Archive | December, 2013

New York Time: The New Benghazi Report; damaging to US?

30 Dec

Over a year since the Benghazi and the New York Times comes up with a story that dismissed nearly all previous views regarding what actually happened in Benghazi on that terrible day, the anniversary of 9/11. The NYT article did not lack politically motivated items, such as a suggesting that an obscure movie triggered some of the anger; with the limited distribution of the movie, the timing, and the magnitude of what happened, well beyond a spontaneous activity because momentary anger.
I read the article when it came out. If nothing else it gives aid and comfort to terrorists who wish to target the US, it tells such people that US intelligence services are nothing to fear. But the article also says that America’s political environment exist on another plane than reality; it suggests that Americans are kept from knowing reality by politically motivated instruments of information…Having said that, the murders were a horrible display of US mismanagement, but the cover-up, the cover-up was disgraceful and should remain Hillary Clinton’s achilles’-heel even trumping her calling Bashar Assad: “A true reformer.”

Advertisements

Taking away “some” freedom; is destroying it all! There is nothing like “a little pregnant,” any more than there is “partially free!”

27 Dec

Taking away “some” freedom; is destroying it all! There is no “a little” it is all! There is nothing like “a little pregnant,” any more than “partially free!”
Benjamin Franklin said: “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”
Picking and choosing which security elements are allowed to be violated from the US fourth amendment would make the US an autocracy where government can decide how much, if any, freedom its citizens should have.

More to come!

Is the US experiment in Jeffersonian democracy destined to fail?

18 Dec

Is the US experiment in Jeffersonian democracy destined to fail?

Not yet 250 years young, the first representative (or, Jeffersonian) democracy in human history is sputtering; is it destined to fail?
By historical measures the United States democracy is very young, too young to declare a success.
A few interesting questions should be asked:
Why does the strongest nation on earth require a defense budget that is larger than the rest of all its other expenditures combined?
Why does the US need to borrow money in order to function?
Why are so many people under, or unemployed in the US?
Why does the President of the strongest nation on earth allow a third-world nation, like Iran, snub him (like it did at the UN in NY,) in public, and then go back for more?
Why do benefits that US veterans earned have to be cut in order to have a budget?
Many more questions regarding the viability of the United States can, and should, be asked. Some questions may have to deal with its unique system for electing its government.
The above questions were asked to demonstrate that the United States has serious problems, and the its Jeffersonian democracy can not yet be declared a historical success!

Pure: Socialism/Communism = Autocracy; Capitalism/[absolut] Democracy = Chaos!

9 Dec

Socialism a system where the government owns all, and has rules about almost any human endeavor, is an autocratic system that does not allow individuals to exercise any control over their own lives.
Capitalism, carried to the extreme, allow individual to act with no common control with other persons, allow for one individual to exploit any other without repercussions.
A more detailed article on the subject can be found in an earlier post on this blog.

Syria, a Divine Intervention; realigning the Middle East!

7 Dec

Syria, a Divine Intervention; realigning the Middle East!

The Middle East (ME) a region full of misunderstandings-based conflicts; a hub in world instabilities. The United States misunderstanding of the region is of much like that of the British nation even when much of the area was under its control.
Most of ME conflicts had their roots in it oil richness, that reason is closely followed by religious.
The oil issue is easily understandable, oil means energy, and energy is what fuels the economies of civilization.
The religious issues have several different causes. The most recent and most visible to the international community is that of Islamic nations against Israel. The Islam conflict with Israel is quite young in historical terms, even though the issue between Jew and Muslims has its roots in the Quran, and is therefore as old as that book, or about 1400 years. The Quran consider Jews: “Of apes and swines, to be despised and rejected (5:60).” The book refers to Jews “as people of the book,” is suggests that Allah wished for them to be “his” people and that because they rejected him, they must be either converted, or otherwise destroyed. Present day extension of the conflict has two distinct phases. At the late nineteen hundreds, Jews started to move into Palestine, the Arabs in the country rejected that move thus started to conflict. Much of Palestinian Arab leadership even sided with Hitler; it so much hated the Jews.
The second, and present phase started in 1948 with the establishment of the State OF Israel.
The other major conflict, much larger in scope, and one that spans the globe is an internal conflict within Islam. Islam has two major segments, Sunni (80%) and Shiite (20%) there are also subsets of the two major unites, Alawit (Assad’s religious affiliation) is a sub-set of the Shiite part of Islam.
Briefly, the magnitude of the Arab Israeli conflict versus those within Islam is staggering. For example, Hafez al Assad (the father of today‚Äôs’ Syrian leader) was responsible for killing 60,000 Syrians; Bashar Assad already is responsible for well over 120,000 deaths of Syrians; in comparison, from 1989 to now, less than suicide bombers killed one thousand Israelis. These numbers are actually a case of apples and oranges since there are 7,000,000 inhabitants in Israel and there are one thousand as many Muslims in the Muslim countries that are in Israel’s neighborhood.
Let us look at the present Syrian conflict and its impact on the region. The conflict, which started nearly three years ago as a national, mostly secular conflict through a push by Syria’s intelligentsia, had a strong beginning with the element of surprise on its side. The rebels, however, in order to make their efforts a surprise, were not able to organize, or equip themselves very well since they counted on United States support to be consistent with US support of democratization in the region.
To the rebels’ surprise, under Hillary Clinton’s who considered Bashar Assad “a true reformer,” the US decided to stay on the sidelines.
Without US support for the rebels, the Syrians regime, with the help of Russia (state-of-the-art equipment and advisers,) and Iran (personnel, direct and with Hezbollah,) and equipment, was able to rebound, overcome the surprise, and delay what would have been the inevitable ouster of Assad. As the regime (Shiite based,) Syria’s Sunni brethren, mostly Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states started to help the rebels, but with their helps a large element of al Qaeda also entered the fray, and a real regional religious war emerged.
What will happen after the war ends? Who is going to win?
Let us start by saying that predicting the outcome of the war is not yet possible. So let us take a quick look at the two potential scenarios, and in a little more detail at the end results, which would likely be quite similar of, regardless who wins or looses.
If the regime wins, it would likely have to do so without Assad at the head since the international community is already on record as rejecting his legitimacy. Presiding over Syria under such circumstances would be an Iranian appointed puppet, while the military would be headed by, and include a large Hezbollah contingency. It would likely have a Supreme Leader who will likely be an Ayatollah. In this scenario, Russia will remain strong influence on the country’s future.
Should the rebels win, Syria would also become a highly religious entity but under Sunni leadership. Under such circumstances the Saudis will have a great deal to say about the country leadership, its military would have a large al Qaeda element.
Whatever the outcome, United States influence would diminish!
Effects on the region, on the Middle East. Since about four million Syrians would have left Syria by the time the conflict ends, and very few will return, demographics of the region will change. Lebanon: some a million and a half, to two million Syrians, mostly Sunnis will remain in Lebanon. With Hezbollah a strong element in Lebanon, and Shiite, new religious conflicts within Lebanon, a struggle for control will ensue.
Half a million or about that many refugees in Turkey may not have a great influence on the future of that country, but as the result of the conflict and fringe events, it is very likely the a sovereign Kurdistan will emerge.
Jordan: With well over a million refugees Jordan will suffer. Since there are already more foreigners (Palestinians) in Jordan than are Jordanians, adding numerous Syrians will very likely weaken the already vulnerable monarchy, a shakedown of national control would very possibly result.
In addition to a sovereign Kurdistan one can count on the Golan Heights remaining permanent part of Israel, and so will likely be the Baaka Valley.
Since the long suffering Kurds who were deprived of their own land for a very long time are likely to get their own sovereign nation, and Israel should have enhanced security on its northern border, while the situation in Jordan should help determine the fate of the Palestinians, as a nation, or as part of a new Jordan. Could helping historically oppressed people suggest that the Syrian conflict was just another case of divine intervention?

Income EQUITABILIZATION, not equalization IS the answer

4 Dec

United States tax system is in part a contributor to income equalization; if the scale is not outlandish, a small adjustment is not out of order!
In order to accomplish a reasonable semblance of equity, members of any given society must contribute, either directly, or otherwise, in order to earn whatever income they get.
The two most useful measure of what income should be have to do with: How much is an individual contribute to enhancing the quality of life of others in society. The other within a [relatively] free Capitalistic system has to do with how many other individuals said individual can help earn an income.
Some of the issues have to do with how measures value of contribution.
In this post I shall attempt to deal with an overview, I expect to follow with a more in depth review in the future. for now there will be more questions, but with “direction,” than answers.
Let me start with contribution to the quality of life of others:
–A professional football player entertains thousand of people, between in person,an through the media, the numbers are staggering.
–A school teacher who affects and shape people lives, perhaps not as many as does a football player in the short-term, but with a much longer lasting impact on those whose lives are shaped.
* Should the football player as much more money than doe a school teacher?
— A movie star who entertains thousands, and gives then instant pleasure.
— A fire fighter who may in a life time of service only save a few scores of people, but who may save their most important possessions.
* Should the fireman make an infinitesimal compare to the movie star whose contribution are not usually nearly as long lasting.
Please understand, I am not advocating Socialism where government determine the value of each memeber of society; I am just offering food for thought, while suggesting a hybrid system with elements of Capitalism, and elements of Socialization are mixed.
You can search on this blog the item that suggest that there is no pure Socialism, nor pure Capitalism!
More to follow!

OBAMACARE: The arrogance of power!

2 Dec

This is going to be a very short post, since the meaning of what I have to say requires little explanation!

Trying to force health insurance coverage on individuals may make some little sense, but, since no two individuals, or any two groups, be they families, or businesses, have the same needs, determining what each subscriber must have is the epitome of arrogance!