By Sharon Jacobsen
April 13th, 2005

According to Sainsbury’s Bank, debt consolidation is predicted to be the top reason for borrowers to up personal loans this year.

Forecasts indicate that almost 1.5 million Brits will borrow nearly £12 billion purely to be able to pay down their existing debts.The figures are comparable to the US and other developed countries.

Companies offering to clear you credit cards and other small loans by bundling them into easy to manage monthly payment seem to be popping up all over the country. And their advertising is persuasive.

That it makes sense to re-finance certain debts by taking up cheaper loans isn’t being questioned but people are being fooled into believing that something’s actually “being cleared”. It isn’t. What’s really happening is the movement of debt from one place to another. That few institutions are involved doesn’t mean anything’s gone away.

Interest rates on consolidation loans are often “variable”. Where does that leave the borrower? With an uncertain future without any real indication of what kind of interest he’ll be expected to pay, that’s where. These loans are often long term - how else could they drastically reduce those monthly payments? - so likely to prove expensive in the long term. And as if to add insult to injury, the loan will be probably be secure on the family home meaning your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments.

While the consumer is seduced into believing these credit institutions are helping them, all they’re really doing is stuffing their pockets on the back of our overspending. Regardless of your credit history, a company’s out there waiting to “help” you. There’s no risk for them as long as they have property as collateral but the risk to the consumer is high - very high!

In our society where capitalism rules supreme and most people are still trying to keep up with the Jones’s, it’s hardly surprising that credit card debts re-accumulate after they’ve been transferred to a consolidation loan. Our want, want, want mentality keeps us in financial deep water while the credit companies smile greedily.

Consolidation loans have their place but only if the borrower truly wants to get out of debt. The loan should be for a short a period as possible and definitely not secured on property unless there’s no doubt repayments can be made even if a loss of work should incur. See also securing home loans. And to make sure things don’t go from bad to worse, any cleared credit cards should be returned to the issuing bank with instructions to close the account.

April 11, 2005
Ivan Eland
The Bush administration is often guilty of running a reckless, overly militaristic foreign policy but deserves qualified praise for its recent dealings with China. The Chinese have requested—and the United States has accepted—a regular dialogue at senior levels to discuss security, political, and possibly economic issues. But the administration must go farther than merely symbolic meetings in accepting China’s rise—it must translate that new-found respect into real world actions.

Unlike the Bush administration’s threatening behavior to smaller countries, such as Iraq and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, the bark of the Bush administration’s policy toward the nuclear-armed China has always exceeded its bite. President Bush took office and stridently labeled China a “strategic competitor,” but then a few months later essentially apologized and paid ransom to get back a U.S. flight crew and spy plane, which was harassed and damaged by Chinese fighters in international airspace. Subsequently, after 9/11, China and the United States have been cooperating more closely.
Improved relations between the two powers are a very positive development for global security. Regular high-level meetings are important for two reasons. First, such talks provide a forum for two nuclear-armed powers to nip tensions or problems in the bud before they turn into crises. Second, and most important, such meetings signal that the status quo superpower has respect for the rising East Asian power. Prior to 1914, Britain failed to acknowledge the new prestige of a rising Germany, one contributing factor to the horrific and unnecessary First World War. China, with a rapidly growing economy and a huge population, desperately wants to be recognized as a great power by the United States and the world.

Unfortunately, in international relations, talk is fairly cheap and the Bush administration will have to follow such meetings with real world changes in policy. Like most rising powers, China will want a regional sphere of influence to enhance its security. Given China’s history of being carved up by imperial powers, it will probably be relentless in pursuit of a wider security buffer. Any move toward attaining this goal, however, will be seen as a threat by the informal, hyper-extended U.S. empire.

In fact, the United States is already running a covert neo-containment strategy to counter China’s rising power. The U.S. government has augmented its network of military bases and alliances in Asia that surround China. The United States has transferred more naval assets into the already powerful U.S. Pacific Fleet and, under the banner of fighting terrorism, opened seemingly permanent bases in Central Asia to the west of China. The United States has also tightened its military alliance with Japan, China’s chief East Asian rival, and improved relations with India and an increasingly autocratic Russia—two nations that could also act as counterweights to a rising China. These developments simply amplify the power of the many existing U.S. military facilities throughout the region, as well as U.S. formal alliances with South Korea, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines, and informal alliances with Singapore and Taiwan.

The administration’s tightening of the informal alliance with Taiwan is one of the scariest aspects of U.S. foreign policy—even more unnerving than its invasion of small, sovereign nations, such as Iraq. Although the Chinese have only 20 nuclear missiles capable of hitting the United States, while Washington has thousands that could strike China, Taiwan remains an emotional political issue for China. In fact, Taiwan is so important to China, that in a crisis in the Taiwan Strait, no guarantee exists that China would back down in the face of U.S. nuclear superiority. While Taiwan should be lauded for enhancing the freedom of its people, the U.S. government is foolish to risk the safety of American citizens (and others around the world) in a potential nuclear exchange to protect Taiwanese democracy.

Although China is an autocratic state, it still has legitimate security interests. The United States would be smart to show some empathy with those concerns. In recent years, as the United States has become alarmed at China’s expanded military spending, the Chinese have also become alarmed at large increases in the U.S. defense budget and U.S. attacks on the sovereign nations of Serbia and Iraq. Many Chinese see the threat of an expanding U.S. empire that aims at encircling China and preventing its legitimate rise to great power status.

To lessen such perceptions and reduce the chance of conflict between the two nuclear-armed nations, the United States should retract its forward military and alliance posture in Asia, including repudiating any implied commitment to defend Taiwan. With large bodies of water as moats and the most formidable nuclear arsenal in the world, the United States hardly needs a security perimeter that stretches across the entire Pacific Ocean to protect it from China. If the United States continues to maintain an outdated Cold War-style empire, it is bound to come into needless conflict with other powers, especially China.

Instead of emulating the policies of pre-World War I Britain toward Germany, the United States should take a page from another chapter in British history. In the late 1800s, although not without tension, the British peacefully allowed the fledging United States to rise as a great power, knowing both countries were protected by the expanse of the Atlantic Ocean that separated them. Taking advantage of that same kind separation by a major ocean, the United States could also safely allow China to obtain respect as a great power, with a sphere of influence to match. If China went beyond obtaining a reasonable sphere of influence into an Imperial Japanese-style expansion, the United States could very well need to mount a challenge. However, at present, little evidence exists of Chinese intent for such expansion, which would run counter to recent Chinese history. Therefore, a U.S. policy of coexistence, rather than neo-containment, might avoid a future catastrophic war or even a nuclear conflagration.
——————————————————————————–
Ivan Eland is a Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute, Director of the Institute’s Center on Peace & Liberty, and author of the books The Empire Has No Clothes, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.
——————————————————————————–

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is attempting to weaken the Clean Water Act’s pollution controls on selenium, a metal that in high doses has caused deformities and death in fish and waterfowl.
Numerous scientists with years of experience examining the impacts of selenium on fish, birds, and other wildlife–including the author of a key study that is the basis of the new regulation–believe the EPA made egregious errors when developing the proposed selenium limit. In addition, they worry that it will not be easily implemented and will ultimately fail to adequately protect the health of organisms that could be poisoned or even killed by unsafe levels of selenium in their food. More…

Sharon Jacobsen
Tuesday April 12th

The Catholic Church has faced grave accusations of child abuse in the past and today the rumble of incrimination came back to haunt them in St. Peter’s Square.

What should have been a place of peace and mourning became an area of demonstration against American Cardinal Bernard Law when two women claiming to have been abused by Catholic priests as children breathed life back into a cover-up story from 2002.

An investigation of child abuse found that Boston’s archbishop had been aware of dozens of allegations against priests in the archdiocese and had transferred them to new parishes in a huge concealment operation.

Cardinal Bernard Law was forced to resign his post when more than 50 of his own priests publicly called for him to step down. The archdiocese later agreed to an $85m settlement with 500 victims.

Following Law’s resignation, the late Pope appointed him archpriest of St. Mary Major Basilica in Rome, one of four basilicas under direct Vatican jurisdiction.

Protesters Barbara Blaine and Barbara Dorris, both members of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), felt it was inappropriate to choose Cardinal Law for such an honourable role in the series of nine masses to be held in memory of the late Pope John Paul II.

The two women flew to Rome from their homes in the US after hearing of the disgraced cardinal’s function, arriving in Rome just hours before the mass.

Although the protest was peaceful, several uniformed officers escorted Ms Blaine off the piazza when she started to hand out fliers showing pictures of herself as a child with the priest professed to have sexually abused her and other alleged victims.

Law declined to comment.

There have been many past stories of church members being disenchanted by the failure of the Catholic Church to take appropriate action when such allegations are made.

It is hoped that the protests of Ms Blaine and Ms Dorris will help bring these issues to the attention of the public and force the next Pope to change the attitude of the church towards priests accused of paedophile activity.

Men, find out if your getting what you deserve.

In the continual struggle for women’s liberation, it is man who has suffered great losses. How do you ask is this possible? The answer is not as complex as one may think. Since, the beginning of time man has been feared. Notice, I say man not woman. This is because the ideal woman of past years has been to be a homemaker, a caregiver and a barer of children and in all honesty she who bakes the bread was not as feared as he who brought it home was. This was in past years. Today, women are almost where they claim they have always wanted to be. They have become empowered by the women’s liberation movement. They have become the wearers of suits. They run major corporations. They fight fires. They are leaders in political and religious organizations. They, to some extent, have become feared and they have been trained and taught to be.

Without a homemaker, man has found himself coming home after a long day of work to a messy home, no hot meal at his table setting and he awakes in the morning without a fresh set of clothes for his work day. He is though, still held to the tasks of the early days of doing yard work, taking out the trash and working on home improvements. Now added to that, he must find the strength and the time to cook meals, clean house and wash clothes. Where did man’s deal go wrong, you may ask? It didn’t. He never had one to begin with.

Politics has not been kind to man, even though the majority of those in politics are men. So why do they punish themselves? I believe that it started as a simple attempt to equalize the sexes and ended up growing into an entity of it’s own that now can not be ignored without jeopardizing a politician’s political future. How do men in politics now turn back the clock? It is difficult to do but in small advances it can be done. After all, when was the last time The National Organization for Men complained about a commercial bothering them? Come to think of it, I do not believe that The National Organization for Men ever complained about anything that has mocked them or lowered men’s self-esteem. These organizations and groups need to come together and legitimatize themselves in the eyes of the public and become an entity of it’s own that is taken as seriously as women’s groups and organizations are.

Perhaps, there is much that men can learn from women. Maybe, men need to lower their guard a bit in order to get something they want. Yes, complaining and whining do work. Ask women. A flood of letters to a manufacturer or advertising agency along with a nationally viewed press conference may be a good start. Maybe, just maybe, “That commercial offended me, as a man.” is not to far fetched and may just be the crack in the wall of the woman’s liberation movement that they are looking for.

My hope is that within the near future, in the eyes of the lawmakers and law shakers, all men will be an equal to me and will receive the same consideration by the Federal government and local governments when their feelings are hurt or ignored. Something must be done and done quickly. Otherwise, the future holds for man the promise that he will need his own liberation movement to get out from under the pile of laundry - of women’s clothes

CHARLIE GETS HIS DARLING
by Helen Claxton

Saturday saw Prince Charles, son of Queen Elizabeth II and first in line to the British throne, marry Camilla Parker Bowles, now the Duchess of Cornwall.

Despite speculation that the Queen was deeply saddened by the couple’s intention to marry, as she appeared behind the couple as they left St. George’s Chapel, her smile was nothing less than radiant.

Crowds of well wishers waving flags and wearing the usual array of red, white, and blue paraphernalia, had gathered to cheer the couple as they entered into married life. However, some bore t-shirts sporting slogans of “Diana: We’ll Never Forget You”.

Nobody’s expecting anybody to forget the deceased princess so why wear a t-shirt emblazoned with her name and face to the wedding of her former husband and his new partner? Are these people really so naïve that they believe the world needs reminding of Diana’s former existence, lest we should have forgotten? Or was it a disrespectful protest against the union of Charles and Camilla? I think the answer to that one’s quite obvious.

All of this begs the question: Why are so many against this union?

“They were unfaithful while they were married,” some are saying.

They’ve both admitted that they were indeed unfaithful to their partners during marriage so there’s no doubting the truth in that particular statement. They even went as far as to confess their “manifold sins and wickedness” during the blessing of their marriage by Archbishop Rowan Williams on Saturday.

I can’t help wondering just how many of those who are using the couple’s lack of fidelity as an excuse for their reservation toward our future king’s wife have actually been 100% faithful throughout their own relationships. According to Peggy Vaughan, author of “The Monogamy Myth”, “Conservative estimates are that 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair.” So what does that suggest? I doubt I need to spell it out.

So, what else might the problem be?

Just yesterday, whilst discussing this issue, I was told: “If it hadn’t been for her, Charles and Diana would never have split up.”

How presumptuous is that? Charles has admitted his affair but insists that his marriage to Diana had already irrevocably broken down.

Diana was just nineteen when she married the thirteen year older Charles. Understandably, the young princess wanted to go to pop concerts, bop around Highgrove House whilst listening to Depeche Mode and other popular 80s bands, shop until she dropped and dress in wild outfits to go clubbing with girlfriends. Charles, on the other hand, preferred a more relaxed existence enjoying country shoots, visits to the opera and an evening unwinding with a glass of good wine with Bach or Handel playing in the background. The two were poles apart.

Diana tried to enjoy country life and Charles accompanied his wife to several pop concerts; it just didn’t work. Both felt uncomfortable in the others’ world.

Although the princess did an excellent job as her own ambassador, she failed miserably in the position of Princess of Wales. The future king needed a strong woman at his side who could support him in his own work but Diana, unfortunately, simply wasn’t up to the job.

If their marriage had lasted it would almost certainly have been a paper marriage and not one based on love and mutual respect.

Perhaps she was simply “a brood mare”, as some say, chosen for the Prince in order to produce an heir to the throne. If that was the case, they have my commiseration.

“…And she looks like a horse!”

What? Hold on there a moment! Since when did a woman have to look a certain way in order to be loved?

Walk down any high street on a Saturday afternoon and you’ll see women who are far less attractive ‘on the surface’ than the Duchess. Somebody fell in love with and married most of those women so why not Camilla? What exactly are these people saying?
I’m blowed if I know!

Camilla’s infidelity towards her husband is never mentioned and the childish name-calling amongst so-called adults is far too ridiculous to be taken seriously. The one and only reason the nation is divided is because the die hard Diana fans just can’t accept that Charles actually preferred Camilla to his porcelain doll of a wife.

For reasons known only to Charles himself, even though he had a wife the nation idolised, he felt drawn towards his good friend Camilla. Right from the very start of their friendship the pair had enjoyed a close and it’s just a shame Camilla, believing there was no chance for her with Charles, married Andrew Parker Bowles instead. These things happen. How many of us haven’t made a mistake and regretted a marriage?

Charles and Diana were both played away. Who did it first is irrelevant. Excusing Diana’s behaviour by saying she was simply following her husband’s lead isn’t good enough. The behaviour of one person isn’t cancelled out by the behaviour or another, regardless of who did what first. It’s amazing what a good-looking woman with a coy smile can get away with!

Diana was no saint. She was a woman like many other women - fun-loving, emotionally needy and jealous of her husband’s friend. That she was exceptionally beautiful and dressed with impeccable taste was no doubt icing on the cake for the nation but looks and designer dresses do not a good queen make!

Let’s give Camilla a chance. There’s no doubt that this is a love match and if their relationship has lasted through the numerous storms that have raged around them, then they obviously have something going for them that Charles and Diana simply never did. Camilla isn’t going away.

The Princes William and Harry have accepted her, no doubt with their mother’s memory fresh in their minds, so why, as a nation, can’t we?