funtastic blind

The Thatcher Myths And Her Real Legacy

2013-10-17T22:20:00.002-07:00

The announcement of Mrs. Thatcher's death was marked by an eruption of celebrations and partying across Britain.

Britons see it as taboo to speak ill of the recently deceased but apparently that did not apply in this case.

So in cyberspace downloads of Judy Garland's version of "Ding, Dong! the Witch is dead " from the Wizard of Oz soared in the charts because of an online campaign. Some graffiti on the streets of Belfast read "Iron Lady? Rust in Peace" and "Rot in Hell, Maggie Thatcher" says another. In my opinion the celebrations were way over the line.

On the other hand a lot of positive things have been said about Mrs. Thatcher's legacy and this article will try to expose them for what they are i.e. myths and will also explain what her true legacy really was.

MYTHS

A. ECONOMY

1. Economic miracle - The Thatcher years (1979 - 1990) were said to have produced an economic miracle.

Not true. Her regime saw two of the three worst recessions in the last hundred years 1980 - 1981 and in the late 1980's the economy picked up because of a credit bubble which soon burst and the economy was back in recession 1990-1991.

2. Rolled back the state.

Not true. Under Mrs. Thatcher government spending rose by more than 1%. Neither did she shrink the state in the sense of cutting taxes so in 1978-79 taxes were 40.2% of GDP and in 1989-90 it was about the same at 39.9% (National Archives 2005- Public Finances Chart 24). She did cut taxes for the rich from 83% to 40% and increased Value Added Tax (which affects the poor the most) from 7% to 15% (Thatcherism, by Kim, Changhyun, October 2005).

Furthermore, the welfare state such as the National Health Service and education were untouched and remained as state monopolies in 1990 as they were in 1979.

3. Restructured economy and made British capitalism competitive.

The idea that privatization was a carefully thought-out strategy to sweep away socialism and replace it with share-owning is false.

Privatization was not in the tory manifesto in 1979 as was not even a conservative invention as the Callaghan government had in 1977 (2 years before Mrs. Thatcher came to power) sold 17% of shares in BP to raise quick money. Furthermore it was not until her second term that the restructuring started.

According to Larry Elliott, economics editor of the London Guardian Mrs.Thatcher stumbled upon privatization (the Big Idea) by accident. Three factors he says caused her to turn to it:
(1) Higher unemployment had increased the deficit to 4% of GDP in the 1980's which created a need for quick money.
(2) Mrs. Thatcher wanted to change the political culture and inculcate in people a sense of share ownership (popular capitalism).
(3) Privatization of services in the public sector provided better value for money as had been proven in some cases at local government level.

Mrs. Thatcher saw privatization as the answer to raising quick cash to pay off the ballooning debt. So she handed over the public companies to the City (London banking center) to be sold. The first big privatization, British Telecom, came in 1984 and public enthusiasm for the selloff far exceeded expectations.

Then, in 1987 came the "Big Idea" i.e. privatization was not only a way of making money but a way of ridding Britain of socialism forever (How Thatcher stumbled on her Big Idea by Larry Elliott, Guardian March 19, 2009). So 1987 was the year of privatization including British Airways, Rolls Royce and British Airports Authority. Steel, water and electricity were also denationalized.

Most of the companies were intentionally sold to previous employees and managers or foreigners as this made it more difficult for any future government to renationalize them.

The money derived from the selloff was not invested in industry to create jobs but only benefitted the rich as it was used to pay for tax cuts for the top income bracket.

By the time John Major came to power in 1990 most of the remnants of the old public sector had been sold. All the family silver had been sold off.

Privatization hurt the economy as prices did not decline proportionately to costs cuts and productivity gains; many services were cut back, especially on the least utilized transport routes because they were not profitable although they served a need; inequality increased as the industrial labor force shrank by 2 million, while wages stagnated in the face of soaring profits for privileged companies. (Failed Privatizations - The Thatcher Legacy & Mrs. Thatcher's mean legacy by Michael Hudson).

The Thatcher government also deregulated banks and trading (Big Bang) in 1986 which led to massive bonuses as "greed is good" became the mantra. Weak banking regulations led to irresponsible lending which gave us today's financial crisis.

British capitalism under Mrs. Thatcher certainly was not more competitive. In 1979 in order to control the double digit inflation she raised interest rates which increased the value of the pound and made exports more expensive and unable to compete with superior quality and less expensive goods coming out of Japan.

4. Made people richer.

Not true. During her regime the income of the richest tenth rose by 61 % whereas the poorest fell by 18%. In 1979 the richest tenth share of national income was 20.6 % and the poorest tenth was 4.3% but by 1991 the share of the richest tenth went up to 26.1 % and the poorest tenth fell to 2.9% (Thatcherism by Kim etc.). So the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

5. Conviction politician who stuck to her beliefs through tough times.

Not true. In 1979 when Mrs. Thatcher came to power her main objective was to reduce inflation so as to improve the environment for the business sector. She tried to do this by cutting the money supply by raising interest rates and cutting government spending (monetarism). Inflation fell but the economy fell into a recession in 1980. Nevertheless the deflationary policies continued.

Unemployment rose to over 3 million (Office of National Statistics); the government fiddled the figures including switching unemployed to disabled benefits so the figure was nearer 4 million. 365 economists wrote a letter to the Times asking Mrs. Thatcher to end the recession. Mrs. Thatcher's response was her famous words to the Tory faithful "You turn if you want to but the lady's not for turning".

Money growth proved harder to control in practice than in theory and consistently remained high.

Mrs. Thatcher did not stick to her guns. The lady was indeed for turning and in the early 1980's she abandoned her original monetarist policy and reversed the rise in interest rates. It was one of the biggest economic policy uturns post 1945 (Hywel Williams, The lady was for turning, Guardian, June 13, 2007).

Inflation fell after 1982 from 8.6% to 4.5% (D. Smith, 1992-From Boom to Bust, Trial & Error in British Economic Policy) not because of lower monetary growth but because of the recession.

Hidden in the unemployment figures were thousands and thousands of young people who came of age at this time and did not know what it was to have a job. Some of them became depressed, developed mental illnesses or committed suicide. They were called "Mrs. Thatcher's children".

6. Greatest free market legacy is privatization.

False. When Mrs. Thatcher sold the public assets she did not sell them as separate units to foster competition. Instead they were sold as monopolistic lumps because that fetched higher prices. That left various cartels, for example, the energy sector and not free market competition.

7. Working days lost to strikes reduced.

Yes but only half the story. In 1979, 29 million working days were lost to strikes and by 1990 it was reduced to 2 million. But how many days were lost due to unemployment? In 1981 alone, for example, unemployment was 3 million; multiply that by the number of working days, 335 days lost = 1 billion (Charles Moore, BBC Question time, April 11, 2013).

B. INTERNATIONAL

1. Thatcher and Reagan ended the cold war.

False. The cold war ended due to the collapse of the USSR which had a new leader, Gorbachev who weakened Russia's military by diverting resources from the production of industrial goods to consumer goods so as to raise the standard of living of the Soviet people and stave off the possibility of another revolution. Earlier Gorbachev had sought and got Thatcher's and Reagan's assurance that they would not attack if the USSR weakened its military. Gorbachev then introduced economic reforms (Perestroika) and more liberty (glasnost) which started a chain reaction that he could not control and the empire collapsed.

2. Stood up for freedom and democracy in the world.

Not true. Mrs. Thatcher supported the apartheid regime in South Africa and called Nelson Mandela a "terrorist". She supported dictators like General Pinochet in Chile and Pol Pot in Cambodia who carried out genocide against their own people. She also had plans to end the sanctions and recognize the racist and rebel regime of Ian Smith in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). But Ian Smith was losing the civil war and upon taking power, Mrs. Thatcher did a uturn and called for talks between the combatants. The lady was for turning.

C. POLITICS

1. Restored law and order.

False. Crime increased by 79%, for example, there were riots in Brixton, Toxteth at the start of her reign and riots and civil disobedience against the Poll tax at the end of it.

Mrs. Thatcher said that she would not negotiate with "terrorists" yet in late 1980 she negotiated with the IRA during the hunger strikes and a concession led to the strike being called off. (Margaret Thatcher- 6 Things you didn't know, by Andrew Sparrow, Guardian April 22, 2013).

2. Created "Property owning democracy through the sale of Council houses".

Her popular capitalism policy of selling public houses at undervalued prices was politically popular, but reduced the stock of houses available for poor people and caused house prices to rise leading to a fall of home ownership (Dispelling the Thatcher myths, by Alex Nunns, April 2013).

3. Electoral Phenomenon.

Mrs. Thatcher won 3 elections, each with a lower percentage of vote than the previous post war tory victories. She never gained the support of more than one-third of eligible voters. She was also helped by a very weak opposition following the breaking off of a part of the Labor Party to form the SDP (Dispelling the Thatcher myths etc.).

REAL LEGACY

Mrs. Thatcher's real legacy is that in the area of the economy, in trying to solve problems she created a new set. High inflation was replaced by high unemployment; productivity improved but the balance of payments worsened; inefficient manufacturing was replaced by unstable financial services; working days lost gave way to many more lost through striking by capital and power shifted from labor to capital as union membership dropped, rates of profit and share of total income of the top 1% increased and wages as a percentage of GDP dropped (Office of National Statistics).

On the political side Mrs. Thatcher created a North-South rift as the recession hit the north and manufacturing industry the hardest while the south (except for the slums of London) was booming with new service industries. As a result in the 1987 election the Conservatives won 226 of the 260 seats in the south but only 149 in other areas (Thatcherism, by Kim etc.).

Mrs. Thatcher succeeded in defeating the unions and the left, which pulled the Labor Party to the right which then rebranded itself as New Labor; but that left three right leaning parties and people no longer had a choice of political ideology; no wonder the Scots are trying to go their own way through independence. She also changed her own party; when she left office it was no longer a consensus party but one that had substituted pragmatism with the ideology of the right and thus lost touch with people which ultimately led to her own downfall.

In concluding, as was the case in the 1970's Western economies are again in crisis. Interestingly there is hardly a word of a return to Thatcherism as the way out of the current crisis. Fareed Zakaria has argued that Thatcher's policies are not helpful in solving today's problems since they were designed for different problems of the 1970's. (Could Margaret Thatcher's reforms work in 2013, Washington Post, April 10, 2013).

Mrs. Thatcher's main fault was that in seeking to meet spurious monetary targets she increased unemployment to unprecedented levels which was responsible for social problems and riots. The celebrations that marked her death are a measure of the depth of the scars that the victims still bear after all these years.

Whatever benefits might have come from Thatcherism, they were not worth the price that the victims paid. And as always it was the poorest who paid the highest price. I know I was there.

Victor A. Dixon- April 28, 2013
Revised October 14, 2013

Victor A Dixon attorney and social scientist

A Civil Conversation

2013-09-06T19:15:00.001-07:00

In the wake of the massacre in December 2012 of 26 children and adults at Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut by a man with an assault rifle, it would seem impossible to have a civil conversation about guns and gun ownership.

Surprisingly, Dan Baum's Gun Guys: A Road Trip, takes the discussion of guns to unexpected amiable territory. He writes about guns from a personal perspective, taking the stance that they are a sporting item and require a certain amount of expertise much like those who like to shoot a bow and arrow.

Mr. Baum begins his tale of gun fascination from when he was elementary school age in 1961 and attended Sunapee summer camp in New Hampshire. He said he was a "pudgy, over mothered cherub amid a tribe of lean savages." Learning how to shoot guns at camp made him special. He was a good shot, and this expertise won him a bronze Pro-Marksman medal from the National Rifle Association. He got a patch his first year at camp and every year after that.

He was hooked.

But he had no mentors among his friends or family members who shared his interest in guns. As someone outside the world of avid, pro-gun-rights gun owners, Mr. Baum decided to take to the back roads of the U.S., visiting many gun stores, rifle ranges and gun shows to find what lies behind the powerful allure of guns for others.

Not fitting the stereotype, Mr. Baum knew he'd butt up against some barriers. He describes himself as a New Jersey Democrat now living Boulder, Colorado, a bastion of liberal pacifists. "I'm a stoop-shouldered, bald-headed, middle-aged Jew in pleated pants and glasses." He used his NRA baseball cap and NRA lapel pin as camouflage to try to fit in more.

He started his research by going out in public wearing an "open carry" gun strapped to his hip for everyone to see. He was looking for reaction from ordinary folks.

His first stop was a Home Depot. He made every effort to be obvious, but he got no reaction -- positive nor negative.

Next stop was the local Apple Store. Surely, he wrote, that would cause a response from the technology folks. Again, no reaction. Finally Mr. Baum steeled himself to enter Whole Foods. Clearly the clientele from such a store would have something to say.

Nope.

Mr. Baum said he felt like a ghost. Or was there some sort of weird psychological tic preventing the Whole Foods customers from seeing the gun because it was too outrageous to be true, e.g. "This is Boulder; that can't be a gun."

His next move was taking the course to get a permit for carrying a concealed, loaded weapon. His instructor stressed the importance of assessing certain "Conditions" for people wearing loaded guns.

Condition White stood for total security: home with the dog at your feet and your home alarm on.

Condition Yellow stood for being aware of one's surroundings, such as walking around town.

Condition Orange was awareness of a possible threat.

Condition Red was responding to a real threat.

Mr. Baum wrote, "I found that I wasn't so much in Condition Yellow as Condition Day-Glo Yellow. Everything around me appeared brilliantly sharp." Mr. Baum's hyper awareness spilled over into his reaction for those walking around him. He described the feeling of pity he felt for passersby who did not know he was capable of wreaking havoc at any moment.

"And there I was, striding among them, uniquely capable of resisting whatever violence might be their portion. It surprised me that it made me feel rather noble."

Dan Baum made a rule not to let himself not get drawn into political discussions, and he kept his promise when he wrote the book months before the events of Sandy Hook and its initial publication. He said his mission was finding out who else besides himself was a self-styled "gun guy," which he did well.

However, he did venture in to the world of politics in a postscript he wrote after the events of Sandy Hook.

In the same reasonable style as in Gun Guys, Mr. Baum points out that things have to change in the way we manage, or mismanage, gun sales in this country. He wants to see more control on how guns make their way into the world of criminals and criminal behavior.

He closes his postscript with "... it's not good enough to say, 'That's just the way we are.'"

The appeal of this book is Mr. Baum's approach to gun ownership. The skeptical reader will be surprised. He does not preach the second amendment nor argue for or against the value of gun ownership. He leaves that up to his audience.

Gun Guys is smart and informative -- an education for anyone the slightest bit curious about why gun owners are so passionate about their guns. Dan Baum's stories are alive, engaging, and earnest.

Reviewer Geri Spieler is the award-winning author of Taking Aim at the President: The Remarkable Story of the Woman Who Shot at Gerald Ford (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). She is also a member of the National Books Critics Circle.

Geri Spieler is author of "Taking Aim At The President: The Remarkable Story of the woman who shot at Gerald Ford," and a journalist. She teaches Internet Research Classes

Politics Inc - Fraud and Deceit

2013-09-06T05:05:00.002-07:00

In 2008 there will be another round of presidential primaries, but with the primaries over a year away there is an almost unknown candidate John Cox of Illinois. John Cox is a businessman, tax attorney, and author. Who at 50, has had two failed attempts at office in Congress in 2000 and in the 2002 Senate, believes that this is the right time for him to make an attempt to take control of the Executive branch. Cox at this time has been gathering support in political circles in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Iowa.

In his book Politic$, Inc., Principle, Not Profit, Why We Need Statesmen, and Not Career Politicians, he makes his views clear about career politicians who have taken up residence for life in Congress. In his book In Politic$, Inc. he draws on the point, that politicians are more concerned about their personal wealth and power than the well being of the people, or the state of the Nation. He reflects on his past involvement with tax officials, who don't seem to know that they are public servants.

Cox offers solutions to many of the governments problems such as, the out of control spending, the runaway train syndrome that we have with regards to the Social security administration, medical care, and the crumbling education system. This he blames on politicians who would rather take the path of least resistance instead of the sometimes more difficult solutions, and all this for political gain. Therefore abandoning a chance to correct some of our most pressing problems .

This book may be the driving force for an electorate searching for a real Conservative leader. In his missive Cox states that he believes that term limits should be implemented. This would resolve issues of Legislators who are unable to show political restraint .

Cox, whose mother was abandoned by his father when John Cox was an infant, is opposed to abortion on demand, and he has strong feelings against amnesty for illegal aliens. This businessman is a strong supporter of a high tech missile defense system to deter other nations from pursuing a nuclear weapons program. He is strongly committed to pursuing a plan for improvements to education, health care costs, and environmental improvements that would be acceptable and fair with minimal interference from bureaucrats.

Politic$ Inc. is not fool proof, and will not solve all the nations problems. Most of Mr. Cox's suggestions and proposals will rely on a new breed of public officials, but also a new type of electorate. A much more responsible electorate. The removal of long term politicians from office will be a risky move, to say the least, and could result in democrats making gains on the number of seats being held.

The Art of War by Sun Tzu

2013-09-03T23:57:00.000-07:00

Written during the 6th century BC, The Art of War is a definitive Chinese military strategy treatise that has proven relevant centuries later, not only to modern-day warfare, but also to politics, business, and managerial and even relationship strategies.

Best summarized in his quote "all warfare is based on deception", Sun Tzu's teachings include the importance of positioning in strategy, having taken into account the objective conditions in the physical environment and the subjective opinions of your opponent in that environment. He also teaches on the importance of speed and versatility in responding to changing conditions, seeing as even the best laid plans in life more often than not do fall apart. Sun Tzu's emphasis however is on how to fight wars without actually going into battle i.e. by outsmarting your opponent. For Sun Tzu, the key is to first know yourself, then know your opponent, thus limiting the costs of competition/ conflict. He talks of the need to recognize opportunities in the weaknesses of your opponent, without trying to create them; tactical maneuvering and the importance of developing information sources.

The Art of War became increasingly popular in the 19th and 20th centuries, with Sun Tzu's teachings being applied in politics and culture of both western and Asian cultures. The book is regarded as a primary example of Taoist thinking, which proved influential to both ancient Chinese and Asian culture and history. Sun Tzu is thought to have been a general of King of Wu, who lived in the Spring and Autumn Period of China (722 -481 BC). This was a period of constant war in China, which saw the seven nations of Zhao, Qin, Qi, Han, Chu, Yan and Wei, battle over control of the whole of China. On this basis, some scholars believe that The Art of War is based on the descriptions of warfare in the Warring States Period (476-221 BC).

Known to have influenced the strategies of Napoleon and Mao, The Art of War has taken prominence in strategies outside military applications. It has proved a bible of sorts on corporate strategy for Japanese businessmen, well respected today for their business savvy. This must-read has also found its way in the legal fraternity for tactics on outsmarting opposing counsel; as well as in the sports world, for defense/offense tactics, political campaign trails, office politics and - believe it or not - getting and holding onto romantic partners.

GPS Tracking

2013-08-27T04:06:00.000-07:00

In the article "GPS, The Good and The Bad" we looked at both sides of GPS tracking. We saw that it can be used for a variety of beneficial activities like finding your location on a map to help you navigate to a specific destination. However, the same technology that allows you to track yourself can allow others to track you. So in today's closer look we are going to checkout ways your phone may be tracked, who might be tracking you, and how to protect yourself.

Probably the most common way that your phones location can be tracked by someone else is if an app that has been installed is transmitting your location. Some apps may just require your location to help provide relevant local content, such as an app that suggests restaurants. It wouldn't be a very useful app if all the suggestions were miles and miles away, so it takes your GPS location to give find options that are close to you. While it is important for you to know which apps are requesting your location, and determine yourself if you are comfortable with a company knowing your location at all times, we are more interested in apps that are specifically for tracking your location and allowing it to be viewed by others.

One such tracking software is ePhoneTracker. This software can be installed on any phone and runs invisibly in the background as long as the phone is on. It won't even show up in the running applications menu of your phone! Once on your phone the app tracks everything your phone does. Text messages, call history, emails sent and received, what websites you visit, your contacts, and your GPS location, all get logged and sent to an email address to be viewed remotely. Software like this can be used in a few different ways and we are going to focus on the GPS tracking capability. Parents might use it to track their children's location to make sure they get to school safely or that they aren't talking to anyone they shouldn't be. For parents of young kids I can see this being used as a tool to ensure safety more than an invasion of privacy. But the difference between monitoring for safety concerns and spying is a fine line. At what age does tracking your kids phone become spying? If you are just keeping track of a person's location to make sure they are safe why does the app need to be so hidden? If you wanted to keep track of your spouse's location while they were away on a business trip or commuting to work you could use one of many other more transparent methods of keeping tabs of their location. There are many other apps for keeping tabs on someone's whereabouts without being sneaky about it.

An app like ePhoneTracker takes GPS location from a safety tool to a spying method. If you are tracking someone without their knowledge it's because you don't trust them to tell you where they are. Maybe you think your teenager isn't actually going to a friend's house, or the library like they said they were. Maybe you think your spouse isn't being faithful and you want to know the truth. Just because you suspect someone of wrongdoing you don't have the right to invade their privacy. Would you want someone spying on you?

GPS isn't the only way to track a phones location. Service providers are constantly receiving location updates from your phone for the purpose of delivering phone calls and other data. Most carriers offer a family locator service that can be used to follow the location of any phone on the family plan. Connecting to open wifi networks will update your phones location, even if you don't have GPS or a data plan.

So how can you avoid being tracked? The best solution is to know what is on your phone. When installing a new app read what it is requesting access to and don't install it if you are unsure what something means! You can always contact the developers to get a clearer understanding of why an app needs certain information, as well as how/where the data is being stored. In some apps you turn off the GPS functionality, although it can be hard to find sometimes. Keeping your phone close or using a login password to make sure other people can't install apps without you knowing is also a great way to keep your information private. You should also be cautious about who knows your Google or Apple IDs because they can be used to install apps remotely to your phone! Another surefire way to know your phone can't be tracked is to use a RF&RFID blocking case. This way no signal is going to or from your phone and you can go about your life without looking over your shoulder.

Iran: Nuclear Conflict Over Nuclear Power?

2013-08-21T22:50:00.001-07:00

If things continue down the path they have begun, and everybody involved keeps chest pounding and challenging each other to climb the ladder of aggression; sooner rather than later, severe weapons will begin to be fired and there will be a major conflict in the Middle East.

This potential war will make the Iraq war look like a small border conflict in scale as it will be the culmination of over 50 years of aggressive behaviour between Iran, it's Arab neighbours; and Israel and it's pro-UN allies.

With the latest worrying news being the expulsion and closure of the UK Embassy in Iran over the continued economic sanctions, and the riots that enabled Iranian students to invade and occupy the UK embassy in a hauntingly familiar scene to the 1979 storming of the US embassy; as well as the expulsion and closure of the entire Iranian embassy in London, tensions are even higher now against the reclusive Persian nation. However, has Iran really done what the Western world says it has done? Or is the nation simply trying to keep itself afloat and be the victim of overzealous elements in the Western World who feel that they need to control the oil-rich nation for their own means?

In the event of a conflict, it is estimated that Iran will fight appropriately, not use so-called dirty tactics, as it's neighbours have used, but fight using appropriate means.

Although it is estimated that Iran will strike at targets in Israel as well as other nations, if a war ensues, it will most likely end up being decidedly one-sided. If the state of Israel feels the need to strike first, which they have a solid history of doing, they may well launch tactical nuclear strikes against known Iranian nuclear facilities to ensure they will not be rebuilt or in any way usable in the future. Although this may seem suicidal, it will prove that Israel is willing to defend itself from perceived aggression as well as real aggression, and more than likely, the UN will bow to Israel and allow the attacks and weapon strikes without censure.

Iran has sworn off using Weapons of Mass Destruction after the Iran/Iraq war, and seems very much against the use of area effect and anti-civilian weapons in general. They are a signed and ratified party to the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention, as well as a full signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What this means is that Iran has legally bound itself not to produce or stockpile Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons for use in armed conflict. Unfortunately, Israel is not a signatory to the same treaties.

There is a lot of circumstantial and in some cases, very questionable evidence that Iran may have or be developing a nuclear weapon, the real and provable facts are very thin and do not back up the claims made by the Western world about the supposed nuclear stance of this Persian powerhouse. Iran has stated that it's Supreme Leader has issued a Fatwa, religious decree, against the country developing or using Nuclear Weapons, and as the entire country tends to follow these decrees, there is no real reason to think that Iran would be secretly developing a nuclear weapon program when it's Religious leaders have said 'No'.

Based on historical documents, Israel has tended to be the aggressor in most of the middle east conflicts it has been involved in against other nation-states. Launching preemptive strikes and invading before the other nation has a chance to really do anything, Israeli troops have managed to dominate their corner of the Arabian peninsula for the past 50 years.

Unfortunately, with the fall of Iraq, Iran is now one of the only nations in the Middle East that maintains an active army, has a solidly anti-US stance, and is willing and able to back itself up with an organized military response to an outside threat. With an estimated 650,000+ member force of standing military and reserves estimated to exceed 10 million, Iran has a significant military force able to march on and attack by ground, sea, and air; if they are attacked and feel the need to retaliate.

It is very doubtful that Iran would ever fire a warhead against Israel on a first-strike basis, but the same does not hold for Israel's response to the perceived threat of attack by Iran.

Israel may well launch multiple nuclear warheads at Iranian targets in an attempt to disproportionately eliminate multiple military offensives as well as intimidate the Iranian people against further action. However, this would more than likely have the directly opposite result of uniting the entire Arabian peninsula against Israel and causing a very prolonged and pretty much defined war of annihilation against the Jewish nation-state. For those who believe in the Bible, this could be the beginning of the book of Revelations, and the foreshadowing of the 'End Times'. as they are supposed to be be ushered in with a failed war against Israel lead by a nation from the North. Although Iran is east of Israel, the nations of Lebanon and Syria to the North. Syria borders on Turkey, and Turkey shares a border with Iran. It is not impossible to accept that a major ground offensive of Iranian National Guard troops may use that corridor to hit Israel from the north and drive deep into the country in the event of an all-out conflict.

In closing, it is my feeling that with the political rhetoric now ramping up, we may be coming close to a very protracted and intense Middle East conflict that may well become the World War 3 that people felt for a long time would be the US against the USSR. This would not be a good thing.

Political Correctness Is Censorship

2013-08-18T02:58:00.002-07:00

So you say that I offended you. I say that is impossible. I cannot offend you. Being offended is something that happens in your head, and I have no control over that. I can push you, I can strike you, I can do all sorts of things that will injure you, but I cannot offend you.

I will go further and state that your declaration that you have been offended is cowardice or at the very least weakness on your part. Cowardice in that you do not have any logical retort to counter whatever statement I made to offend you. You are surrendering your side of a disagreement. You claim to be offended as a shield to hide behind, and I am calling you out as a coward. If you think I am wrong, or you think I am mislead, then use your words as a rational being would, and tell me why I am wrong. Do not throw up the "offended" flag and expect that your claim of offense has ended the conversation. I am telling you that ending the conversation by becoming offended is your admission of the weakness of your argument.

For many years, people who had no logical point to make have shut down discussion under the guise that someone taking offense to a topic or idea was in some magical way a reason to stop talking. This is nonsensical. This is the core of modern censorship and I am appalled by it. There is zero reason that any idea no matter who it offends should be censored. That is exactly what we have done. You can't talk about race or religion or politics because someone might be offended. I say to you now, and I will echo these thoughts for decades to come, that the person who is offended is the problem, and they need to sort it out. If my religious beliefs offend you, then you have a problem not me. There is no logical reason for me to be censored, either by my own self-imposed will to not offend, or by group or government pressure to respect you imaginary right to live free from offense. If my political views offend you, then, under what thinking man's banner can you possibly expect to shut down my opinion? In reality the offense lives in your brain not in my speech. If I am offended by your conduct or speech, do I have the right to stop you, just because I clam an offense, when we know that the only place offense lives in inside of my skull. The only logical answer to that question is no.

What is worse still is that offense is not an equal quantity. Some people can be offended and others cannot. People who are of the majority opinion cannot be offended. That is actually not true, the majority can be offended, but nobody cares. It is the people in the minority who cannot be offended. It is as if some difference in the quality of the human who is offended, not a difference in the opinion or point of view. Our founding fathers were brilliant men. They anticipated the bullying of the majority by groups of the "oppressed." The author of Animal Farm, George Orwell also predicted this special treatment for any group or individual who will claim to be offended.

I for one will not stand for this societal tyranny. I will not abide by these false rules. I will not be censored. If my speech offends you, I don't care, that is your problem. I encourage each and every person who reads this article to make it your mission to go an offend someone and then explain why the problem is all in their head.

America represents freedom. That freedom used to extend to the arena of political, religious, and any other sort of speech. We used to be allowed to criticize and disagree. We used to be able to sort out our differences without some crying that they were offended. As long as we allow the offended to shut down conversations, we will never be a free country again. At some point I will eventually become enraged enough to run for Congress, until then keep an eye out for my future articles.

On Anti-Scientific and Anti-Intellectual Conmen

2013-08-16T06:08:00.000-07:00

Two of the most obnoxious things to have come out of American Right are the anti-scientific and anti-intellectual directions. In both cases we see vast wrong being done.

The truck that the right-winger drives, the TV he watches, and the air conditioning that he uses, all come from science. God did not create these things; scientists did. And without science the American right-winger would be tilling a two-acre plot of land with a horse and a plow and be dying in case of a crop failure. Science is at the root of all technology, which means that it is at the root of everything that business sells. And without science, capitalism would be nothing more than exchange of basic commodities at the level it was in Medieval Persia.

Even more prevalent is the anti-intellectual direction; and here we likewise see vast hypocrisy. America was not founded by God. People in Europe believed in God and in Jesus long before the Americans; and most of the places in Europe that believed in God and in Jesus were poor and corrupt monarchies that allowed no liberty and produced no wealth. America's democratic system was designed by intellectuals schooled in European Enlightenment philosophy, basing their system on the Greko-Roman democracy and the Iroquois Confederacy. America owes to intellectuals its very nationhood.

Aligned with the anti-intellectual direction is the anti-French sentiment; and here we likewise see vast hypocrisy. France was America's first major ally that delivered crucial assistance during the Revolutionary War. America's intervention in France in the wars of 20th century can be seen as repaying the favor for what France did to make America possible in the first place. Without France, American Revolution would have floundered, and the American Republicans would be singing "God save the Queen."

Why are these obvious arguments not being made enough in the public discourse? Probably because nobody wants to get the ire of the people who believe the nonsense that's promulgated by right-wing conmen. As someone who's pissed people off all my life, I am not afraid of these people's anger, and I am willing to say these things because nobody else would.

The anti-scientific and the anti-intellectual sentiments have to go. America owes vastly to both scientists and intellectuals, and that means: Everyone in the country owes to both scientists and intellectuals. Science is at the root of everything that business sells, and the intellectuals are at the root of American system and American nationhood. It is time that credit be placed where it belongs.

And it is time that the conmen who keep misappropriating the credit be seen for the scoundrels that they are and lose their power to shape people's minds.

Can We Agree On Just One Thing?

2013-08-11T20:30:00.000-07:00

You may well have seen the news that on May 9th 2013 the daily reading of atmospheric CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii pasted 400 parts per million (ppm) for a 24 hour period. This is an important location as it was here that we first started taking regular measures of atmospheric CO2 in the 1950's and it provides a clear record of what human activity is doing to the atmosphere.

When the records started in 1958, atmospheric CO2 was 315 ppm. The first few years of measurement showed a slight up and down movement of the readings, which was when scientists realised they were watching the planet "breath". As the majority of the deciduous forests in the north of the planet shed their leaves for winter, levels rose only to fall back again when the new leaf growth appeared in the spring & summer. Over the next few years, though, the trend fell into a stead up-ward trajectory with the first decade of measure showing total concentrations rising by just under 1 part per million per year. As the world's economies grew through the 1970s and 1980s, the rate of increase went up steadily. By 1988, nine years after the US Academy of Science had first warned of the dangers of climate change but before it had become an international issue, the concentration level passed 350 ppm, a level which is now believed to be limit for the relatively benign and safe climate that humans have known throughout their history. To reach 400 ppm is also an unfortunate milestone, not because 400ppm is radically more dangerous than 399 ppm but because for the past 20 years there has been concerted attempts by some major countries to reduce their carbon emissions. The symbolism of the general failure of these efforts to cancel growth in the "developing countries" is hugely important.

Many non-scientists believe that human adaptability means that we do not need to worry about where CO2 levels are as humans will simply adapt to 'new normal'. Except that as CO2 levels rise, our new normal becomes increasingly uncomfortable as weather patterns change and growing food becomes ever more difficult. The UK suffered an appalling summer in 2012, which badly hit many crops: the wheat harvest for example was the worst for 35 years. A major bakery brand who had used the platform of only using 100% British wheat had to abandon that position as shortage of supply forced it to import grain from mainland Europe. While it was rain that spoiled the harvest in the UK, searing droughts in the US, Canada and Australia combined to make world supplies very tight indeed. Continued growth in the concentrations of CO2 will, inevitably, lead to further disruptions in weather patterns and further uncertainty over food supplies.

To secure our food supplies, we need to look at ways to solve climate change. Limiting growth in CO2 levels is a good objective and various concentration levels can carry symbolic meaning but there is nothing more symbolic for modern humans than money. And how we use our money system remains at the core of our problems.

When I consider buying something, the transaction is not merely the exchange of money in return for a thing. It also reflects my feelings about myself, how I got the money in the first place, the thing I am buying, the location I have chosen to make the purchase, the people who work in there, the people who transported the thing there, the people who made the thing and the owners of the companies that did all these tasks. Money has facilitated thousands of connections to bring myself and the thing together and my reaction to the price being asked for it summarises my reaction to all those connections. But what it does not reflect is the impact that making that thing has had on the environment.

Price plays a critical role in markets, but the free market is distorted by treating the Earth's primary resources and atmosphere as the thing that is "free".

The basis of this thinking was the 18th-century Enlightenment, when human population levels were much lower: the assumption we could treat natural resources as being so abundant to be practicably infinite were workable then. A world population of 500 million using a resource at a rate that would appear to have it last 500 years could be forgiven for thinking 10 generations was sufficiently far away to be ignored. But that same quantity of resource being used by a 7 billion population at the same rate would consume it all in just over 35 years. The assumptions we base our economy on may have been workable for pre 20th century population levels but they do not serve us now.

In order to solve climate change we need to restructure our economic activity so that the economy and environment have a symbiotic relationship rather than a destructive one.

Impossible? I think not. Humans are capable of solving any problem they want to focus on. And to solve the problem of climate change we need to start by agreeing just one thing. The Earth is finite so our money system must stop pretending otherwise.

Harold Forbes is Author of "How to be a Humankind Superhero: a manifesto for individuals to reclaim a safe climate".

The book uses the myth of Hercules to provide individuals with twelve impactful action areas to fight climate change. It has been described by Jonathan Porritt, an eminent figure in the area of sustainable development as "An enjoyable read that hits the elusive balance between the analytic and the practical" while author Iain Banks called it a 'fine and heartfelt piece of work'.

Your Financial Freedom on Your Independence Day

2013-08-11T20:27:00.001-07:00

As the fireworks blaze over your head, in celebration of Independence Day, many are still not completely free of the financial issues that bind them. Since the economy has been struggling with the recession, people all over the country are dreaming of financial freedom, but feeling that they are never going to be able to obtain it. As freedom rings all across the country, it is time for a true day of Independence!

The United States celebrates the 4th of each July as Independence Day. This is not simply a holiday where we hold pool parties and grill out, but it is to celebrate our freedom as a country. The signing of the Deceleration of Independence on July 4th 1776 gave us our freedom. We were finally free of Great Britain's rule!

Along the way, the United States has dealt with many issues of personal freedom. Today, we should be very thankful for the freedoms that we have! As you are celebrating your Independence Day, make sure that you are truly free. Are there financial issues that are holding you hostage? If so, there is no better time to gain your financial independence.

People all across the country are finding that they can be free of their bills and of their stress. They are grasping new opportunities and taking hold of their financial futures. Like never before, there is pride in those who have refused to settle for less than the American Dream. Allow me to introduce you to the methods that can change your life.

Since the recession took place, jobs have been scarce and hard to come by. So many workers have been displaced and many are still trying to find work. For those who are working and finding it increasingly difficult to have the desire to clock in each day, there is much more that can be experienced. You do not have to settle for the struggle, when there are easy money online opportunities just waiting for you.

So as the rockets blare over the skies this 4th of July, allow yourself to be truly free of your debt and your financial struggle. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to sit back and enjoy the fireworks this year, while knowing that you have achieved financial stability and success? Now is your moment, today is your day and full financial freedom can be found because there is no better time to experience it than this Independence Day!

Veterans Are Struggling More Than Ever To Find Jobs

2013-08-11T20:23:00.000-07:00

Making the transition from being a soldier to a civilian can be difficult. This is especially true when it comes to finding suitable employment. For those soldiers who have ended their terms in the military, it can be very difficult to find work, in this present job market. Many have been out of the military for as many as two or more years before they are able to secure a job. Many others simply give up and find that they cannot get work no matter how qualified for the job they are.

This job market is hard enough on the average citizen, but can be even more difficult for those who are fresh out of the military and already trying to cope with major life changes. It can be difficult trying to find work that is steady and pays well. Many find that they are either over-qualified or under. Some find that employers are simply hesitant to hire veterans. You would think after serving your country that the job offers would be pouring in, but this is sadly not the case.

There have been some major companies that have reached out to veterans and worked towards putting programs into place that would help veterans to get jobs. Sadly, these programs are not found across the board and are often few and far between. Because of this, many of our veterans are finding life outside of the military very difficult to handle. The day to day struggle can be hard to overcome.

What many veterans are finding is that they need to make their own way in finding work. They are doing this by learning new skills and making new opportunities. It takes a passion and a willingness to learn to step out of your comfort zone and find new ways of looking at opportunities. By accepting change and being willing to embrace it, many are finding that they can create all new opportunities in the jobs market, even creating their own businesses.

If you are a veteran and have served your country proudly, you should be treated with respect and given the opportunity to work and make a living in this great country of ours. It is a shame that there is such a lack of help for veterans to find ample work once they get out of the military. Instead of being stuck in the unemployment line and wondering and waiting for when you will finally find work, you can overcome these obstacles and create your own path.

Basic Types of Flags and Their Usage

2013-08-10T07:08:00.003-07:00

Flags are well designed pieces of fabric materials normally used as symbols. They are usually rectangular in form. They can represent an institution, a country, or an organization. They are also used for decorative purposes. They can be used on military grounds, battlefields, maritime and aviation environments. In any case, there are basic types of flags that are widely used. Let's examine them.

• National Flags
These are emblems that represent various nations of the world. Each nation has its specific details that make up its emblem. The ensigns are usually rectangular in shape. They are often hoisted in embassies belonging to several countries. Various companies and organizations also hoist them on their environments.

• Civil Flags

These are unique emblems that are hoisted on non-governmental installations. They are actually unique versions of national flags. Civilians used them in denoting ships or buildings that are not managed by military groups.

• War Flags
These are special emblems designed for several military forces across the nations of the world. Each military organization in every nation has its unique ensign. It's usually used on battlefields. During the World War 2, various military organizations displayed all kinds of war emblems as they engaged in the war.

• International Ensigns
These are emblems used for international purposes. Among them include flags meant for the United Nations, Word Health Organization, the Olympic game and other international bodies.

• Religious Emblems
These are emblems meant for different religions across the world. Various Christian churches have their unique ensigns. Muslims, Buddhists, and other religious bodies also have theirs.

• Sports Flags
These are unique ensigns meant for various sports clubs across the world. Most soccer clubs, basketball clubs and other sports bodies have their unique emblems. They usually hoist them at their club headquarters. They also use them each time they go out for competitions.

Aside from the above, there are also other unique types of emblems available. They are designed to suit particular purposes. Most of them are made of quality fabric materials. They are produced in a variety of sizes and shapes. They can be customized to suit specific nations, institutions or organizations. They can be produced locally. Nevertheless, there are firms that produce such symbolic items out there. Such firms usually use the best of fabrics and other materials in producing them. Some of the firms operate online. One can always get the best of ensigns at affordable prices through the net.

International Flags And Their Different Purposes

2013-08-10T07:06:00.001-07:00

A flag is a symbol of the nation, its pride and delight. It is one of the important attributes that distinguishes one country from another, as all nations have their unique flags. International flags tell much of country's history, culture and identity. They hold more meaning than you might think... Looking at the flag's shape, size, colors and symbols that it displays, specialists can determine things such as what ethnic groups live in the territory of this country, how the colors and symbols reveal its past, etc. For this reason international flags are a subject of interest and respect worldwide.

You can find these flags in your local stores no matter where you live, as they are used for a variety of events and occasions. Some retailers even choose to sell flags only. Not many people are aware that international flags actually have various purposes and could be very beneficial. These flags are often used in public and private occasions. Such example can be a meeting of delegates from various countries where the participants of the event are respected with their own flags. The same applies for different sport events and especially for rewarding ceremony, where the national flag of the winners is displayed to the world. This is a sign of respect to them, their country and people.

International flags can be used for educating purposes too at schools and other educational centers. By showing them to the students, teacher explains interesting facts about the country each flag presents.

If you are searching for any particular flag and you cannot find it at the local stores, you can search for it online, as there are a lot of online retailers that will be able to offer it. Some of them work with pre-orders, so they will deliver you the flag shortly after the order is made.

There are national holidays like the Independence Day where particularly every home and shop hoists flags in respect to their country and occasion. During such special days, you can see them wave just about everywhere. Different nations have a special national day where they celebrate their freedom and independency and they also use the flags to feel patriotic and proud. These occasions are typically days when a lot of flags are sold, being an essential part of the event.

There are even people who collect international flags from the different countries they have visited. These decorative flags remind them of their travels and experiences they have had during their journeys. Due to the different uses of these flags, many people find the selling of international flags to be an advantageous business opportunity. This business is very appropriate especially for people who live in a foreign country. While selling the flags of their country, they reveal people more about their homeland, customs and culture.

International flags can be a wonderful present for children who desire to travel to foreign countries and who are interested in geography, history and discoveries. Who knows, may be someday they will follow the steps of Christopher Columbus and other great men that the history honors.

The World Today - What Lies Ahead?

2013-08-10T07:05:00.002-07:00

The world is in great turmoil. The economic meltdown in the West remains fragile as it integrates economic reforms and austerity measures. In the latest April 2013 data released, unemployment rate hits a new record high of 12.1% with over 19 million people jobless across the Euro zone. Moreover, the Middle East upheaval demanding political reforms continues and spreads like wildfires affecting more Arab nations than ever before. Meanwhile, North Korea's provocation, unleashing a series of threats against the US and South Korea, is absolutely troublesome, and it has been a "wait and see" event for the time being.

These turn of events have rattled and put the world in complete awe and left it in disbelief.

On what was supposed to be a celebration of the oldest running marathon in history, the Boston Marathon bombing has shocked the world and shuttered the lives of the many of its victims. It's one of the deadliest since the 9/11 attack on Twin Towers in New York. It has claimed the lives of three people and injured more than 200 sports enthusiasts and spectators. The incident is believed to be connected with terrorism, and according to some news, Islamist Militants are set to launch more Jihads to reestablish their presence and their dominance worldwide. Investigation is now underway to get to the bottom of this very unfortunate event of violence, and hopefully bring to justice the people behind this senseless attack.

Over the past weeks, North Korea, with its fiery rhetoric and threats against the US, has escalated the tensions across the region, apparently in an effort to strengthen its bargaining position should a peace talk resumes, and to reinstate its unreasonable claims and preconditions as alleged by South Korea. Obviously, the threat of nuclear warfare remains volatile, and peace in the region is far from being achieved.

The Syrian Government may have allegedly crossed the "redline", and as the war has reached a new levels of hostilities and threatens to spill over into regional conflict, the US is now seriously considering to intervene in some way. For some time, the US government maintains its position not to intervene in the Syrian civil war, but President Obama has always reiterated that use of chemical weapons would likely be "a game changer". More than 70,000 people have been killed since the onset of the civil war and will continue to rise as tensions intensify.

European economy remains weak in spite of political reforms and bailouts. Since most of EU economies largely rely on China, who's also facing its own economic woes in recent years, the prospect of economic recovery is unlikely to happen in the next year or two. Upbeat economic outlooks will remain murky for some indefinite period of time, unless bold and sustainable solutions will have to be employed.

Several standoffs have dramatically transpired since China's aggressions on the territorial disputes between its neighboring Asian countries have been intensified for the last several months. Chinese infringements over the territorial sovereignty of its neighbors across the waters of China Sea have been the subject of series of protests from among the countries being affected. These issues of coercion repeatedly perpetrated by China against its neighbors have been brought before the UN Council to settle the problems once and for all.

Conflicts in the Middle East have definitely changed the political landscape of the Arab world. At the same time, the world's economy remains bleak, and the biggest economic crisis in the modern times is far from being over. There is much to be done in finding solutions in order to resolve these issues to ease the burdens of life besetting the entire world.

Despite of all these quandaries reverberating in the minds of everyone, the world is still optimistic that hope is very promising, and the outlook of a better future is at hand.

Bright Lights, Dark City

2013-08-10T07:01:00.002-07:00

At 10 p.m. on a weeknight, the lights of Sao Paulo's Vila Olimpia shopping mall are blindingly bright.

I was there two months ago with my colleagues Shomari Hearn and ReKeithen Miller. We spent a week in Brazil on one of our periodic visits to see clients and contacts in the Southern Hemisphere's largest metropolis and in the surrounding Sao Paulo state.

On previous trips we had stayed in the city's financial district along the Avenida Paulista and in the old-money Jardims (Gardens) district nearby, where most of the global luxury hotel brands are concentrated. But this excursion brought us to Vila Olimpia, an up-and-coming neighborhood of brand-new office towers, all of which come with helipads to spare Brazil's business elite the traffic nightmares and security risks on the streets below. After an afternoon of watching choppers flit among the high-rises, my companions and I decided to check out the shops and restaurants at the glitzy mall.

Brazilians operate on a different schedule than we Americans are used to. At home I am usually finished with dinner by 8 p.m., and that is because I am typically at my office until 7. In Brazil I find myself having my after-dinner coffee around 10 or 11 o'clock, which is just about the time most restaurants begin to get busy. The street-level cafes in Sao Paulo are packed well past midnight every night. But the Vila Olimpia shopping center closes at the ridiculously early hour (by local restaurant standards) of 11 p.m., so our early-bird special did not immediately brand the three of us as foreigners. (My limited Portuguese vocabulary, atrocious grammar and brutal pronunciation took care of that.)

The mall was full of high-end local and international luxury shops. It had a state-of-the-art cinema and, interestingly, a long line of people outside an exhibit hall waiting to enter a traveling fair for HBO's hit fantasy series, "Game of Thrones." We ate dinner at a French restaurant. You can get any kind of cuisine in Sao Paulo. The restaurant fare is almost unvaryingly good - and unvaryingly expensive.

But what sticks out in my mind is the light. It seemed as if the mall's designers decided that nothing less than 10 million candlepower would do. The brilliance was all the more striking because, in Sao Paulo as elsewhere in Brazil, the nights are dark. Very dark. Much darker than the nights in North America.

Night is night, of course, but in Brazil most of the houses and streets seem to have very little light. The next evening, as our taxi crept through traffic for more than two hours to get us to the airport, we passed through poor and working-class neighborhoods where the apartment windows were only dimly lit by a few bulbs. The street lamps in those areas are sparse and feeble; the small local laundromats and grocery stores operate on just a few undernourished fluorescents. On other trips, I have traversed rural towns that appear almost uninhabited when seen after dark - but I know people live there, because during afternoon drives in the opposite direction I have observed the residents on the streets or sitting near the windows of their tiny houses.

I was surprised when massive demonstrations broke out across Brazil earlier this month. Nearly everyone was surprised, including the organizers of the demonstrations - which began over a small increase in bus fares - and the administration of President Dilma Rousseff, a former leftist activist herself. After a heavy-handed initial police response, the protests quickly morphed into a rebellion against official violence, government corruption, decrepit public services and promiscuous spending on prestige projects such as the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics.

At first blush, it seems hard to reconcile the patient, optimistic, non-materialistic Brazilian character with the protesters' amorphous demands. Brazilians are typically proud of their country and proud of its emergence as an important economic power, a vastly productive source of things everyone wants and needs, from sugar to iron to paper. Or so we thought. Just a few years ago, there were street celebrations when Brazil was awarded the World Cup and the Olympics. Now people are protesting. Why the change of heart?

My guess is that it has a lot to do with expectations. Some 40 million Brazilians have moved from poverty to at least the lower rungs of the middle class in the past decade. Unemployment is low. Consumer credit has expanded, allowing millions to buy their first washing machines, their first cars. (Stores serving less-affluent clientele in particular are still apt to offer payments spread over 12 months, interest-free, because patrons often lack credit elsewhere.)

But the streets remain dark. The quality of health care and education is often poor. Anything imported costs a fortune. Taxes, when paid, are exorbitant, but enforcement is uneven. Crime festers on a scale unknown here in the States. Here, we have the rare home invasion; in Brazil, invaders have been known to take over entire apartment buildings, going door to door to rob dozens of occupants.

Rising prosperity has enabled many Brazilians to travel abroad. They marvel at how residents of New York or Miami Beach leave their homes late at night, unconcerned about getting back safely. Even Brazilians who have never left their country can see how the rest of the affluent world lives, on television and online.

Expectations have risen, and rising expectations tend to breed discontent when they are not met quickly. We have seen it here. U.S. cities exploded in riots in the 1960s and '70s, after the civil rights movement brought political reforms without substantially changing the way people actually lived.

I imagine it is maddening to sit in Sao Paulo's worst-in-the-West traffic day after day, looking up at tycoons and politicians soaring overhead in their helicopters while fares rise for a ride on an overloaded bus.

It is hard to pin down exactly what Brazil's demonstrators want. They want a lot of things, many of which cannot be delivered quickly. Yet I suspect that, for many, it might be soothing just to have somebody in authority care enough to install a few lights.

Money: Most Of The World's Troubles

2013-08-02T03:25:00.002-07:00

Money has always been a major cause of most of the world's troubles. The fact that money rules most legislation passed by our Republican Congress is a serious problem in America today. The current government thinks more about the needs and concerns of the wealthy and big business than about the needs and interests of the majority. Examples, Republican's are proposing legislation revoking a totally harmless tax. They want to totally do away with the inheritance tax when our country is not going broke, but well past being broke. What does a dead person care about a tax on his/her estate? It is only the lazy inheritor who does not want to work or, restart a business that cares about that tax. That present tax only begins on those estates valued in the millions of dollars.

America's Supreme Court even says that money is free speech. How is free speech equivalent to money? They are not synonyms! The logic of the Supreme Court is that a person can't be heard without having money. If that thinking is accepted, then money gives a person louder speech. A person with more money has the ability to be visible and heard in more places, such as in more advertisements on different television stations at varying times. Following that logic, a millionaire has louder speech than the average American. A billionaire has even louder speech. A major corporation or a major trade association could potentially trump and blanket even a billionaire's speech. How fair is that? The Supreme Court's ruling is one equal vote per person. The ability to infiltrate the media because of monetary resources invalidates the one vote per person rule. Wealthy individuals or business can use the media to brainwash the public.

Money must be taken out of politics in order to have a true democracy. It is a simple process when it is realized that all radio, television and cable systems are in effect inter-state commerce. When airwaves were first being developed years ago, they were given away free. Major media companies continue to use the public airwaves free, with no ongoing charges. The newly developed parts of the spectrum have been auctioned off at large prices, many times for millions of dollars. The users of the new airwaves are at a disadvantage over those who previously obtained use of the airwaves free. All companies using the spectrum, other than those using it for wireless services should be required to offer all candidates, incumbents and challengers free time within their programming schedules. The cable systems are also interstate commerce; so as a public service it is a mandate to free time is not far off.

If money is removed as an influencing factor in politics, the country would eliminate the need for any politician to go around begging for money. In addition, the incumbent would no longer have the distinct advantage of being a well known individual with wide recognition by the voters.

True Democracy

2013-08-02T03:23:00.002-07:00

True democracy should be about unity at the core, and balance. Democracy is about the people determining what is best for their nation as a whole. The people have the power and they must insure the unity and balance is not taken from them... for this could happen unexpectedly.

Perhaps democracy is only a dream today, or more like an illusion; a ghost of what once was. We believe in democracy, in America, because we want to. In the same manner as a faithful person wants to believe in God. The idea of a loving creator is nice to imagine, just like the idea of a political system uniting humanity and bringing an end to tyranny may also be a pleasant thought. Seeking after philosophical ways of making logical sense in how a loving God governs a world like ours; people can debate for years on such an issue. Neither side can prove though, without a shadow of a doubt that there is, or is not, a loving God. How could people prove democracy is more than a dream today, more than an illusion?

Like America, Rome was a Republic with democratic values. The Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers, and today's modern democracies imitate the Roman and Greek models. The major difference from the Roman Republic model, (and one of the primary reasons our modern day democracy may be so flawed), is the fact our present political leaders are paid millions of dollars for being in their positions. In ancient Rome the political leaders chose to serve their nation without payment. They earned their money by other means while viewing their job as senators to be an honor, since they were able to serve those less fortunate. In the days of the Republic, before Julius Caesar shook things up, the people knew the senators cared about helping to bring a balance to Rome.

The political, cultural, and economic forces which held the Roman Empire together were removed because of Economic fragmentation, eventually leading to the Dark Ages. Following the economical mistakes made in Rome the empire continued to digress because of the crumbling of political, military, and other social institutions, along with invasions from outside peoples, and usurpers from within the empire. The Roman Empire held onto their particular values in politics for a time, but eventually they allowed outside influences to change these values, and wash away the foundations of the Republic. Rome started to lose their identity as others came in from foreign lands and started to change the Roman individuality. In summary, the economy collapsed, outside influences started to change Rome, and eventually too many wars, attacks, and dependence on the crumbling government brought about the ultimate fall of Rome... The loss of democratic values was subtle at first, and then by the time the people depended unequivocally upon the power of their leader, or government, their leaders had little to offer. The damage from all the mistakes made in Rome drained the economy, and helped make the populace an ignorant people who depended too much on the "elite" for help. Soon the Dark Ages followed after what was left of the empire crumbled...

Today America is the great empire, or as the world believes, the great democratic nation. the march on Wall Street, the fact that more than six in ten Americans oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan, (according to a new national poll), the protests against government spending, and our government officials being unable to unite so as to solve our present economical woes; these problems should not face a properly ran democracy. If the people want the issue resolved in a Democratic Nation, then the issue should be resolved, or else this is not a system of government based on the principle of majority decision making.

Instead of tyranny and a dictatorship, democracy provides opportunities for the people to control how their nation is ran. The political "leaders" should work for the people, and the people can oust them without need for violence, or any sort of revolution. Why are the people ignored today by their political leaders' in America? If the people declare, "we want to stop fighting. We want the war to end", then the soldiers' should be brought home. Despite the argument on whether something may be a good idea or a bad idea; the people determine what will be done. For better or worse, they should receive what they demand, or else face the truth that they no longer live in a truly democratic nation. If the leaders ignore what the majority want and they decide to do what they feel is best, (despite what the citizens want), then how can such a nation still be defined as democratic?

The idea of democracy and the importance of this political ideal can be summarized in the word "unity". Democracy is supposed to be about something bigger than one's self. Democracy is bigger than ones culture, ones past, one's personal desires. Democracy is supposed to be a balanced system where what is best for humanity as a whole is focused on instead what may be best for an individual or a group of a select privileged few. If our motive is love for something greater than ourselves, no ingratitude will hinder us from serving our fellow man. Democracy should be about love for humanity and equality. There is an idea that one's love for self is most important. Conclusively an individual will end up hurting themselves and those they love if they only depend on their selves. Every individual is flawed and their emotions lead to more trouble. Democracy was meant to unite a nation and preserve freedom and justice for all. It's quite clear in our nation's history that the founding fathers' wanted those in our democracy to believe in something greater than self. Sadly most live for themselves first in our nation today, and unity doesn't last... A house divided will fall.

The people believe in democracy in America, because we want to... Is this a democratic nation or a crumbling empire where the people place their allegiance in the leaders more than in the values their nation was founded upon? We are surely not united and balanced today. The political leaders cannot even unite to fix our economic crises. The people can't seem to unite and succeed in receiving what they ask for. Is democracy an illusion, a ghost of what once was? Ultimately if democracy has failed in our nation, this is because we, the people, have failed our nation.

Why Do We Wait for A Crisis?

2013-08-02T03:21:00.003-07:00

The current brouhaha over the impending Fiscal Cliff is yet another example of a national culture that waits for crisis before taking action. The irony in this current example is that our political leaders actually created the cliff to force themselves to address this complex economic issue. In other words, because they couldn't work together to craft a solution to our growing budget demands and dwindling revenue stream they developed a plan is the worst of both worlds to motivate themselves and each other to find a better strategy-or else!

If there is one behavior that is completely debilitating when it comes to both personal and organizational leadership it is postponing the inevitable-and having to develop creative solutions under the pressure of crisis is never an optimal scenario. While the pressure to do something to avoid complete disaster is compelling to finally move forward, the quality of the progress is dubious at best.

So how do leaders inspire action before the point of crisis?

Vision, communication, action and tenacity are the key ingredients for leadership that creates solutions to not only avoid crisis, rather to head-off the problems and incredible waste a crisis creates:

· Vision to see the problems and, more importantly, the roadmap to a solution

· Communication with others including those impacted by the issue to help them understand the situation and develop their understanding and leadership

· Action to move everyone toward solutions, seeing it and talking about it are not enough-action is essential

· The tenacity to keep focused on the issue even when others refuse to deal with it

Ultimately each of these issues comes down to those who are impacted by needing to become a part of the solution-and that ignoring a problem doesn't mean it will go away. It is easy to avoid difficult situation if it is not impacting you directly AND the moment it does and it isn't working the way you want, voila crisis!

Just ask Long Island Utility customers how they felt after Hurricane Sandy revealed gross mismanagement, or those swept away in the recent banking and mortgage-lending crisis. How many people knew there was something wrong and remained silent?

Which brings us back to Congress and the crisis du jour. While we look at our elected leaders with a deep sigh of frustration at the inability to create solutions ahead of the curve, we must also look at ourselves. Why do we keep electing people to office who have no intention of governing only politicking? Why it is so important to hoard every cent we earn without an understanding of the collective good that comes from living in a society that provides such immense public good? And what role can each one of us play in making that collective good as efficient and effective as it can be in the communities where we live and work?

We can't expect anything of our elected officials that we ourselves are unwilling to do. Perhaps as we head toward this fiscal cliff we can ask ourselves this question:

What can I do to shift my addiction to crisis as the precursor to change?

If we the people can begin changing the way we approach our lives, then we will create an example for our elected leaders-and one that is long past due in learning.

Articles of Impeachment

2013-08-02T03:20:00.000-07:00

According to the Constitution, you know the supreme law of the land; the President of the United States must ensure that laws be faithfully executed. This is something he has to do and has pledged to do whether he likes it or not.

The following is the presidential oath of office (emphasis added):

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

The following is the Congressional (House and Senate) oath of office (emphasis added):

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: so help me God".

I don't know about you, but I could not help but notice the difference in the two of oaths. The one crafted by the founders (the presidential oath) is short, concise and uncluttered whereas the Congressional oath, adopted in the 1860s, is about double. Just imagine if it were written today. The oath would take an hour to recite with a lot of "yeah buts" plugged in. Just an observation.

When a president, or for that matter, a member of Congress doesn't take care to defend the Constitution and laws be faithfully executed as described in the Constitution, Article II, Section 3, he or she should fully expect not just impeachment but removal from office. The same could be said of any neglectful employee.

As many may not realize, impeachment and removal are two different things. One can be impeached (e.g. Bill Clinton) by the House of Representatives without being removed from office, which is determined by the Senate.

Recently a few brave souls in Congress have drafted articles of impeachment against King Barack for failure to execute his oath of office. Sadly it will go nowhere and they will, of course, be mocked for their attempt.

There are few "High Crimes" (Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution) more serious than the failure to protect and adhere to the Constitution or usurpation of congressional authority.

A wise man once said, to the low information citizen, history begins on the day of their birth. Even to those who think themselves informed, it seems that many believe that Barack Obama is our first president to fancy himself a monarch.

But this is not the first time a president has been referred to as King. Andrew Jackson was often called King Andrew due to his near Monarchical control of the country. He, like Obama, was often said to govern based on personal opinion and biases, rather than adherence to law, despite protests from Congress.

It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. Once you begin to look back on America's political history you will notice nothing is ever really new, just recycled.

The difference between now and Andrew Jackson's day is that unlike today, some congressional leaders of that era actually had the courage to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.

During the Jackson administration, Sen. Henry Clay spoke on the Senate floor for three straight days against the imperialism of Jackson. Clay warned America that Jackson's actions were "dangerous to the liberties of the people" and if left unchecked would soon result in "a concentration of all powers of government in the hands of one man".

Clay explained that throughout his two terms, Jackson did what he wanted, how he envisioned things ought to be, regardless of the legality or constitutionality of any given issue.

Does any of this sound even remotely familiar; the same as today's real conservatives, warning of Obama's want for concentration of power? It's unfortunate that none of today's elected Republican leaders would dare have the courage of Henry Clay.

Today most consider impeachment to be an impossibility. Why bother. Why even start down that road.

Well, the fact is, that when bills of impeachment were first filed against the hated Richard Nixon, only a paltry 25 members of Congress supported the idea of impeachment at that time.

So what offenses has the King committed that may warrant impeachment? Here are just a few examples, thanks to the help of Rick Santorum, that rise to the level of impeachment:

Executive Order rescinding the "Mexico City Policy"
Unilateral decision to stop enforcing the "Defense of Marriage" law
The instruction to DHS to stop deportation of young illegal aliens as required by law
Instruction to the Justice Department to cease prosecution of the Black Panthers
Recess appointments without Senate in recess
Unilateral dismissal of the Second Amendment through executive orders

Now, do I really think impeachment is possible? Probably not. Removal by the Senate is a pipe dream, of course. So why try?

One tries because it is the right and Constitutional thing to do. It's just unfortunate that there are so many progressives on both sides of the aisle that just don't care to do the job that they all pledged to do.

Political Correctness Is Censorship

2013-08-02T03:17:00.002-07:00

Media - Our Only Hope

2013-07-31T06:35:00.001-07:00

While the world may be gorgeous, as it is made out to be, our physical limitations do not allow us to see it. But we enjoy the wonderfully designed television broadcasts that recommend places we must see or visit before we die. People may not know anything about what is going on in the next village or condominium, but they can probably tell you when the next cine or music awards disbursement in Hollywood or France would be broadcast live. This is the power of the broadcast media. It converts our world of reality into a world of fantasy.

Why do the poor, even those living in isolated and deep interiors of agricultural spreads prefer to have a television, and not a vehicle? Why do the leaders love to see their face on it; until the media slaps investigations on them? Media is a beast that people love and hate.

Social media too has become a powerful platform for communications. As these modes of communications proliferate, they are also becoming convenient alternates to each other in times of breakdown, inadvertent or intentional. It will be foolish on our part, if we did not use the power of media to our advantage, in areas other than entertainment like education, counselling, health advice and ecology.

When Edmund Burke (1929-1797) Irish philosopher author, used the term fourth estate for the media for the first time in the UK parliamentary debate, which ultimately allowed media to cover its proceedings, the other three were Lord Spirituals, Lord Temporal and Commons. When Thomas Carlyle, (1795-1981) Scottish philosopher and satirist, called media the fourth estate in his French Revolution, a history (1837), the others were the church, nobility and the townsmen. In today's context of democratic rules, legislative, executive and judiciary are the first three estates. Religions have slipped out of this group. In the US, media is differentiated by the level of freedom that it enjoys. Fourth estate is freer than the fourth branch. Freedom of press is a wonderful debate that exposes the real intentions of the rulers.

Media - an Infant in the Family

It would be reasonable to call media as the infant in the family of the four (legislative, executive, judiciary and media). And we already know that tradition holds; each of these trying to impose on the other three. Media is no exception in spite of its being an infant. Media should not take much time to come to the position of equal strength, since we expect technology to clear all its hurdles.

Media Ownership

People generally do not know who owns a particular channel. It may not even appear significant. Yet, the reality is otherwise. Ownership of a channel makes all the difference in how a news item is treated. How frequently it is broadcast, its length and timings of broadcast and above all what views, opinions or comments are attached to this broadcast. If you pay attention, you cannot miss a subtle suggestive question attached to almost every news item when it is advertised on the BBC television. The question itself, of what is a news item and who decides its eligibility for a broadcast, is answered by the ownership of a channel. Stories produced and directed by the sub-contractors of a television channel too are intensively vetted, before being aired on the channel.

Is Media Driven by Business Considerations

The irony of the situation is that the media itself is unaware of the power that it wields. Instead of using this power to shape human life and destiny of the country, media companies are viewing it only as a potential source of returns on investments. This infant under baby blues, stays cuddled up in financial overtures. The direction that a broadcast channel takes is determined by how its owner assesses its popularity.

TRP, Television Rating Point, is name of the sensor that determines how popular a channel is in the eyes of the audiences. Much can be debated on whether TRP is a reliable indicator or not, given that it is based on sampled data. In countries where set top boxes are mandatory because of digital transmission, there is a reasonable chance that TRP findings may be realistic, but in emerging economies or in under-developed countries operating without set top boxes, this tool can be grossly misleading. The motivation for use of TRP is the hope that advertising revenue would be in proportion to TRP. Sadly; it is a business orientation and not a philanthropic one.

Or it is Political

A number of channels are owned by rich tycoons or corporations, like the paper newspapers of the past were. Indirectly, these channels promote business interests of their owners and political interests of their political partners. In many cases, friends, relatives or cronies of politicians are surreptitiously placed as anchors or chief editors, to ensure that a particular ideology would be promoted, and others vehemently opposed. This is obviously a part of the mission of sustaining empires, regimes, dynasties and power.

This trend may be granted to some extent, as it appears like a legitimate justification, but it does not stop there. It slithers into a prohibited zone of coercion or prevention; a situation where politicians in power, block completely the views of their opponents. We are not looking at it from the freedom of speech angle, but from the aspect that those who do not toe the line would be thrown into the den of tutored law enforcement agencies, or even presented to a gang of criminals.

Channels that do not have the backing of people in power are relegated to back seats in press conferences or are denied direct answers to their questions. A kind of fear psychosis is created that exposing the erring political parties may be met with bullying that finally would lead to closure of business. It has happened; it is happening and will continue to happen. In addition, wings are clipped of enthusiastic journalists who go against the will of the empire, pushing them into oblivion.

Media Biases

Media is not neutral, though its being neutral would have been bliss. Channels are not inclined to stand up to any ideals such as newspapers of the past went out of the way to build. Channel ownership leaves them with no chance for image building. Viewers continue to be served with the bitter pills of the following biases, and this might continue even when the media matures.

· Political - The underlying ownership or sponsorship of the channel ensures that live debates and discussion include designated representatives of the owner. Others too are those who have a soft corner for the owner or his cronies. This is why the same participants appear repeatedly on discussion forums. Discussions here are always interesting for the contradictions that they support.

· Corporations - use advertising campaigns on entertainment channels and talks on the financial channels, to kill two birds with one stone. Product branding or trending is the main aim that helps selling and discreet messages to the politicians prompt for favorable policies.

· Mainstream - bias refers to the tendency that all channels start reporting the same news. Whether it is wiki leaks, 9/11, 26/11, Japanese tsunami or Osama Bin Laden's death, the entire media is focused only on one news item.

· Sensationalism - refers to the bias that promotes concepts like breaking news, hot buttons, and other such titles

· Parochialism - Other forms of bias including reporting that favors or attacks a particular race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation or ethnic group.

Historical Lessons

Today's media is a successor to the erstwhile paper media, but like most new generations do, it has surpassed the relevance of paper media because of its real time offering; live coverage as we say. Politicians and celebrities, who were visible only as inanimate puppets or caricatures in the newspapers, are now seen live, walking and talking on the screen. And they enjoy the camera.

But media will commit a major blunder if it does not take lessons from its predecessor. Firstly, editing and formatting of stories using the vintage printing technology was a nightmare, more so because the newspapers were expected to be present on the breakfast table. In the video world, this is an even more painstaking task. Secondly, in the absence of live coverage, newspapers used the off line photographs that had the risk of being doctored. The disparity of news between eyewitness's account and the story in the press was not appreciated by readers. Reliability of information is what the viewers are looking for, and if media fails to adhere to this requirement, it too will lose its sheen.

Growing Up

If business and political orientation of media continues, the child would be brought up as a twisted and distorted personality, as someone or something that is psychologically incapable of handling situations where we need it the most. In the times of conflict like terrorism, wars, natural calamities of large magnitude or even drastic changes in the political system of the country, media should help stabilize the scenario. It is a question of reputation too. If masses perceive media as something useless except of the entertainment blitz, media will degenerate into a useless overhead on the economy. But if this is mended, we will have a convenient handle to move the masses towards education and prosperity.

Just as every younger generation provides new visions and horizons to the society media too should find tools and instruments for breaching that impregnable wall, which stands solid, between rulers and the ruled.

Why Are People Such Kiss Asses to Politicians - It Is Pathetic Giving Away Personal Power Like That

2013-07-31T06:32:00.001-07:00

Not long ago, an acquaintance started name-dropping local and regional politicians, as if I should be impressed that he knew them and was in contact with them. Personally, I say so what. Apparently, he has given up his personal power to a higher authority, a fake one, and is now worshipping political figures, but why? What I found odd was that he thought I should be impressed with him, simply for knowing and supposedly being on a first name basis with these folks. I am not, not even a little bit, so let's talk.

First, I've met a ton of politicians over the years, and I've found a good many of them to be quite conniving, manipulative, non-committal, and they had never met a person that they didn't pretend to like. Apparently, my acquaintance has low self-esteem and when a politician who in their mind is a pillar of society pays them any piece of mind, perhaps hoping to score some more campaign dollars for their war chest - all of a sudden they are overcome with self-confidence and feel empowered or something? Well, it was obvious that these politicians know how to play their would-be followers well enough.

Indeed, I suppose if these politicians gather enough followers they can muster up a small army of supporters to stay in power, all by convincing others to give them their personal power. Now then, we have a huge problem in our society when weak-minded people are joining Machiavellian driven politicians and aiding them in their political endeavors. Over the years, I've been to more political parties than I care to count and each time everyone tries to make a beeline for a photo-op or to talk with the politician - it's really pathetic when you think about it.

These folks are no better than anyone else, even our founding fathers noted we should have a government made up of citizens, not people who were above the fray, or considered themselves elitists or better than everyone else. Still, look what we've become? We have people worshipping the power seekers, hoping that some of that power will rub off on them too. Meanwhile, those politicians hold our taxpayers money for ransom using crony capitalist flows to those who do their bidding and fund their campaigns - the system is rotten, and it's all of our faults, especially people like my acquaintance. Please consider all this and think on it.

You Can Only Change Yourself

2013-07-30T11:38:00.000-07:00

One of many false assumptions made by many individuals in a variety of positions of leadership is having the belief that they have the ability and/ or power to change others. The reality, however is that a leader can only actually change himself, but must realize that in doing so, his actions and behaviors may often influence others to be motivated towards making their own internal changes or behavior modifications. However, before anyone can effectively influence others, he must first address himself, by examining his own behavior and attitude, realizing that others often look to a leader, to take a lead as to what they each should do. Far too often, a leader proceeds with the mistaken belief that he has the ability to change others, and often proceeds with the perception that not only is he able to change others, but also that they should try to change others. While great leaders do often influence others, they cannot change them. The only person a leader can, and must, actually change, is himself.

1. Smart leaders begin by introspectively examining their own attitudes and behaviors, and striving to be their own personal best. How can any leader truly believe he can make needed changes unless he begins by making internal personal changes? Each individual in a position of leader who desires to be a true leader should objectively view his own motivations, actions, behaviors, and attitudes, before proceeding to even attempt to influence others and strive for meaningful changes. Some of the questions each of these individuals should ask himself are: What are his goals and why?; Why should others believe in him and want to follow him?; Has he committed to absolute integrity and transparency?; Do his words and his actions work together in a synergistic manner?

2. It is incumbent on a leader to not anticipate changing others, but rather being a positive influence so that others want to change in a productive and meaningful manner. Each great leader has come to realize that he needs to be the vehicle for the change that he so desires. He doesn't merely complain about what needs to be changed, but rather proceeds with a plan explaining what should be changed, why and most importantly, how, and what the impact will be? He does that by committing to consistently and persistently leading by example, so that others gain confidence in him, and want to follow his lead.

We often hear about the need for change, but a true leader does not merely rely on rhetoric, but converts his vision to a motivating vision to achieve these needed change, in a proactive manner, getting others involved in motivating. They must never complain about or blame others, but rather simply lead the way in a meaningful and motivating manner.

Richard has owned businesses, been a COO, CEO, and Director of Development, as well as a consultant. He has professionally run events, consulted to over a thousand leaders, and conducted personal development seminars, for over 30 years. Rich has written three books and well over a thousand articles. His company, PLAN2LEAD, LLC has an informative website

Selecting the Right Hotel

2013-07-30T09:52:00.003-07:00

Hotels are certainly not the primary reason for going abroad; however it is important that you choose the right accommodation in regards to making your stay that much better. One tends to choose hotels that are considered better in comfort with relation to that actual holiday experience. The hotels that provide a greater selection of value, atmosphere and quality for every location will turn out to be the better choice. Hotels that tend to be a little more centrally placed are handy for guests who want to move around easier, however some guests may prefer somewhere a little quieter and close to a countryside setting.

One needs to choose the hotel carefully as a good majority of them can offer a comprehensive selection of services which address certain needs. It is also advisable to select the hotel in which meets such needs for the individual family or business person as the decisions one makes in choosing your ideal hotel are important in regards to making sure to have a hassle free holiday.

Making hotel choices gets easier when one considers their personal & family needs first as a good variety of hotels provide numerous services for both pleasure and business. If you are going for business, then the obvious choice would be to select the ideal business hotel, as the hotel in particular will be furnished with the right amenities, such as internet access and conference areas. Business hotels customise their hotels and make sure that the person can go about his or her business in comfort while taking pleasure in the overall trip experience. However, when going away for pleasure, there are particular hotels designed best for tourists and certainly supply one with a good level of luxury and comfort throughout the duration of the stay.

Hotel positioning is another interesting point as one needs to keep in mind that when picking their hotel, one will need to know what to expect and what to see. One needs to know what they will be up to during their visit as this can certainly assist one in choosing a hotel. Think about any entertainment, personal or traveling requirements you may have and choose the hotel which makes your vacation as comfortable as possible. The best hotels have the kind of environments that are enjoyable and relaxing, no matter if you are stopping by for pleasure or a business trip.

The hotel rates are also something to take into account when picking your ideal hotel. Most hotels offer varied rates when it comes to their services. Rates can also undulate in regards to the location one wants. One should do their homework in regards to the various services pricing on offer and one should take any budgets into consideration with regards to your trip. Search around and compare prices to make sure that you get a service that will make your trip something to remember.

How Can You Make Sure That You Book The Right Hotel When Traveling

2013-07-30T09:50:00.002-07:00

When you are traveling, for business or for pleasure, the hotel you are staying at makes a huge impact on how productive and enjoyable your visit is. If you are on business travel, your hotel will be your temporary office and you won't want issues with the hotel's services to distract you from work. When you are vacationing, any unpleasantness created due to your choice of accommodations will irritate you and defeat the very purpose of your travel, that of relaxing.

Choosing the right accommodations is obviously a very important part of your travel planning. So how do you go about it? First of all, be very clear about what exactly you want and what your preferences are. Are you looking for a luxurious stay or trying to find the most affordable accommodations? Would you prefer to play it safe by staying at a property run by an established and reputable hotel chain or would your family like to experience the local flavor by opting for a small B&B place? Once you decide upon your priorities, it is time to make a focused search.

Make sure that you are not overly impressed by the beautiful pictures the hotels put up on the web. The pools and gyms may look inviting and the people in the photos may seem to be having good fun, but you must find out whether such facilities are chargeable or complimentary. Free add-ons can be great money savers, so you must get the relevant details when you compare the different hotels. If you are traveling with your family, it is advisable to know what all activities are offered by the hotel for the kids. Traveling with your pet? Make sure that the hotel you are booking is pet-friendly.

Location of the hotel is one of the most important factors to consider. You will end up wasting a lot of time and money in commuting if your hotel is far away from the local places you would be visiting. The quality of service offered by a hotel is another big feature that affects how comfortable your stay is. Therefore, you must ask among your acquaintances if they have ever experienced the hospitality of the hotels you are considering. You can also look online for reviews and customers' testimonials of these properties.

The internet is actually the best place to search for the accommodation options you have. It is advisable to log on to a local business directory to look at the hotels operating in the place you are planning to travel to. You can get quite detailed information about the available options. Further research on the hotels that look promising will help you select the right one.