Over fifty years ago when DIOGENES REMARKS first visited America we realised that Mr. Churchill was correct when he spoke of two peoples divided by a common language. There was we discovered a great deal more than a few differently spelt words to this division. There seems to be no knowledge in America of adverbs and their usage therefore rarely if ever occurs. The second and much more confusing, even after some fifty odd years, is the negative question. To be grammatically correct in English one can not formulate a question in this manner, it becomes a statement not a question. How often does one hear an American interviewers ask " Don't you think that ----?" whereas it should be "Do you think that ----?". Even more fascinating is the double negative "Don't you think that he didn't -------?". How on earth is one supposed to answer this piece of fractured English and even more puzzling such 'questions' are asked in the Courts to obtain evidence and often followed by "Just answer 'yes' or 'no" - it all leaves one quite bewildered.
This has left a negative mark on conversations in America which causes misunderstandings at best and angry confusion at worst. The current Administration, one of the worst in the recent history of America, is adding to this confusion. One hears an Obama statement, usually far too long and belabouring the point, which leaves one numb and puzzled. This from a Harvard educated associate law professor one might add.
On the international scene these statements are often followed by a 'clarification' from the Secretary of State or god forbid the Vice President on one of his foreign trips. During the last year this has caused diplomatic insult and resentment worldwide which again the Secretary of State has to later try and resolve.
On the recent national local scene the Obama negative statement in regard to the signing of a law in the State of Arizona by the Governor of that State. The law covers Immigration and it is based on the existing Federal Immigration Law to such that the words Federal were changed to refer to the State of Arizona. Now currently the Obama Administration is not enforcing this Federal Law, however under 'States Rights' the State of Arizona chose to enact and enforce it in their State. Obama ended up being critical of a legal Federal Law which his Administration should be currently enforcing.
As a former law professor and an African-American, indeed thought by many to be born in Kenya, the current President should know that Americas 'War between the States' was caused by violation of 'States Rights'. Going back to the setting of the Mason-Dixon Line which consists of the Tangent Line, North Line, Arc Line, and 39* 43' N parallel of latitude. This in turn created the 'North' and the 'South' of Americas States, one of the principal issues of States Rights being the use of slave labour. Forbidden in the North but accepted for the South which depended on such labour to survive as an agricultural based economy.
When this President was inaugurated most people thought that it was a positive step many of whom are now the active supporters of the 'Tea Party' movement against his policies and decision-making. Instead of bringing Americans together Obama has divided the country with policies forced through Congress with little or no regard to the opinions of the people. After eighteen months in office it is clear that regardless of "We the People" his Administration is determined to put in place a Socialist Dis-United States of America patterned after the European Union - a European Union West.
One wonders why - this is Americas ultimate negative question.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
A NEW ERA
In the aftermath of the earthquake in Chile a new era begins today. Mr. Sebastian Pinera will be inaugurated as the President of Chile. The inauguration ceremony takes place in Valparaiso the port of Santiago. Ms. Bachelet Chile's first woman president was barred by the Constitution from seeking re-election. Handing over the Presidential red, white and blue Sash of Office will end 20 years of centre-left rule in Chile. Mr. Pinera a conservative leader named his cabinet last month and it contains no figures linked with President General Augusto Pinochet the former military ruler.
Ms. Bachelet leaves office with an 84% popularity rating despite criticism of her government's slow reaction to the earthquake. Her family being victims of the Pinochet era she has always had problems dealing with the Ejercito de Chile and to a degree the Carabinero. This has led to a socialist reaction to the situations and it was only after 33 hours that she gave required orders to the Carabinero and Ejercito. The normally self-disciplined Chilean society has developed a certain freedom which unfortunately is a 'socialist freedom' and led to the looting after the earthquake. In turn this led to the formation by citizens of 'local protection militia' armed with shotguns to do the job which should have been done by the Carabinero and Ejercito.
Of course someone had to be made an example of, in true leftist style Ms. Bachelet dismissed the head of SHOA Commander Mariano Rojas Armada de Chile for 'failing to provide a clear warning of the tsunami'. Of course one should consider that if President Bachelet had acted promptly that might well have occurred since orders come from the top down not bottom up. Now a second Chilean official has left her post, Carmen Fernandez the Chilean disaster management chief has resigned.
President-Elect Pinera has already appointed six new Regional Governors and they include those for the earthquake Regions. All in all it appears that the change is timely and the centre-right administration will restore the authority of both Carabinero and Ejercito de Chile. Chileans will return to a more self-disciplined society and be the better for it without going to the extremes of military rule. Life is difficult enough without seeing your friends and neighbors becoming looters and burning buildings which are your home and place of business.
The spirit of the Chilean people is outstanding and with good organization from the new government recovery should be successful. Congratulations to President Pinera and we wish his Administration and the people of Chile life's best.
Ms. Bachelet leaves office with an 84% popularity rating despite criticism of her government's slow reaction to the earthquake. Her family being victims of the Pinochet era she has always had problems dealing with the Ejercito de Chile and to a degree the Carabinero. This has led to a socialist reaction to the situations and it was only after 33 hours that she gave required orders to the Carabinero and Ejercito. The normally self-disciplined Chilean society has developed a certain freedom which unfortunately is a 'socialist freedom' and led to the looting after the earthquake. In turn this led to the formation by citizens of 'local protection militia' armed with shotguns to do the job which should have been done by the Carabinero and Ejercito.
Of course someone had to be made an example of, in true leftist style Ms. Bachelet dismissed the head of SHOA Commander Mariano Rojas Armada de Chile for 'failing to provide a clear warning of the tsunami'. Of course one should consider that if President Bachelet had acted promptly that might well have occurred since orders come from the top down not bottom up. Now a second Chilean official has left her post, Carmen Fernandez the Chilean disaster management chief has resigned.
President-Elect Pinera has already appointed six new Regional Governors and they include those for the earthquake Regions. All in all it appears that the change is timely and the centre-right administration will restore the authority of both Carabinero and Ejercito de Chile. Chileans will return to a more self-disciplined society and be the better for it without going to the extremes of military rule. Life is difficult enough without seeing your friends and neighbors becoming looters and burning buildings which are your home and place of business.
The spirit of the Chilean people is outstanding and with good organization from the new government recovery should be successful. Congratulations to President Pinera and we wish his Administration and the people of Chile life's best.
Monday, January 4, 2010
BLASPHEMY
The word conjures up the Medieval Era or the Spanish Inquisition and for many the Sharia Law of Islam. The word blasphemy is defined as "to speak impiously of", (presume of god). Therefore it is clearly a religious crime punishable within a particular religion by a religious decision. But therein lies the problem, whose god and what if one does not choose to believe in this "god". One would conclude that if one did not belong to a religious group then one was not affected.
In recent times there has been a quiet and skillful movement by a section of Islam, which has established itself in Western countries, to impose its believes and thus its laws. The law of Islam is Sharia Law which has clear views, that apply to followers of Islam, of what constitutes religious blasphemy. It also has severe punishment for those found guilty of this religious crime in Islam.
That was until last Friday January 01, 2010 in Ireland. Under a law which went into effect that day a person can be found guilty of blasphemy if " he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion".
The penalty is a fine of up to E25,000.
The group Atheist Ireland believes the law is outdated and unenforceable, we would agree with them adding that it is appallingly written and so vague as not to comply with the standards of Common Law as practised in Ireland. The existing blasphemy law in Ireland is under criminal offences and is so poorly written that prosecutions are not possible. In fact in 1999 the Supreme Court of Ireland dismissed a test case of the law as not being clearly defined.
Ireland's Constitution begins "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity" a clearly Christian reference, however the special position of the Catholic Church was removed by constitutional referendum in 1972 with a ban on divorce repealed in 1995.
It would seem that the persons responsible for writing and enacting this new law have written an equally vague law as the undefined original blasphemy law. One suspects that the followers of Islam and thus Sharia Law, have had an effective influence on now supposedly secular Ireland. They would appear to be the only religion that could possibly benefit from the passing of this blasphemy law.
When Ireland became a Free State that might have been the time to return to the Brehon Laws. These reflect Celtic Irish concepts, the approach to solving problems, and resolving issues more effectively perhaps than the imposed English Common Law. The Supreme Court of Ireland should address the issue immediately declaring this improper blasphemy law unconstitutional.
In recent times there has been a quiet and skillful movement by a section of Islam, which has established itself in Western countries, to impose its believes and thus its laws. The law of Islam is Sharia Law which has clear views, that apply to followers of Islam, of what constitutes religious blasphemy. It also has severe punishment for those found guilty of this religious crime in Islam.
That was until last Friday January 01, 2010 in Ireland. Under a law which went into effect that day a person can be found guilty of blasphemy if " he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion".
The penalty is a fine of up to E25,000.
The group Atheist Ireland believes the law is outdated and unenforceable, we would agree with them adding that it is appallingly written and so vague as not to comply with the standards of Common Law as practised in Ireland. The existing blasphemy law in Ireland is under criminal offences and is so poorly written that prosecutions are not possible. In fact in 1999 the Supreme Court of Ireland dismissed a test case of the law as not being clearly defined.
Ireland's Constitution begins "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity" a clearly Christian reference, however the special position of the Catholic Church was removed by constitutional referendum in 1972 with a ban on divorce repealed in 1995.
It would seem that the persons responsible for writing and enacting this new law have written an equally vague law as the undefined original blasphemy law. One suspects that the followers of Islam and thus Sharia Law, have had an effective influence on now supposedly secular Ireland. They would appear to be the only religion that could possibly benefit from the passing of this blasphemy law.
When Ireland became a Free State that might have been the time to return to the Brehon Laws. These reflect Celtic Irish concepts, the approach to solving problems, and resolving issues more effectively perhaps than the imposed English Common Law. The Supreme Court of Ireland should address the issue immediately declaring this improper blasphemy law unconstitutional.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS
The French author Jules Verne wrote many books of fiction but with an intriguing possibility that what was written about was actually possible. One of these was "Around the World in 80 days" published in both French and English in 1873. Today it is quite easy to travel around the world in eighty days and media information travels in eighty seconds. So it is with a degree of surprise that we read of the American President Barack Hussein Obama taking 88 days to make his decision regarding the deployment of further American troops for Afghanistan. It might be noted that the previous American President George Bush took just 50 days to raise, deploy troops to Afghanistan and render the Taliban largely ineffective.
The Obama lengthy decision-making does not indicate a Commander-in-Chief that is an effective resolute wartime leader. One is reminded of another politician who returned from Munich waving a piece of white paper which, instead of being "peace in our time" turned into a surrender document. As to the speech at West Point, NY at the United States Military Academy, it was in the style of a Harvard seminar lecture rather than a rousing wartime speech. The explanation of the reason 30,000 troops are being deployed was not presented to the American people and it was only that a former military Senior Officer, now retired, later explained the strategy that one understood.
During the speech Obama mentioned Roosevelt but the reference was largely obscure. Much more applicable would have been the history of Afghanistan itself which one hopes has been studied by the Obama Administration. It is an ancient tribal history, long, involved, violent, complex, and still in a mindset of medieval thinking of fundamentalist Islam. Let us take a look at it to give an indication of this still very primitive land with no infrastructure.
The detailed history of Afghanistan starts in 330 BC with the arrival of Sikandar and his Greek army. Civilisation had existed in the region for thousands of years, however there had been numerous kingdoms and many capitals. While remaining politically divided the various tribal peoples, speaking many different languages united under Islam with the Mongol invasion of the 13th. Century. The following is a summation of Afghanistan conquests and conflicts;
Islamic conquest of Ghaznavids and Ghurids, 642 - 1200
Timurid dynasty, 1370 - 1526
Mughal Empire 1526 - 1709
Hotaki dynasty 1709 - 1738
Durrani Empire 1747 - 1826
European Influence 1826 - 1919
Amanullah Khan 1919 - 1929
Nadir Shah and Zahir Shah 1929 - 1973
It is this euphemism that is important for the 'European Influence' was the attempt by the British Empire to try and control Afghanistan from British India. Concerned over Russian advances in Central Asia - does history repeat itself? - in the 19th. Century in what 'The Raj' referred to as 'The Great Game'. Advancing through the Khyber Pass, were the Regimental Badges can still be seen today, from India - Pakistan did not of course exist in those days - the British Regiments of Foot were supported by the Artillery, Cavalry and Sepoy Regiments of The Raj Army. In the First Afghan War of 1839 - 1842 the Afghan tribal forces annihilated the British Regiments of Foot and The Raj Army. The only survivor being a seriously wounded British Army medical officer who was saved by an Afghan tribesman under the Muslim law of hospitality. The hatred of foreign rule should be remembered by those who enter Afghanistan which is relatively easy to enter but very difficult to leave.
The Second Afghan War of 1878 - 1880 resulted from the Amir Shir Ali's refusal to have a mission from The Raj in his capital Kabul. This resulted in Amir Abdur Rahman coming to the throne and during his reign of 1880 - 1901 the British and the Czar of all the Russias established the boundaries of what we know today as Afghanistan. The country's foreign affairs were under the control of The Raj. During World War 1, 1914 - 1918 and World War 2, 1939 - 1945 Afghanistan remained neutral but with internal dissent.
The logistics of actually deploying 30,00 troops into Afghanistan is as difficult today as it was in the 19th. Century. This deployment is set to commence in early 2010 and these forces will be supplemented by Afghan Forces. However these Afghan's must be trained in modern warfare and at present are in two groups Afghan 'police' and Afghan 'army'.
We would suggest that these groups are combined into an Afghan Gendarmes Force, they can be trained by the Training Command into an effective modern controlling Force. In addition it will be necessary to build an infrastructure in the country. Military engineers and local civilians could be formed into construction battalions. Hired and paid by the Military Command directly this would largely bypass the Afghan Government corruption. It may well encourage the local population, under their own tribal leaders, to at least tolerate the foreign troops and see their country develop under Afghan control with Afghan values. Education is essential and in fact is guaranteed by the Afghan Constitution. With an effective infrastructure the local population would be able to travel to schools, mosques and between towns as they need too. Perhaps in time they would develop a National Entity and a true National Government with a core value of the best of Islam.
The Obama lengthy decision-making does not indicate a Commander-in-Chief that is an effective resolute wartime leader. One is reminded of another politician who returned from Munich waving a piece of white paper which, instead of being "peace in our time" turned into a surrender document. As to the speech at West Point, NY at the United States Military Academy, it was in the style of a Harvard seminar lecture rather than a rousing wartime speech. The explanation of the reason 30,000 troops are being deployed was not presented to the American people and it was only that a former military Senior Officer, now retired, later explained the strategy that one understood.
During the speech Obama mentioned Roosevelt but the reference was largely obscure. Much more applicable would have been the history of Afghanistan itself which one hopes has been studied by the Obama Administration. It is an ancient tribal history, long, involved, violent, complex, and still in a mindset of medieval thinking of fundamentalist Islam. Let us take a look at it to give an indication of this still very primitive land with no infrastructure.
The detailed history of Afghanistan starts in 330 BC with the arrival of Sikandar and his Greek army. Civilisation had existed in the region for thousands of years, however there had been numerous kingdoms and many capitals. While remaining politically divided the various tribal peoples, speaking many different languages united under Islam with the Mongol invasion of the 13th. Century. The following is a summation of Afghanistan conquests and conflicts;
Islamic conquest of Ghaznavids and Ghurids, 642 - 1200
Timurid dynasty, 1370 - 1526
Mughal Empire 1526 - 1709
Hotaki dynasty 1709 - 1738
Durrani Empire 1747 - 1826
European Influence 1826 - 1919
Amanullah Khan 1919 - 1929
Nadir Shah and Zahir Shah 1929 - 1973
It is this euphemism that is important for the 'European Influence' was the attempt by the British Empire to try and control Afghanistan from British India. Concerned over Russian advances in Central Asia - does history repeat itself? - in the 19th. Century in what 'The Raj' referred to as 'The Great Game'. Advancing through the Khyber Pass, were the Regimental Badges can still be seen today, from India - Pakistan did not of course exist in those days - the British Regiments of Foot were supported by the Artillery, Cavalry and Sepoy Regiments of The Raj Army. In the First Afghan War of 1839 - 1842 the Afghan tribal forces annihilated the British Regiments of Foot and The Raj Army. The only survivor being a seriously wounded British Army medical officer who was saved by an Afghan tribesman under the Muslim law of hospitality. The hatred of foreign rule should be remembered by those who enter Afghanistan which is relatively easy to enter but very difficult to leave.
The Second Afghan War of 1878 - 1880 resulted from the Amir Shir Ali's refusal to have a mission from The Raj in his capital Kabul. This resulted in Amir Abdur Rahman coming to the throne and during his reign of 1880 - 1901 the British and the Czar of all the Russias established the boundaries of what we know today as Afghanistan. The country's foreign affairs were under the control of The Raj. During World War 1, 1914 - 1918 and World War 2, 1939 - 1945 Afghanistan remained neutral but with internal dissent.
The logistics of actually deploying 30,00 troops into Afghanistan is as difficult today as it was in the 19th. Century. This deployment is set to commence in early 2010 and these forces will be supplemented by Afghan Forces. However these Afghan's must be trained in modern warfare and at present are in two groups Afghan 'police' and Afghan 'army'.
We would suggest that these groups are combined into an Afghan Gendarmes Force, they can be trained by the Training Command into an effective modern controlling Force. In addition it will be necessary to build an infrastructure in the country. Military engineers and local civilians could be formed into construction battalions. Hired and paid by the Military Command directly this would largely bypass the Afghan Government corruption. It may well encourage the local population, under their own tribal leaders, to at least tolerate the foreign troops and see their country develop under Afghan control with Afghan values. Education is essential and in fact is guaranteed by the Afghan Constitution. With an effective infrastructure the local population would be able to travel to schools, mosques and between towns as they need too. Perhaps in time they would develop a National Entity and a true National Government with a core value of the best of Islam.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
HISTORICAL OR HYSTERICAL
Once again we were looking westward to America this week as time came to make an important decision. After months of much discussion, arguments and debate about health care reform it finally came to a vote in their House of Representatives.
When the American Colonies left the British Empire and declared The United States of America they dropped the Parliamentary system. After some changes in party nomenclature and the Continental Congress, they settled on a two Party system and a two House Congress. Today they have the Republican Party, tending to the Right and the Democratic Party, tending to the Left. On occasions an elected Congressperson will change from one Party to the other Party or declare as an Independent. This of course does not endear them to their Party or often the voters at reelection time.
The Upper House of Congress consists of The Senate of a hundred Senators being two from each of the fifty States. The Lower House of Congress is the House of Representatives. It is formed from a complex system State by State based on the ten year census which by population results in Federal Congressional Districts of which there are four-hundred and thirty-five at present and each has one congressperson. It is these latter that voted on the Health Care Reform Bill on Saturday November 7th., 2009. The result of this vote was 220 yea and 215 nay, thus the Health Care Reform Bill passed by five votes. Thirty-nine Democrats voted nay and only one Republican voted yea.
However this is not as simple as it seems and clearly the difference was very slight. The problem is that with this two Party system many Right-Wing Democrats are to the Right of Left-Wing Republicans. The Right-Wing Democrats are known as 'Blue Dog Democrats' from a remark made some years ago in political debate. In addition there are 'Log Cabin Republicans' which we shall allow our readers to research on for themselves. There will now be a vote in the Senate on the Health Care Reform Bill and it will either then proceed through Congress or stagnate mired in Amendments or Committee. From remarks made by Senators one expects rather the latter as The Senate has its own Health Care Reform Bill in draft.
There is considerable confusion, mis-information and concern amongst voters and this has led to hysterical behaviour in the sense of its definition -"any outbreak of wild uncontrolled feeling". In the afterglow of Democratic Party triumph Madame Pelosi from San Fransisco the Speaker of The House of Representatives stated it was a historical day. Well historical or hysterical we shall watch how it proceeds with interest as it is the cornerstone of the Obama Administration governance programme.
When the American Colonies left the British Empire and declared The United States of America they dropped the Parliamentary system. After some changes in party nomenclature and the Continental Congress, they settled on a two Party system and a two House Congress. Today they have the Republican Party, tending to the Right and the Democratic Party, tending to the Left. On occasions an elected Congressperson will change from one Party to the other Party or declare as an Independent. This of course does not endear them to their Party or often the voters at reelection time.
The Upper House of Congress consists of The Senate of a hundred Senators being two from each of the fifty States. The Lower House of Congress is the House of Representatives. It is formed from a complex system State by State based on the ten year census which by population results in Federal Congressional Districts of which there are four-hundred and thirty-five at present and each has one congressperson. It is these latter that voted on the Health Care Reform Bill on Saturday November 7th., 2009. The result of this vote was 220 yea and 215 nay, thus the Health Care Reform Bill passed by five votes. Thirty-nine Democrats voted nay and only one Republican voted yea.
However this is not as simple as it seems and clearly the difference was very slight. The problem is that with this two Party system many Right-Wing Democrats are to the Right of Left-Wing Republicans. The Right-Wing Democrats are known as 'Blue Dog Democrats' from a remark made some years ago in political debate. In addition there are 'Log Cabin Republicans' which we shall allow our readers to research on for themselves. There will now be a vote in the Senate on the Health Care Reform Bill and it will either then proceed through Congress or stagnate mired in Amendments or Committee. From remarks made by Senators one expects rather the latter as The Senate has its own Health Care Reform Bill in draft.
There is considerable confusion, mis-information and concern amongst voters and this has led to hysterical behaviour in the sense of its definition -"any outbreak of wild uncontrolled feeling". In the afterglow of Democratic Party triumph Madame Pelosi from San Fransisco the Speaker of The House of Representatives stated it was a historical day. Well historical or hysterical we shall watch how it proceeds with interest as it is the cornerstone of the Obama Administration governance programme.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
THE RIGHT CHOICE
Our focus was on America this week as Tuesday, being the first Tuesday in November, was their Election Day. Enshrined in the United States Constitution - most things seem to be, as the day when citizens, who have registered to vote, express their opinion. For both America and Europe there was a degree of interest in who would be elected due to the fact it is now a year since Mr. Obama was elected as President of the United States of America. At that time in both America and Europe he had acquired the aura of a messiah, which has now faded somewhat. Three States had elections and these were New York's 23rd. Congressional District which stretches from Canada and covers nearly a quarter of upstate New York. The others were Virginia and New Jersey.
It is interesting that in this Union of States not all actually use the term in their official title. One is Virginia which uses Commonwealth of Virginia, others are the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, & Kentucky. While Rhode Island, the famous hold out on ratifying State, is more fully and correctly The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
The results from both Virginia and New Jersey have set a tone for future elections and express an opinion of the capability of the Obama Administration to date. The Commonwealth of Virginia elected, by clear majority, a Republican Party Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and Attorney-General. So indeed did the State of New Jersey elect a Republican Party Governor, this latter being something of a surprise. New York's 23rd. elected a Democratic Party Congressional Representative which was largely expected. The Republican Party candidate had both dropped out and publicly switched her allegiance to the Democratic Party candidate. This was less than honourable behaviour at election time even for a politician.
So one would believe the election results in both Virginia and even more so in New Jersey are a strong critique of the Obama Administration socialist policies all talked about frequently and at too great length, less than stellar leadership, and famous dithering. Clearly the American voter is expressing a move back to its more traditional right of centre position, as has Europe in its most recent elections. Overly socialist policies become a millstone on a government which must generate monies to pay for them, as we have seen in Europe this means increased taxation or an artificial economy of Government employees or some of both.
It is interesting that in this Union of States not all actually use the term in their official title. One is Virginia which uses Commonwealth of Virginia, others are the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, & Kentucky. While Rhode Island, the famous hold out on ratifying State, is more fully and correctly The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
The results from both Virginia and New Jersey have set a tone for future elections and express an opinion of the capability of the Obama Administration to date. The Commonwealth of Virginia elected, by clear majority, a Republican Party Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and Attorney-General. So indeed did the State of New Jersey elect a Republican Party Governor, this latter being something of a surprise. New York's 23rd. elected a Democratic Party Congressional Representative which was largely expected. The Republican Party candidate had both dropped out and publicly switched her allegiance to the Democratic Party candidate. This was less than honourable behaviour at election time even for a politician.
So one would believe the election results in both Virginia and even more so in New Jersey are a strong critique of the Obama Administration socialist policies all talked about frequently and at too great length, less than stellar leadership, and famous dithering. Clearly the American voter is expressing a move back to its more traditional right of centre position, as has Europe in its most recent elections. Overly socialist policies become a millstone on a government which must generate monies to pay for them, as we have seen in Europe this means increased taxation or an artificial economy of Government employees or some of both.
Friday, October 30, 2009
CHERCHEZ LA FEMME
Elegant as diplomacy is required to be it is sometimes necessary to be quite direct and clear when Nations address each other. In these modern times political correctness is so much in vogue as to be carried to extreme. When this happens it becomes practically impossible for Nations to conduct negotiations in any meaningful manner. So it is that there is in actual fact no diplomacy whatsoever - thus an impasse prevails.
Such was becoming the case, until this week, between the Western World and Pakistan over Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Queda, and military-political situations in general. It is clear to all concerned that Osama bin Laden, a persona wanted by the United States of America and other Nations, resides in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan. A status one might describe as 'open hiding' wherein it is known to many, ignored by all.
This week the Secretary of State of the United States of America spoke courteously, clearly and directly to the Government of Pakistan. Such Government does not like to address issues in this manner preferring to deal with them in, shall we say to use a current phrase, a dithering approach. Now that Pakistan has been told clearly and directly what is expected from that Government and how it must deal with these issues immediately. While it is unlikely to react with quite the Western approach stated by the United States of America, Pakistan does indeed realize it must address the diplomatic concerns stated by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
One does wonder if this is an Obama Administration approach or the Secretary of State, concerned with the dithering approach of her own Government, decided to move things forward by direct action. It would appear to DIOGENES REMARKS that it was a calculated approach by an intelligent women very much in command of her own Department.
Such was becoming the case, until this week, between the Western World and Pakistan over Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Queda, and military-political situations in general. It is clear to all concerned that Osama bin Laden, a persona wanted by the United States of America and other Nations, resides in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan. A status one might describe as 'open hiding' wherein it is known to many, ignored by all.
This week the Secretary of State of the United States of America spoke courteously, clearly and directly to the Government of Pakistan. Such Government does not like to address issues in this manner preferring to deal with them in, shall we say to use a current phrase, a dithering approach. Now that Pakistan has been told clearly and directly what is expected from that Government and how it must deal with these issues immediately. While it is unlikely to react with quite the Western approach stated by the United States of America, Pakistan does indeed realize it must address the diplomatic concerns stated by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
One does wonder if this is an Obama Administration approach or the Secretary of State, concerned with the dithering approach of her own Government, decided to move things forward by direct action. It would appear to DIOGENES REMARKS that it was a calculated approach by an intelligent women very much in command of her own Department.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)