Rebellion Reenactment is also about creating new political futures.

[Like what youve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversations daily newsletter.]

Visit link:

Slave revolt film revisits history often omitted from textbooks - The Conversation US

Post Views: 543

On Jan. 13, the nominations for the 92nd Academy Awards were announced. With six nominations, Parasite was the movie that shook the world. The movie received great reviews since its premiere at the 2019 Cannes Film Festival, with a 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes, and praise from critics like Stephanie Zacharek of Time magazine, who said, It tells a story you could probably follow without subtitles, or any dialogue at all: the faces of these actors show with piercing clarity how it feels to be outsiders in a world of wealth and privilege.

The film delivers messages that are easily understood by people across different cultures, regardless of language, which is precisely why it smashed barriers and continues to thrive nearly a year after it premiered. Bong Joon-hos masterpiece is one of the best films of 2019.

Parasite is not only a work of art; it is a dark commentary on society and social stratification.

The winning streak of Parasite began when it became the first South Korean film to win Palme dOr at the 2019 Cannes Film Festival, but the beginning of 2020 seems to be the time for Parasite to shine as it continues to break into the mainstream. In early January, director Bong Joon-ho and his team earned South Koreas first ever Golden Globe for best foreign language film.

Once you overcome the one-inch-tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films, said Bong Joon-ho through his interpreter Sharon Choi as he accepted the award. Bong Joon-hos Golden Globe acceptance speech reflects how the mainstream Hollywood media remains stuck in only two categories: movies in English and movies not in English. In the one-minute speech, Bong Joon-ho managed to criticize the movie industry for its outdated structure, and he encouraged people to engage more with foreign language films.

The film didnt stop there. Following its Golden Globe win, Parasite continued. It was the first foreign language film to take home the SAG Award in the prestigious best cast in a motion picture category.

During the backstage interview after the award show, Choi Woo-shik, who played Kim Ki-woo, shared how he hopes that there will be more appreciation for foreign movies following the success of Parasite. Destroying boundaries and making history seems to be a mission for the Parasite team.

For the past 92 years of Academy Awards history, there have only been 11 foreign language films nominated for best picture. Evidently, it remains difficult for foreign films to break the English language barrier that leads to awards in Hollywood. Despite numerous accusations of lacking diversity and systematic racism, award shows kept their barricades up high.

In the 2019 Oscars, Alfonso Cuarns Roma had the public hopeful, as it was nominated for a total of 10 categories. Unfortunately for foreign moviegoers, Roma was placed in the foreign language film category while Green Book pocketed the award for best picture.

Yet, Parasite, against all odds, managed to snatch the grand prize and become the first non-English language film to win best picture at the Oscars. The film acquired four awards out of six nominations, including best director, best foreign language film, best original screenplay and best picture. However, its not the numbers that matter. The movies victory matters because it signifies a new era, a post-Parasite era, in which foreign films can easily be recognized and awarded.

At the interview after the show, Bong Joon-ho expressed his opinion on the universality of Parasite, stating, Perhaps the deeper I delve into things that are around me, the broader the story can become, the more appeal it can have to an international audience. Although the details of the story are based off of South Koreas class system, the message resonates with anyone who lives in a world that continually separates the rich from the poor, the haves from the have-nots.

The film is a metaphor for the mainstream movie industry: English-language films are the haves and foreign-language films are the have-nots. The haves seem to have endless achievements, fed with a silver spoon. They are continually awarded for the things they have done. Whereas the have-nots work tirelessly, only to get awarded when they can unambiguously surpass the same standards as the privileged.

The best picture win for Parasite is merely a start to the abolition of the archaic concept that detaches the haves from the have-nots. As the films co-writer, Han Jin-won says, To win best picture means that this film was voted by the members of the Academy and I realized that will signal the beginning of a different kind of change for international cinema, not just for Korea.

When asked to give a message to Hollywood actors of Asian descent, director Bong Joon-ho stated that he doesnt think that we should be emphasizing borders or divisions, whether its the U.S., Europe or Asia, as long as we focus on the beauty of cinema. He emphasized that we are all just making movies, implying that where one creator came from does not matter more than what the creator makes.

The movies Oscars moment is historical because of its impact. The historical win marks the beginning of a post-Parasite era that accepts diversity and appreciates a work of art regardless of its origin. The general public has entered this new era with the help of new technologies and ever-growing streaming services; it is the industry that needs to catch up. The one-inch-tall subtitles should not be the reason for us not to enjoy a piece of work.

More:

'Parasite' Is Winning Awards and Destroying Barriers - Study Breaks

Democratic presidential hopeful Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a rally at Springs Preserve Amphitheater in Las Vegas on Feb. 21. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)

The democratic socialist candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner for the Democratic Partys nomination, sparking renewed debate about his controversial campaign platform and political history.

WASHINGTON As Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has become the strong 2020 Democratic front-runner after his wins in Iowa, New Hampshire and most recently and commandingly in Nevada, renewed questions have arisen about what his Democratic socialism means and what his policies would mean for religious freedom and about how compatible his political philosophy is with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Even his Democratic primary opponents now are taking direct aim at Sanders socialism.

On the debate stage in Las Vegas, billionaire candidate Michael Bloomberg said, Were not going to throw out capitalism. Other countries tried that. It was called communism, and it just didnt work. Sanders, whose proposal prompted the remark, called it a cheap shot, claiming his Democratic socialism was for working people, not billionaires health care for all, educational opportunities for all.

And following Sanders landslide Nevada victory, Pete Buttigieg warned, Sen. Sanders believes in an inflexible, ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention most Americans.

The 78-year-old Sanders grew up in Brooklyn, New York, in a Jewish family. Although currently he is not actively involved in organized religion, he told The New York Times editorial board in December that he is proud to be Jewish.

Sanders took to socialist politics at a young age; in college, he was an active member of the Young Peoples Socialist League, the youth affiliate of the Socialist Party of America.

He unsuccessfully ran for governor of Vermont as a member of the anti-war Liberty Union party in the 1970s. In 1976, Sanders told The Burlington Free Press that hefavored the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries.

In the 1980s, as the centrist Democratic group Third Way noted in a Feb. 22 critique of Sanders socialist perspectives, Sanders campaigned for candidates of the Socialist Workers Party, which openly advocated the abolition of capitalism and the destruction of the bourgeois state.

Costly Campaign Platform

Sanders remains strongly committed to government nationalization. In terms of his 2020 campaign policies, his Medicare for All plan would nationalize health care, at a cost he estimated at $33 trillion, and his Green New Deal climate plan would nationalize electricity production and transform our energy system to 100% renewable energy.

Other initiatives include his College for All proposal, which would guarantee tuition and debt-free public colleges, universities, HBCUs, Minority Serving Institutions and trade schools to all, alongside a range of other measures whereby the federal government also would pay for a variety of non-tuition costs and fees and free universal child care and pre-K.

Sanders also proposes an annual extreme wealth tax on households with a net worth of more than $32 million, intended to substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.

According to Larry Summers, former chief White House economic adviser under President Barack Obama and former treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, Sanders proposed massive expansion of government would be unprecedented in American history.

On the spending side ... this is far more radical than all previous presidencies, on either the right or the left, Summers told CNN in January. The Sanders spending increase is roughly 2.5 times the size of the New Deal and the estimated fiscal impact of George McGoverns campaign proposals.

Summers added, We are in a kind of new era of radical proposal.

Praise for Communist Regimes

During his time as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders visited and praised the Soviet Union and Nicaragua. In 1985 he said in an interview that Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega was an impressive guy, noting that health care in Nicaragua is now free, while acknowledging that the quality of the care was bad.

Sanders also called bread lines in Nicaragua a good thing, since in other countries, people dont line up for food; rich people get the food and poor people starve to death.

He also praised Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, saying, that for the Cuban people, he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed the society. in 1989, Sanders wrote that they are in fact creating a very different value system than the one we are familiar with.

Sanders was challenged on the 2016 debate stage about his praise of Castro and Ortega. He replied, What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government.

2016 Democratic presidential nominee and former first lady Hillary Clinton pointed out that Sanders had praised what he called the revolution of values in Cuba.

If the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere, she said.

Sanders replied that while Cuba was authoritarian, they have made some good advances in health care. They are sending doctors all over the world. They have made some progress in education.

In the spring of 1988, Sanders honeymooned in the Soviet Union and praised them for the cleanest, most effective mass transit system that Ive ever seen. The Washington Post reported that during the trip Sanders criticized the cost of housing and health care in the United States, while lauding the lower prices but not the quality of that available in the Soviet Union.

During his time in the U.S. House of Representatives, Sanders backed Nicols Maduros predecessor Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. The Wall Street Journal noted that he signed a letter of support for Chavez in January 2003 while property confiscation at gunpoint, politically motivated arrests and state-sponsored gang violence were occurring. He has repeatedly refused to call Maduro a dictator.

And on 60 Minutes last Sunday, Sanders once again praised Castro, after he was confronted with his past praise of the Cuban dictator. He commented, Were very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba, but, you know, its simply unfair to say everything is bad.

When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He continued, He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?

These remarks resulted in bipartisan outrage and condemnation from Floridas congressional delegation who represent many Cuban Americans.

Democratic Socialism

When confronted with the question of what his Democratic socialism is and how it differs from communist regimes, Sanders says he aims to reduce wealth inequality while maintaining democracy and compares it to systems in Scandinavian countries.

Ihave spent my whole life fighting for democracy, fighting against authoritarianism, whether the Soviet Union, Venezuela or anyplace else,Sanders said. What I mean by democratic socialism is creating a government that works for everybody, not controlled either legislatively or politically by a handful of very wealthy people. It means that in America we have certain economic rights that are human rights, human rights. Health care, to my mind, is not a privilege. It is a human right.

But while Sanders often cites Scandinavian countries when discussing Democratic socialism, many have argued that the countries Sanders references, including Sweden and Denmark, are not examples of Sanders-style socialism.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen clarified that Denmark is not a socialist country after Sanders used it as an example in a speech in 2015.

I would like to make one thing clear: Denmark is far from a socialist-planned economy. Denmark is a market economy, he said. Finnish President Sauli Niinist similarly replied, No, God bless, when asked if Finland was socialist.

Swedish author and Cato Institute fellow Johan Norberg explained recently that in the 1970s and 1980s Sweden implemented socialist policies that ended in a terrible crisis in the early 1990s. Sweden now has low corporate taxes, free trade and in many of those areas, we are more fiercely capitalist than the United States. Those dont seem to be the policies that the Sanders supporters are in favor of.

Regarding Swedish health care, he said, Lots of Americans think its a Medicare for All thing. But its not even a national system. Its a regional system. We had a problem with productivity and investment in the health-care sector. So now we have more freedom of choice and more competition in the provision of health care.

Religious Intolerance?

Beyond economic concerns, Sanders policies also have implications for religious freedom. His Medicare for All Act would abolish the Hyde Amendment and require taxpayer funding of abortion without any religious-freedom exemptions.

Recently, Sanders raised eyebrows when he reversed his stance on whether or not pro-life Democrats belong in the party. In 2017, he campaigned with Omaha, Nebraska, mayoral candidate Heath Mello, who backed pro-life policies.

The truth is that in some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue, Sanders said at the time. You just cant exclude people who disagree with us on one issue.

However, during a recent MSNBC town hall on abortion, Sanders said that being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat, when asked if there was such a thing as a pro-life Democrat.

Sanders also generated controversy at a recent Senate confirmation hearing by saying that the Christian belief of Russell Vought, President Trumps nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, that Muslims do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned, was hateful and Islamophobic.

Sanders defended his comments on CNN, saying Voughts remarks were unacceptable as a government official.

Catholic Support and Church Teachings

Sanders has a wide lead in polling of Democratic voters ages 18-29, including with some young Catholics who see his policies as aligned with aspects of Catholic doctrine despite his position on abortion.

ANovember 2019 surveyby the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and YouGov found 70% of millennials, ages 23-38, were likely to vote for a socialist. It also found that 36% of millennials viewed communism favorably. And in the new EWTN News/RealClear Opinion Researchpoll, young Catholics aged 18-34 who classified themselves as devout favored Sanders over President Trump by a 53%-42% margin.

Matthew Sitman, a writer for Commonweal, told the Catholic Herald, arguably no candidates economic agenda so closely aligns with Catholic social teaching. He is the most pro-union candidate running and believes everyone has a right to health care, a job and housing. He shares Pope Francis urgency about climate change, backing the ambitious Green New Deal.

He believes in the humane and welcoming treatment of immigrants and refugees, he added. Hes the peace candidate no candidate is more willing to challenge the prevailing foreign-policy consensus thats caused so much death and destruction.

New York Times opinion writer Elizabeth Bruenig, a young Catholic who has voiced support for Sanders, wrote that she would support a kind of socialism that would be democratic and aimed primarily at decommodifying labor, reducing the vast inequality brought about by capitalism, and breaking capitals stranglehold over politics and culture.

Sanders briefly met with Pope Francis in April 2016, during a visit to the Vatican during that years primary campaign, and praised the Pope comments demanding that morality be part of our economy. And in a February 2016 interview, Sanders called Pope Francis a socialist.

What it means to be a socialist, in the sense of what the Pope is talking about, what Im talking about, is to say that we have got to do our best and live our lives in a way that alleviates human suffering, that does not accelerate the disparities of income and wealth, he said.

However, while Pope Francis has criticized unfettered capitalism and the idolatry of money, he has also said, The Marxist ideology is wrong.

The Church has historically condemned socialism and communism. In July 1949, Pope Pius XII issued his Papal Decree Against Communism, stating that Christians who profess, defend or promote materialistic Communist doctrine incur the penalty of excommunication as apostates from the Christian faith.

Pope St. John XXIII wrote in 1961 that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism, because socialism takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being and places too severe a restraint on human liberty.

Perspectives From Cuba and Venezuela

Is Sanders democratic socialism sufficiently different from the socialism the Church has condemned in the past? The Register spoke with two survivors of communist regimes who say it isnt.

Carlos Eire, Ph.D., is a professor of history and religious studies at Yale, who, as a child, was airlifted out of Cuba in 1962 as part of the covert U.S. Operation Peter Pan. He told the Register that Sanders is a Soviet Castro-style socialist and not a Scandinavian socialist, as he wants people to believe. He said he has dj vu with Sanders policy proposals, as they are like a carbon copy of Castros. Hes preaching the same gospel as those who have preceded him in communist countries, he said.

Bernie Sanders has gone to all these awful places and praised what he saw, and he hasnt taken it back, he added. He praises the Castro regime, and he thinks they have wonderful health care and wonderful education and its a model.

To him, as is the case with many of these progressives, its not much different from a religious belief, and they have a kind of zeal for it that religious converts tend to have, said Eire, who is Catholic. Whatever proof you throw at them, they find some way of finding some good things about whatever awful things you bring up.

Its anthropological, its psychological, but its also theological, and its also Augustinian, and it rests on the concept of original sin and the fact that human nature is not perfectible, he said of the continued failure of socialism. You cannot achieve a utopia. You cannot achieve the kind of perfection that socialists seek.

Daniel Di Martino, a Catholic Venezuelan who lived under the Maduro regime until he came to the U.S. in 2016 as a student, told the Register that he saw a lot of similarities between the proposals of Bernie Sanders and the proposals of Hugo Chavez, the man who destroyed my country.

We were promised free everything, from electricity, water, food, clothing, health care and education, and the price of those free things was an economy that was destroyed over time, he said. What followed was a gradual decline until his family struggled to obtain necessities. I had to save water, collect it from the rain, because there was no water service sometimes for weeks. Electricity was very unreliable, so wed have a blackout randomly, he said.

What people need to know is that its not just because of some abstract word socialism and because socialism is bad. Its about the policies, Di Martino said. Its about nationalization. Bernie Sanders has endorsed nationalizing public utilities like electricity and water several times.

Di Martino pointed out that Sanders speechwriter, David Sirota, wrote an article talking about the economic miracle of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2013, when I already had to do long lines to buy groceries, to buy basic staples, and the economy was a mess with very high inflation. For him, that was an economic miracle.

Young people in the U.S. lack a perspective of how lucky we are, of how vulnerable our free-market system is, and how quickly we can follow the path of Venezuela if we implement the wrong policies, Di Martino said, adding that part of the problem is the failure of the education system to teach about the history of socialism.

Lauretta Brown is the Registers Washington-based staff writer.

More:

The Old and New Socialism of Bernie Sanders: Should Catholics Support It? - National Catholic Register

KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 27): Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had refused to remain as Prime Minister of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government and to commit to fulfilling and delivering the PH General Election Manifesto at a Feb 25 meeting in the Prime Ministers Office, according to DAP Secretary-General and Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng.

In a statement today, Lim, who was Finance Minister during the PH administration, said the PH governing coalition comprising PKR, Amanah, DAP and Bersatu that won the mandate may have different ideologies and aspirations, but made common ground and was bound by the General Election Manifesto agreed to by all.

He said over the last 21 months, the PH government had worked hard to fulfil and deliver the manifesto promise progressively.

Amongst them [are] the reduction in toll rates for the North South Highway by 18% for private vehicles with no toll hikes for the remainder of the concession period, the MySalam project offering monetary assistance ranging from RM4,000 to RM8,000 for those suffering from 45 critical illnesses, the abolition of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) with Sales and Service Tax and repaying GST refunds amounting to RM19.4 billion.

The retention of our international credit ratings despite having to pay tens of billions for 1Malaysia Development Bhd, Tabung Haji and other related scandals, revival of major infrastructure projects following savings of over RM50 billion from renegotiation and rationalization of previous government projects, speeding up digitalisation through promoting e-wallets, creating 350,000 jobs for those unemployed who cannot get jobs through the RM6.5 billion Malaysian @ Work programme and many other initiatives, he said.

Read more:

Dr M refused to be PM of Pakatan Harapan govt Guan Eng - The Edge Markets MY

John Beatty submit or be crushed

by James A. Bacon

Loudoun public school officials thought it would be a good idea to provide cultural competency and sensitivity training to teachers, administrators and school board members. As described by LoudounNow, the county rolled out a workshop series designed to push participants outside their comfort zone and question their belief systems. In particular, participants were forced to grapple with the benefits afforded them from generations of white privilege, stretching back to Americas earlier days.

Last week, board member John Beatty made the mistake of actually participating in the conversation. He made the observation that in the Jim Crow era following Reconstruction former slaves were worse off than they had been during slavery because they lacked the patronage of a master. The comment was meant to be an indictment of Jim Crow, not an endorsement of slavery, but it ignited a firestorm.

Minority Student Achievement Advisory Committee Chairwoman Katrece Nolen and Executive Board member Wande Oshode found his observation so heinous that they called for him to be removed from two school board committees and asked the full board to condemn his comments.

Most people in the civilized world recognize this statement as being rooted in the very racist, inhumane and oppressive institution of slavery. To justify any aspect of slavery only 66 years after Brown versus Board of Ed eliminated inequities in the public school systems, and only a year after LCPS made national news about racially-insensitive lessons and conduct by administrators, is absolutely inexcusable, Oshode said. No parent of minority children should feel comfortable with Mr. Beatty remaining on the school board.

Ill get to the substance of Beattys remarks in just a moment. But theres a more immediate issue at stake. Since when is it justifiable to spend public funds to provide ideological indoctrination of teachers, administrators and elected officials? Make no mistake, these workshops are not about having an open dialogue about race. Theyre about propagating a leftist view of race and American history and brow-beating people into submission. In the supposed land of the free, these workshops are nothing less than political re-education sessions.

In an email response to Nolen and Oshode, Nolen responded that his comments were misconstrued. He does not support slavery, he said. I abhor slavery and all the injustices that have occurred since then. He continued:

In reading the quote out of context, I agree that it is offensive. However, the point I was making was not, as I was speaking to the issue of being deliberate and thoughtful before taking any actions. As elected officials, we have an obligation to consider all sides of any question and to carefully consider the ramifications of any actions we take. History teaches us that if we fail to do so, our actions can have far-reaching negative consequences. I referenced the Jim Crow laws as a particularly egregious example of this, as the laws made it impossible for the recently freed slaves to support their families. To avoid making similar mistakes, we must always consider all sides of any question and think carefully about the impact of our actions. And as I have just learned, we must also guard our words to make sure that when quoted out of context, they cannot cause offense.

Beattys argument in a nutshell: You took my quote out of context.

Thats the safe argument. If I were in his shoes, I would make a very different argument. I would argue that Oshodes comment was offensive indeed that the entire workshop series was offensive. I would criticize the expenditure of public funds to engage in political indoctrination.

By way of preface, let me state the obvious so the enforcers of PC rectitude dont accuse me of what they accused Beatty of. Im not defending slavery. Slavery was a moral abomination. As practiced in the United States, the institution expropriated the value of the slaves labor, sexually exploited slave women, broke up the families, subjected them to mistreatment and brutality, and inflicted a multitude of other harms. Slavery was a hideous stain on American history. There is no moral defense of slavery. None.

But it appears from their comments that Beattys critics have no interest achieving a dispassionate understanding of the peculiar institution. Their apparent intent is to portray slavery not only as a moral evil but as an unadulterated evil in every aspect. Their political goal is to maximize white guilt. Thus, they find offensive any observation that could be construed (in their minds) as diminishing African-American victimhood and white guilt, thus reducing their moral leverage in contemporary debate.

It is not defending slavery, however, to contend that American slavery was not in the same league as the Holocaust in its severity, as some have suggested it was. (The slaving wars in Africa and the middle passage in which slaves were packed into slaving vessels and transported to the Western hemisphere were a different matter; millions of people died.) It is not defending slavery to note that, following the abolition of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the slave population in the United States flourished demographically. To Beattys point, it is not defending slavery to observe that, as abusive as many were, white slave owners had a material incentive to protect the value of their property by keeping their slaves in good health while Jim Crow-era landowners had no comparable incentive to look out for their sharecroppers. It is not defending slavery to consider the possibility that, from a purely material perspective (food, shelter, other basic material needs), African-American slaves might have been better off than, say, penniless Irish immigrants stepping off the ship in New York harbor.

But the leftist cultural competency and sensitivity crowd isnt interested in the complexity and nuance of history. Their starting position is maximizing white guilt, and they work backwards through history from there. They have no interest in dialogue they lecture, others must listen. They have no tolerance for dissent. Rather than engage in rational discussion, pointing out the errors in his thinking and inviting him to adopt another view, Beattys critics seek to cast him into outer darkness.

Oshode and Nolen are entitled, of course, to their own opinions. They are entitled to criticize any elected official they want. And they are free to organize any kind of event they want on their own dime. But Loudoun County has no business using public funds to organize political indoctrination sessions, compel public employees to attend them, and encourage participants to question their belief systems. Virginians should condemn such a use of taxpayer dollars.

Related

Go here to see the original:

From Diversity Training Sessions to Political Re-Education Camp - Bacon's Rebellion

A unique conference is being held in Wisbech to explore Cambridgeshire's ongoing fight against slavery.

The town, which is where the first English anti-slavery researcher and campaigner Thomas Clarkson was brought up has been central to the battle to abolish slavery and people-trafficking for more than 200 years.

Next month Wisbech is hosting a conference with key national and international activists to look at how far abolition still has to go, and how slavery in its many modern forms can be tackled today in the light of what's been achieved so far.

It is inspired by Thomas Clarkson's campaign chest which has pride of place in the Wisbech and Fenland Museum. Clarkson's research and lifelong campaign led finally to the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.

Local people with an interest are invited to attend Cambridgeshire's Abolitionists, a one- day event, at St Peter's Church Hall in Wisbech on Saturday, March 14 as long as they book a place before March 2.

Local speaker and manager of the Rosmini Centre Anita Grodkiewicz will talk about the centre's 18-month Government-funded project partnered with Fenland District Council to research modern-day slavery in the area.

She said: Exploitation of vulnerable people modern slavery is happening in Fenland. It's a hidden crime and as such the statistics vary depending on who's reporting them you can't get reliable figures.

For the project we trained more than 150 local people who might come across victims in the course of their work to look for the signs and to report what they find.

What I'm sure of is that more agencies need this training. We've got to raise awareness further and fight modern-day slavery, because it's not going to go away on its own.

Victims can be in your workplace, the place where you get your car washed or your nails done. They may be building a wall in your garden or tarmacking your drive.

Other speakers at the conference include Jakub Sobik of Anti-Slavery International which was founded by Thomas Clarkson in 1839, Ruth Dearnley, CEO of Stop the Traffik, and historian Rebecca Nelson of the Wilberforce Institute's Usable Past Project,

who will present her recent research.

Find more details and book a free ticket to the conference including free refreshments and lunch through Wisbech and Fenland Museum website via this link: https://www.wisbechmuseum.org.uk/whats-on/2020-03-14

Cambridgeshire's Abolitionists is part of Articles for Change, a project funded by the Museum Association's Esme Fairbairn Collections Fund and is supported by Cambridgeshire

See the original post here:

Wisbech is venue for conference on anti-slavery - Fenland Citizen

What are we dealing with?

Indias numerous public pronouncements that Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJ&K) and Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B) belonged to it must not be ignored. Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself has reiterated this stance.

Talking to soldiers in Kashmir on the occasion of Holi in the aftermath of the abolition of Article 370, he stated that Pakistan illegally occupied parts of Kashmir, which, according to him, still stings. The BJP president and other senior BJP leaders, including Federal Home Minister Amit Shah and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, have repeated the same stance on different occasions.

Moreover, we should be aware of the fact that as far back as in 1994, the Indian parliament had passed a unanimous resolution stating that the aforementioned places lawfully belonged to India. A recent statement by the Indian army chief stating that if instructed by the parliament, the armed forces will take appropriate action, should be a cause of concern for Pakistan.

For Islamabad, in order to ward off any such move from India in the near to medium term, it must urgently focus on the following areas:

Make sure that people, especially those dealing with India, have the right understanding of everything that is going on in Modi-led India. For example, despite all the news reports and opinions published on the subject in Pakistans print media, it appears that a very few among us have got a clear understanding of the idea and meaning of Hindutva.

How many of us have actually read Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar? We need to encourage ourselves to read the relevant texts so as to be in a better position to deal with it. Similarly, there is a lot of talk in Pakistan about the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, but very few among us appear to have a clear idea of what exactly this amendment is all about, because many of us have not read the Citizenship Act of 1955 itself, which has been amended.

The same seems to be true about our lack of understanding of the UN resolutions concerning India and Pakistan, and so on. Therefore, one area in which more homework needs to be done, so as to make sound policies towards India, is to read more and more about the country, and read original documents.

Indias position on the aforementioned regions is not new. The question which needs to be addressed is: why does it feel confident to raise it now? It appears that one factor that has led to more aggressive posture on the part of New Delhi is the fact that several of the important roads which are part of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor pass through Gilgit-Baltistan. The US and India make no secret of their opposition to the China-led Belt and Road Initiative.

We know that the containment of China is a stated policy of the US under the Trump administration. It is an open secret that India is as much interested in containing China, if not more, as the US is. Therefore, Pakistans diplomatic troubles needs to be understood in the context of a complex interplay between international developments, and must be handled accordingly.

Policymakers in Pakistan need to do some soul searching and find out why the US, and even some Muslim Arab countries do not appear to be forthcoming in Pakistans support. Therefore, Pakistan needs to take the requisite measures to urgently repair its relationships with these countries and seek their diplomatic support in dealing with New Delhi.

The third element, closely connected with the second, is that of the state of the economy. One of the main reasons as to why the world is more inclined to work with India is its vibrant economy, with an impressive growth over the past three decades. For any country to be taken seriously, it needs to have a dynamic economy, one in which other countries have economic stakes. Therefore, Pakistan needs to make itself economically attractive. This is a medium to long-term objective. But work on it can begin immediately so as the world knows that it is serious in correcting course.

And, finally, putting ones own house in order is what needs to be focused on. Internal political and social instability weakens the polity and gives leeway to external powers to promote their agendas. Credible political and electoral processes, coupled with rule of law, strengthen state, society, and economy overall and enable it to safeguard its interests with confidence.

Therefore, in order to strengthen its hands externally, Pakistan needs to pay attention to its internal political and social stability. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had once famously said thus: Peace at home, peace in the world. That perfectly applies to every country.

And last, though not the least, enhancing hardcore defence capabilities is what deters adversaries from committing misadventures. Although it is hard to see Pakistan matching Indias defence capabilities in the conventional domain in the foreseeable future, Pakistans nuclear capabilities need to be in order and projected with caution and sobriety. Referring to the same too frequently on different forums, reduces, rather than enhances, the deterrence value of such weapons.

The writer is research analyst at theInstitute of Regional Studies,Islamabad. Views are personal.

Email: [emailprotected]

Follow this link:

What are we dealing with? - The News International

A wave of green change is sweeping across the corporate landscape and they have profound consequences for the way in which all of us will be employed and how we will consume, writes Joe Gill.

No one should underestimate the power of large institutional investment firms as they react to the mega theme of environmental change.

Over the past two years, in the investment business in which I work, we have noted a sharp step-up in the focus being given to all things linked to sustainability and climate change.

This has come from the top as board directors and senior executives have chosen to shift gears in how they deploy capital.

Increasingly, if as a company you want to attract debt or equity finance, you will have to prove at a minimum that you have started a journey towards sustainability.

The power of money will have a greater effect on behaviour and investment decisions than any amount of protesting.

Companies worldwide are recognising the need to change tack, encouraged no doubt by consumers and employees advocating the need for change.

The corporate response is multifaceted.

Individual companies can start by converting their own internal business operations.

A switch to 100% electric cars, the abolition of single-use plastics, full recycling of all waste and a reliance on renewable energy are ways in which industry can move the dial.

At another level, companies can change their product suite to incorporate environmental priorities.

Packing products in fully reusable boxes instead of plastic is one option.

Another is to change whatever is being produced in to a 100% recyclable product.

Other companies are being created to fully exploit the sustainability agenda.

Power companies that rely completely on renewable energy are a good example of that.

Food companies that manufacture food in ways that do not damage the environment are another.

The trends are only going to grow and expand in the months and years ahead.

The investment community does not expect companies to convert overnight.

Instead, they look for boards and management teams that commit to a journey of change.

Once a detailed plan is put in place, and authority is given at a senior level to an accountable post holder who reports to the board, investment firms are supportive.

This explains, for example, why large asset managers are staying supportive of a fossil fuel company like BP because it has laid out concrete plans to move to a zero-emission footprint within a determined number of years.

Every private company and public sector employer will have to respond in kind.

Politicians and regulators will add pressure too but it is those who supply finance that has the greatest influence on how businesses and civil servants react.

If a bank or an investor provides money at a discount to those who pursue true climate change strategies it has a major impact.

Equally, if those providers decide to charge a premium for access to finance if companies do not change their behaviour it has the same result.

In recent weeks, amid a string of negative news stories, there was a fantastic development in the South Atlantic.

Researchers found there 55 thriving blue whales.

For decades the number of whales in that area had collapsed to single figures as whale hunting had driven the species close to extinction.

Moreover, the numbers suggest the oceans continue to have the health needed to sustain these creatures.

It was politicians and money providers that put a stop to whale hunting and look now at what impact that has.

Ignore those who tell you responding to environmental damage is worthless.

A huge amount of change is now kicking off and if everyone supports it climate change can be addressed and tackled appropriately.

--Joe Gill is director for origination and corporate broking with Goodbody Stockbrokers, His views are personal.

Read more from the original source:

Joe Gill: Wall of money ready to drive climate change projects - Irish Examiner