Kofi Annan and Peace

http://news.yahoo.com/annan-meet-assad-seeking-end-syria-violence-002653949.html The question asked in this article is “Can Kofi Annan” broker a peace in Syria?” My answer is an unequivocal yes. However, there are conditions and they are the following:

1. Foreign elements such as the CIA and the British and French Spy agencies must stop fomenting the continued unrest in Syria.

2. Russia and especially Vladimir Putin must be consulted and approve any deal.

3. Iran must be consulted and included in all back door negotiations for a settlement.

4. The legal government of Syria under Assad must be respected and affirmed by the UN as the legal government of Syria.

5. The violent and armed insurgency must be disavowed, disarmed and dissolved by its foreign sponsors.

6. The legal government under Assad must be publicly, and I repeat the word “publicly” engaged and publicly guaranteed legal and legitimate means for resolution of the conflict under Syrian law.

7. The so-called Syrian National Council, which is a surrogate for France and Britain must be disavowed and required to dissolve.

8. China must be constantly consulted and included in the ongoing negotiations for the sovereignty of Syria.

9. USA, Britain and France must publicly affirm their recognition of the legal Assad government in Damascus.

10. NATO must publicly announce that it is not even entitled to intervene in the affairs of the sovereign State of Syria.

11. Turkey, as a member State of NATO must refuse to continue harboring enemies of the Syrian government such as recently defected Generals.

12. Tribal leaders, (for lack of a better “Western” term) must be included as integral to any internal agreement between the government of Syrian and the International community.

13. In the event of free and internationally monitored elections, the monitors must disavow beforehand the prejudiced and inaccurate statements of election fraud which, for instance, were routinely issued after the election of Vladimir Putin.

I recognise that the 13 conditions place all of the burden on the West respecting the sovereign integrity of the Syrian government of President Assad. But this is the only legitimate and realistic way to end the outside influenced insurgency and restore peace and tranquility to Syria. And let me end by emphasis on the central and key role of Russia, China and Turkey. As for England and France, they are former Imperialist Colonial powers and their hands are already bloody because of their brutal pursuit of Western Imperialism in Libya. And the USA? We should be foremost in favor of national sovereignty as reflected by our own revolution against colonial Imperial England in 1776. And we should be for non-interference as reflected by our Federal position during our own Civil War, (or War of Northern Aggression) in 1865. The fact that we abandoned these policies in 1875 versus Mexico and in 1898 versus Spain and in 1917 versus the Axis is merely evidence of our own growth as an international imperial power. WW II is an entirely different story. And Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are exceptionalism adventures, to say the least.

Yes, Kofi Annan can restore peace, to a war ravaged Syria. However, this writer believes that the adventurism of the USA government is already undermining his efforts. And I believe that the robust colonial imperialism displayed by France under Sarkozy and England under Cameron, is not likely to dissipate. Therefore, the goodly people of Syria, like the countries of Egypt, and Libya will be the unwitting dupes of the internationalist aspirations of USA Obama, Frances’s Sarkozy and England’s Cameron. A very sad commentary indeed.

Conservatives will Hand the 2012 Election to Obama

The Conservative movement is looking for a Messiah. This person must be 100 % conservative and he/she must please the following people completely: Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and the staff at Newsmax. Plus this conservative Messiah needs to have been pure and wholly conservative from conception. There is no room today for a person to move toward Conservative from a more liberal position. All such persons are immediately suspect and to be opposed by every true Conservative.

Such a Conservative Messiah will be a perfect combination of Rubio, Gingrich,Santorum,Perry,Daniels, and sadly, a plethora of “other than Romney” types. It is incredible that such intelligent people cannot see through the fog of their mythical dreams and wishful thinking. Rather, they persist in fighting forcefully against a Romney victory, albeit, professing otherwise. Steve Hayes on Fox News panel even went so far as to suggest that if this Conservative Messiah is not found in time that Conservatives may just stay home and not even vote. Such a suggestion that Conservatives may stay home and pout instead of engaging in the public election is evidence of a sadly myopic concept of Conservatism.

The above comments are the way I am seeing it these days, whether it is Steve Hayes on Fox News panel, or any other self-proclaimed conservative blue blood who is speaking. All are convinced that somewhere there is a Conservative Messiah who will magically appear and save the Republican party from Governor Mitt Romney.

The Conservative movement within the Republican party, and the populist movement called the Tea party, will sink the Republican party before it gets to the election. Why? Because the rhetoric of the Conservatives is divisive of Republican party unity and no last moment rally to the flag will undo the months of consistent and persistent Conservative punditry against Romney. Indeed, it seems from my side line view that Romney’s success is itself enough to turn the Conservative radio commentators into frontrunners for Obama.

Granted, a writer must take the speck out of his own eye before he attempts to take the log out of his neighbors eye, and it is that spirit that I offer this personal viewpoint.

Should this have happened?

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/toddler-tantrum-gets-family-booted-jetblue-flight-flying-184600037.html#

At first I was amazed at the response of the flight crew. Then amazed at the response of the pilot. But when all is considered, there was no way they were compliant with the federal rules. And it was a complete unknown whether the child would be controlled without medication. Since the mom was a pediatrician, maybe she could have sedated the child before the flight. I know this seems harsh but at that young age what else can be done. What do you think? I will publish all civil responses, foul lang. and name calling not allowed, we are not children having a tantrum.

The National Reviewers are not Intellectual Giants Just Opinionated People

http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/101434/what-about-the-democrats-rush-limbaughs I just went back to this article and read the comments of the people who cared to comment. I didn’t comment and do not have a subscription but I suggest that my readers go there, read this prejudiced article, and read the equally petty and unreasonable comments and it testifies to my premise that this is definitely not a magazine of intellectual greatness.

The New Republic is Disappointing

http://www.tnr.com/article/101532/home-news-letter-tnr-readers-chris-hughes Very nice letter about high ideas, and higher ideals, and the rule of civility and the need for in-depth journalism and the like. Sadly, I then looked at the article about “Where are the Democrat Rush Limbaughs” http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/101434/what-about-the-democrats-rush-limbaughs and immediately the phony claims of TNR were uncovered as the author excused all the Democrat people he listed, all of them saying much more offensive things than Limbaugh. The claim the TNR uses in his article is phony because the author uses a flimsy excuse that all his cited Democrats were essentially “good” people who said very nasty things to people but the cited Democrats were not haters. Moreover, the author makes the patently invalid claim that Rush Limbaugh and his followers are an army of hate mongers who are so filled with vitriolic hatred that they attack poor innocent and defenseless private citizen Fluke. Then I looked at the Democrat ads, and the overwhelmingly favorable pro Democrat content. My conclusion, TNR is just an old paper publication proclaiming the pro Democrat, so-called Progressive and so-called Liberal agenda which is pilloried by the Conservatives. Its scholarship is not better, its investigative reporting is not better, its in-depth pro and con analysis of issues facing the national society is not better, and its prejudices and stereotypical name calling are disappointing. When I read the letter of the new owner and I read the letter of the founders, I had hope that finally there would actually be a publication able to have an intellectual discussion according to the rules of civil discourse. Sadly, TNR is not this. All the writers should read The Rev. Father (deceased) Richard John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square. Maybe, if TNR could be renewed in that image, then it might be worth reading. Until then, I will continue to keep searching for the real thing.

Are Gay Couples the Same as Hetero

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/9131683/Gay-actor-and-City-high-flier-fight-over-separation-payout.html This is a very interesting article out of United Kingdom (UK) about what happens when gay couples get divorced. It neatly presents a unique perspective that is one being debated in USA. Namely, are gay couples who get married the same as heterosexual couples who get married? Read the interesting arguments of both parties to this divorce suit. It is very informative to the continuing argument going on here in USA.

Advertisers Fail Their True Buyers Except Quicken Loans

Some companies indicate they’ll be sticking with Rush, though. “While we do not condone or agree with Limbaugh’s statements regarding Sandra Fluke, we respect his right to express his views, as well as those who disagree with him,” Quicken Loans spokeswoman Paula Silver said in an emailed statement. “As an advertiser, our goal is to reach a broad audience, which we accomplish by placing ads on a number of programs across the country representing diverse views.”

Congratulations to a true freedom loving, constitution respecting, American company and to spokes person Paula Silver for clearly stating what should be obvious to all namely “….we respect his right to express his views as well as those who disagree with him…As an Advertiser (see above)..”

Who are the callers to sleep Eze and the other advertisers who stopped advertisements or affiliation with the hugely popular Rush Limbaugh show. I very much doubt they are regular listeners to his three-hour program. I suggest instead that these are what are known today as “political drones” who are paid to complain or if not actually paid, they are people who sit before their computer screen eight or more hours a day in order to attack their political, social, or religious opponents.”

The existence of these kind of chronic E mail hacks, is known by just about everybody, except those advertisers who do not have the native intelligence nor the Internet savvy to understand that the so-called “firestorm” of protest about the Limbaugh comments was generated by people who never listen to his program and therefore would not buy their products anyway. The mere fact that the news reports indicate that all Limbaugh advertisers received the same deluge of E mail complaints and telephone protests tells us that this was merely a coordinated sociopolitical motivated attempt at intimidation. That even the Speaker of the House of Representative Mr. Boehner was subjected to this obviously organized barrage and that he responded to it tells this writer that the so-called outrage is phony. Also the idea that President Barrack Hussein Obama called her to thank her for standing up for women’s rights is a clear indication that this supposed spontaneous public outcry is a sham.

Why do I care? Actually, I do not know this woman. I do not care what she does with her life. I do not care if this makes her famous, like Joe the Plumber or not. However, I do care that major USA corporations are so ill-informed concerning the American principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and yes, freedom to have sex or not to have sex, that they easily fall victim and become accomplices to those who would change our social/religious/political values by Internet intimidation. That is worrisome.

Limbaugh Innocent But Are Jon Steward, Keith Obermann, David Letterman, and Rachel Maddox?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/02/10561783-boehner-calls-limbaugh-remarks-inappropriate

The uproar over this so-called outrage is a lot of wind about nothing. I listened to the Limbaugh show and although I found Mr. Limbaugh’s analogies a little surprising, he in no way called the person individually a slut. What he did is what a lot of social commentators do and that is to use satire for effect. He also used hyberole for effect as well. And although sometimes Rush Limbaugh’s hyperbolic satire is uncomfortable, it is not done as a personal attack, has no personal animosity to it, and often highlights the silliness of our society as the society deals with such concepts as birth control and abortion. What I heard Mr. Limbaugh say was that a student at Georgetown Roman Catholic Law School said that on a coed campus, students have such active sex lives that the cost of contraception can run over one thousand dollars a year. Then, Mr. Limbaugh stated that the student felt that it is the responsibility of society and health insurers to pay for such contraception. Then Mr. Limbaugh carried it further to wonder if under Obama Care therefore, it is the citizens who pick up the tab for the promiscuous students who have such active sex lives that contraception is so expensive. By extension therefore, he mused if a student who has regular sexual encounters with fellow college students could be called a slut? He then went forward to wonder if all the male counterparts are also, Johns. Then he extended it to the idea if the citizens pay for the contraception, then are the citizens the pimps. Indeed, Mr. Limbaugh did use the student’s name repeatedly and said he could do so because her statements was on the public record. I mentioned Jon Steward in the title because of his comments concerning President Bush during Mr. Bush’s Presidency. I could also refer to the highly personal and offensive remarks of Keith Obermann over Mr. Bush’s manhood and masculinity during the time Mr. Bush was President of the USA. I also recall highly personal and offensive remarks made against Mr. Bush by Rachel Maddox when she was on TV. Neither Jon Steward, Keith Obermann, nor Rachel Maddox intended their remarks to be hyperbole or satire. Rather, those remarks and the nightly crassness of David Letterman during the Bush Presidental terms were intended to be personally affronting and mean-spirited criticism of our elected President. This writer is sorry that Speaker Boehner felt it necessary to add his voice to this tempest in teapot high dungeon drama. It also amazes me that in a time when the word F–k is regularly used in music and when many Rap songs refer to women as whores, bitches and objects deserving of violent abusive rape it is obvious that the “slut” outrage is politically motivated and intended to portray as bigots those who do not want to pay for others people’s contraception

Mary Queen of Scots wrote to Pope About her death

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9114625/Mary-Queen-of-Scots-poignant-letter-months-before-her-execution.html

A very interesting article about English history and the relations between politic leaders of their day. At least in USA we just refuse to elect those we don’t want. Yet, it very noteworthy that Elizabeth I had grave reservations about “..taking off the head of a Queen anointed by God.” The crime was called regicide and considered especially heinous at the time.

Southern Baptist Leader Right About No Religion Test for President

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/romney-mormonism-christianity-santorum/2012/02/29/id/431034?s=al&promo_code=E4CC-1

I found this article distressing and I disagree with the analysis that Mormon Christianity is not Christianity at all. And I disagree with the idea that the book of Mormon is the same as the Quran. However, I do agree that there is not a “religion” test for the Presidency of the USA. In fact a Hindu, Confucian, Shinto, Moslem, or “no religion at all” person could become President under the Constitution. The key word in the above sentence is “Constitution”. The USA is a constitutional Republic and not a Christian State. Essentially, the USA is a secular government under the prescription that it must respect the freedom of religion opinions of its citizens. There is also the proscription that the government cannot impose itself upon, regulate, or attempt to destroy the practice of religions by its citizens.

That being affirmed, the opinions of the leader of the Southern Baptist Convention are really the affairs of that denomination of Christianity. His viewpoint is allowed in USA. He is even allowed to make it public and to defend his position. That is our right under the first amendment regarding freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Unlike, the grossly stated falsehood that the Constitution protects the government from the influences of religiously informed opinions, the Bill of rights, which is the first ten amendments to the Constitution, protects people of religion from the power of the government and the prejudices of people opposed to religion. That is to say, that you are not required to agree with my religion nor my opinions as informed by my religion but the law guarantees me the liberty to hold and express such opinions. And while IRS regulations threaten to revoke a congregations 501.3C status if the leaders use the pulpit to preach for or against any political candidate, that is merely an IRS regulation and does not forbid preachers of any type from preaching politically motivated sermons. Admittedly, sermons such as those of Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama’s Christian Pastor, in which he damned America and not blessed America, are repugnant to and repudiated by the 99.9 % of Christians, nonetheless, he is allowed to preach that. (Please, note that no one needs to listen to his rants, and that a Senator of the USA should belong to Rev. Wright’s congregation for ten or more years, is disturbing but not illegal.)

Finally, to the doctrinal theology that informs the SBC speaker. It is a judgement made because Mormonism supplements the 66 books of the historic Christian Bible with the book of Mormon. Some Christians regard this as an addition to the Holy Scriptures and therefore as antithetical to Christian teaching that the only authoritative scripture is the 66 book Bible. In this regard, some Christians would claim that Roman Catholic Christianity is also not true Christianity because they include the Apocryphal books to their publication of the Bible. And even though Roman Catholic Christians are informed that the Apocryphal books are not regarded as Holy Scripture, nonetheless, their detractors say that publishing them inside of the covers of a Bible is itself condemnatory.

Friends, these are matters of internal Christian denominational belief and although we can go on, this writer will again state, as he has repeatedly, that Mormonism is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and that its doctrines regarding the essentials of the Christian faith make it another, albeit disputed, Christian denomination.