Post Realism 4

Renewing American Leadership

Article By: Barack Obama

From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007

Summary:

After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

Barack Obama is a Democratic Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the U.S. Presidential Elections 2008.

COMMON SECURITY FOR OUR COMMON HUMANITY

At moments of great peril in the last century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world -- that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders.

As Roosevelt built the most formidable military the world had ever seen, his Four Freedoms gave purpose to our struggle against fascism. Truman championed a bold new architecture to respond to the Soviet threat -- one that paired military strength with the Marshall Plan and helped secure the peace and well-being of nations around the world. As colonialism crumbled and the Soviet Union achieved effective nuclear parity, Kennedy modernized our military doctrine, strengthened our conventional forces, and created the Peace Corps and the Alliance for Progress. They used our strengths to show people everywhere America at its best.

Today, we are again called to provide visionary leadership. This century's threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts.

To recognize the number and complexity of these threats is not to give way to pessimism. Rather, it is a call to action. These threats demand a new vision of leadership in the twenty-first century -- a vision that draws from the past but is not bound by outdated thinking. The Bush administration responded to the unconventional attacks of 9/11 with conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged. In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles.

After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example.

Such leadership demands that we retrieve a fundamental insight of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy -- one that is truer now than ever before: the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity.

The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world. If elected president, I will start renewing that promise and purpose the day I take office.

MOVING BEYOND IRAQ

To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by America's civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place. We have now lost over 3,300 American lives, and thousands more suffer wounds both seen and unseen.

Continue to Read This Article:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

Post Realism 2

A Quest for International Law:
UN Version 3.0



Realists tell you it does not exist. That there is no such a thing as International Law. And even if there was, there was no way of enforcing it. Their arguments make a lot of sense. Their logic is pure Realism at its finest :

• There is no International Law.
• Laws are made by the stronger.
• the UN is Useless, can not & should not have a role in resolving conflicts or promoting justice
• Because there are dictators who might sign international treaties we should not have treaties

Realism is great. But Guess what. It did not work. It did not protect the strong. The minute that the strong decided to break the spirit of International Law, which it did not really acknowledge as a concept, the strong became weak, exposed and vulnerable ... we all become vulnerable in absence of the law ... because the law, JUSTICE, is an insurance policy for all of us ...

So. Realism did not quite seem to work.

Hence, comes this notion of Post-Realism. A Search for International Law. A Pursuit of Happiness, not just for the Americans, Europeans or Japanese but for every nation. A Quest for Justice not just for Egyptians, Palestinians & Syrians but for Israelis, Tibetans, Indians, Sri Lankans, Cubans, Russians, Armenians, Ethiopians, etc., ... justice for all ... justice for everyone. For we have learned that no Nation can be happy alone ... while the rest of the world suffers.

Realism talks about what's possible in terms of our own past experience of how things used to happen.

At one moment of Man's journey ... there were no states ... there was no law, there was no electricity or telephones.

When one man, possibly code name Osiris, or Azer, but he really represents the civilizing spirit in every society, had the idea, that Man should not kill another man for food ... that a concept of "property" exists ... at that precise moment ... the concept of LAW was Born:

"
And Aser gave his fellow men (probably Egyptians :) Laws, taught them how to farm and how to make wine ... and taught them how to honor the gods (do good really) .. he took them out of their savagery.

If MAN insisted on being realist all along that journey of civilization ... we would never have LAWS or States ... or Electricity ... or wine ... :)



الواقعية تشبه إلى حد بعيد المنهج السلفي
أن نفعل
كما رأينا آباءنا يفعلون

والمحافظون ما هم إلا نوع مودرن شوية من السلفيين
سلفيين ببدل وكرافتات يعني



But luckily, Man has never given up the gift of "Dreaming" ... for he was endowed with imagination and vision , the ability to see things ... not only as they are ... or as they used to be ... but as they COULD BE.

This is the power of Vision my friends ... we should never lose sight of that ... and we should never let anyone tell us that things can't get better on the grounds that things are indeed dire ... for when things are bad ... this is the best time when Man can install something better ... only when it is bad ... that traditionalists and conservatives will accept a new solution which may allow things to be less bad ... or simply better ...




But most of all, we should never fall victims of Realism at bad times, because when things are bad ... Realism really becomes another word for pessimism.



Now, we have to ask ourselves: is this the best Man can do?

International Justice: is it really "No-can-do"?

I am not talking here about Palestine or Israel, I am talking about everything ... about Kyoto and the Ozone Layer ... I am talking about kids starving in Africa and conflicts breaking in Georgia. I am talking about it all. Wouldn't be nice to have something, an international institution, which can actually provide a framework for International Law, including arbitration, letigation and enforcement?

Guess what. Such an institution exists. In fact, version 2.0 of that institution does exist. It is called the United Nations. Version 1.0 (the League of Nations, rest-in-peace) was full of bugs, and because it was so buggy it did not manage to prevent the horrors of World War 2. World Peace "Crashed" and 40 million people died. So in 1945, the warring nations, after the war, developed version 2.0, and sat on its Security Council. And it did manage to prevent War again between the five.

But guess what. It had no room for the weak. It did not listen to the poor. So, the weak decided, to take the Law in its own hand, launching a "Parallel War", using terror and killing civilians instead of engaging in a formal conventional war for which the weak had no capacity to handle or chance to win.

Isn't this always the case? When the Law fails to deliver justice, people resort to violence, hire thugs and take the law in their own hands?


So,I say that now, it is time for UN version 3.0

And please, this time, we need the weak to sit on the table with the strong.

The poor with the rich.

This is how we can rid ourselves of this Bad Karma which seems to be haunting us. Catching up with us where we least expect it.

Let us work on UN Version 3.0 and improve our Karma a little. Shall we?

:)

Post Realism 3

Bush Calls for Reforming the United Nations!

Wael Nawara

Yes. It is true. This is not a joke or a make-blieve post or a wishful-thinking sort of article. Bush on Tuesday (23 Sep 2008), called for the reform of the United Nations!

Jay Allbritton: Sep 24th 2008 12:49 AM

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/24/bush-calls-on-united-nations-to-reform/

During President Bush's farewell speech to the United Nations Tuesday, he called on the UN to reform. Despite running what many critics refer to as the most secretive administration in American history, Bush called on the UN to "open the door to a new age of transparency, accountability, and seriousness of purpose."

The UN didn't exactly extend Bush a rousing ovation. According to the Associated Press, the President received "less than 10 seconds of polite applause at the end of [the] speech".

I think Bush will be remembered as the President who made a mockery of the United Nations. In 2003, ordered the invasion of Iraq despite a Security Council refusal to approve it. President Bush also had his own sideshow act on global warming. Instead of working with the international community and signing the Kyoto Protocol, ratified by 172 countries, he insisted on opposing international constraints aimed at curbing carbon emissions. In 2004, on the wake of the Tsunami disaster, Bush was accused of trying to undermine the United Nations by setting up a rival coalition to coordinate relief.

Under Clinton Administration, the United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998. But the Bush administration's hostility to the ICC has increased dramatically in 2002 under the Bush administration. The U.S. opposition to the ICC was in stark contrast to the strong support for the Court by most of America's closest allies.
In an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver, the Bush administration effectively withdrew the U.S. signature on the treaty. The Bush administration then went requesting states around the world to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender American nationals to the ICC !

The U.S Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush, which prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC; allowing the U.S. to "invade the Hague, Netherland, seat of the ICC" by authorizing the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC, in addition to punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States' Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies), etc.

Why does the U.S. Oppose Development of an "International Justice System"?

The United Nation's Security Council is already flawed. The five permenant members of the Security Council are: the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China. Britain and France are close allies of the United States, although France sometimes votes against the United States' wishes. These permenant members have "Veto Powers" which can stall any Security Council resolution which "any of them" does not like! The U.S., in this position, already has a disproportionate influence on the United Nations and on the Security Council decisions. An influence it has often used to prevent even symbolic gestures of "International Justice" to be made against Israel for instance.

On Sept. 10, 1972, for the second time in its UN history, the U.S. its veto, this time —to shield Israel. (Source: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p-neff-veto.html)

That veto, as it turned out, signalled the start of a cynical policy to use the U.S. veto repeatedly to shield Israel from international criticism, censure and sanctions.

Washington used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N. The Soviet Union cast 115 vetoes during the same
period.

The initial 1972 veto to protect Israel was cast by George Bush [Sr.] in his capacity as U.S. ambassador to the world body. Ironically, it was Bush as president who temporarily stopped the use of the veto to shield Israel 18 years later. The last such veto was cast on May 31, 1990, it was thought, killing a resolution approved by all 14 other council members to send a U.N. mission to study Israeli abuses of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Then President Bill Clinton came along and cast three
more.

I believe that George Bush [Sr.] had realized the importance of having a balanced approach in the Middle East region, to be able to act in situations such as the first Gulf War with some Arab backing. Ironically, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, brough about a decade of positive progress in the Palestinian Front. Oslo accords were signed in 1993 and the few years that followed saw hope and optimism.

In my view, this hope and optimism was brought about by this slight change of policy on the U.S. part. Blind support of Israel undermined U.S. credibility as a "broker", but most importantly, it had given Israel the comfort that it can get away with murder with U.S. shielding it from International blame. This unconditional backing created a monster. And that "monsterous" approach, in my view, sabotaged Israel's ability to co-exist peacefully in the region. Israel became like a bully whose mum was the headmistress of the school. When bad behavior goes unchecked for years, it develops into bad attitude, which stays with one for life, a life marked by repeated offences and jail time. Eventually, when the mother is no longer there to protect the now-grown-up bully, the poor bully finds it hard to adjust to the real world which no longer forgives such misconduct.

I believe that the U.S. policy of undermining the United Nations and opposing development of International Justice institutions such as ICC, also works against U.S. best interests. Only when an effective International Justice System is developed, can the world be a more safe place. The United States needs to play a strong role in that process, which can never be successful if the U.S. refrains from supporting it, or worse, work to undermine it.

Senator Obama wrote an article last year which was published in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007, where he said:

America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

I have only one word to say in response to that:

Amen.

Isratine or a Swiss Cheese State

Is a Two-State

Solution still Viable?

The "Fringe" program of the "LibDems' Fall Conference" had a number of extremely interesting "topical" sessions. One of them was about Palestine, with the question "Is a two-state solution is still viable?" as a title.

The panel of this "debate" included One Palestinian Author, an Israeli Dissident who tried to Break Gaza's Blockade with a boat filled with humanitarian aid, a British MP (from Scotland) who had visited the occupied territories and Israel recently and an Israeli diplomatic diplomat, with a moderator of course from LibDems!

I will have to write about this session in detail later, but the conclusion of the debate had confirmed my growing fears, that a two-state solution was no longer, in fact since the 80's, viable, and we may be looking at a one-state solution, a democratic state, whereby Israel will be no longer a Jewish State.

In fact, I remember that in one of my articles in Al Masry Al Youm of the series "Against God-State" about Muslim Brothers "Religious State", I made a statement, that Israelis are facing the same challenge like Muslim Brothers, for either Israel to be a Democratic State, or a Jewish State, for the two can not happen together, same as "Muslim Brothers" alleged "Islamic State", it is either an Islamic State, or a "Democratic State", but the two can not happened simulateneously!

http://www.almasry-alyoum.com/article2.aspx?ArticleID=85256

• إن الخيار الإخواني الذي يطرح نفسه علي الإخوان اليوم في مفترق طرق تاريخي، يشبه إلي حد كبير الخيار الإسرائيلي الذي يتعين علي الشعب الإسرائيلي أن يتخذه، فإسرائيل التي تدعي أنها دولة ديمقراطية، هي دولة دينية علي أرض الواقع، لأنها تعطي حق المواطنة لأي يهودي في العالم مهما كان مكان مولده، بينما تنكر حق المواطنة والعودة للفلسطينيين الذي ولدوا وآباؤهم وأجدادهم علي نفس الأرض التي تحكمها إسرائيل اليوم، ويصبح علي إسرائيل أن تختار، إما أن تكون دولة يهودية أو تكون دولة ديمقراطية لأن النقيضين لا يجتمعان علي سلم المواطنة بنفس المنطق الذي ذكرناه. والإخوان أيضاً عليهم أن يعلنوا بكل صراحة، هل يؤمنون بالهوية المصرية كأساس للمواطنة، وبالديمقراطية كأساس للحكم، أم يؤمنون بالطائفية والهوية الدينية كأساس للمواطنة، وبالإرشاد الإلهي كأساس للحكم وسن القوانين والسياسات ...

Israel has stalled and stalled and out-smarted every negotiator by imposing Settlements and changing maps and borders on daily basis, but it has done so to its own detriment. The Israeli negotiator was "too smart" for Israel's own good. Now, what the palestinians are left with, if any, is the corpse of a state, devoured from every vital organ or resource necessary for survival, such that a two-state solution has become impossible. Now the reality is, we have Palestinians caged in an aparheid setting, similar to what had happened in South Africa for decades and we all know how that ended.

This is the thing, you can not "deceive" the land. You can not violate the order of geography and expect that things will just eventually work out! They won't! If Israel wants a two-state solution, and I would very much think that they can not face the Israeli voter with a one-state solution now, since it will mean the end of Israel as a "Jewish" state, something which the Israeli public has never been prepared to accept, then Israeli negotiator, must work very hard NOW to try to give a new package which includes land, water and economic solutions to the Palestinian Negotiator, so that a two-state solution is possible again.

Again, this may require some huge sacrifices which no Israeli government is prepared to give, simply because the Israeli public has not been prepared for these options.

We always make fun of the "Green Book" prophet of the desert, sitting in his fancy tent and issuing prophecies. This time one of his prophecies starts to make sense. The Prophecy of "Isratine" ! Which is becoming more reasonable than a Swiss Cheese State of Palestine with a manufacturer's health warning label marked, "Expired - Long Time Ago".

Who are these People

نسبة 89% من المشاركين
يرون أن البرلمان المصري
لا يمثل المصريين

انتهى التصويت اليوم في الاستطلاع الذي أجريناه حول البرلمان المصري، وإن كان يمثل المصريين بحق أم لا، وقد صوت 89% من المشاركين بأن البرلمان المصري لا يمثل بحق المصريين، بينما رأى 8% أنه يمثل المصريين في بعض الأحيان، ورأى حوالي 1.3% أن البرلمان المصري يمثل المصريين في معظم الأحيان.


وقد قمنا بإجراء هذا الاستطلاع في محاولة لفهم المشاعر المتناقضة التي أحاطت بحريق مجلس الشورى، وطرحنا السؤال على أحد المواقع على الإنترنت وروجنا له من خلال العديد من مجموعات الفيس بوك.

وكان السؤال ببساطة هو:

هل البرلمان المصري يمثل بحق المصريين؟

بينما كانت الإجابات المتاحة هي:

نعم. تقريباً دائماً

نعم. في بعض الأحيان

لا. تقريباً أبداً

لا أعلم.


Does the Egyptian Parliament Truly Represent the People?
هل البرلمان المصري يمثل بحق المصريين؟


Yes, almost always ..نعم في معظم الأحيان 2 (1%)

Yes, sometimes ... نعم، في بعض الأحيان 14 (8%)

No, almost never ... لا، تقريباً أبداً 139 (89%)

I do not know ... لا أعلم 1 (0%)


Votes so far: 156
Poll closed


و الأمانة العلمية تقتضي أن نقول أن النتيجة ليست دقيقة للأسباب التالية:

• أن قطاع كبير من المصريين لا يستخدمون الإنترنت
• أن الترويج للاستطلاع ربما كان في دوائر معارضة
• أن حجم العينة صغير 156
• يمكن للبعض أن يصوت مرتين من خلال جهاز آخر


ولكنني أرى أن هذه النتيجة معبرة بصورة عامة عن رأي المصريين، وعلى سبيل المثال فإن من شاركوا في انتخابات مجلس الشعب لعام 2005 لم يتجاوزوا 23% من الناخبين،بما يعني أن 77% من المصريين امتنعوا عن التصويت ولم يختاروا من يمثلهم في مجلس الشعب، وبالتأكيد فمن ضمن ممن صوتوا (23%) هناك نسبة ليست راضية عن نتيجة الانتخابات أو أداء المجلس لأسباب مختلفة، وبالتالي فإن يأتي 89% من المصوتين ليعلنوا أن البرلمان المصري لا يمثل المصريين، فهذا أمر ليس مستغرباً، وربما يفسر بوضوح ردود فعل الشارع المصري تجاه حريق مجلس الشورى.

لمتابعة نتيجة الاستطلاع بعد إقفاله، نرجو الرجوع للموقع:

http://weekite.blogspot.com

Final Hours in the Poll: Does the Egyptian Parliament Truly Represent the People ? o.o.o

آخر يوم في استطلاع رأي حول البرلمان المصري

هل البرلمان المصري يمثل بحق المصريين؟

في محاولة لفهم المشاعر المتناقضة التي أحاطت بحريق مجلس الشورى، قمنا بطرح استطلاع رأي على الإنترنت

هل البرلمان المصري يمثل بحق المصريين؟

Does the Egyptian Parliament Truly Represent the People?

والإجابات المتاحة

Possible Answers

Yes, almost always ..نعم في معظم الأحيان

Yes, sometimes ... نعم، في بعض الأحيان

No, almost never ... لا، تقريباً أبداً

I do not know ... لا أعلم

Only 20 Hours left to vote

Participate Now

شارك الآن

http://weekite.blogspot.com/

What do Politicians do? ooo

Nick Clegg's** Speech

to Bournemouth 2008 Rally

Sat, 13 Sep 2008

During his speech at the Liberal Democrat opening night rally in Bournemouth Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg set out bold plans to fix the political system of the UK, which LibDems believe to be broken and outdated. In his speech, he attempts to answer a question from a ten-year-old girl: "what do politicians do?"

Hello everyone, welcome to Autumn Conference 2008. Thank you very much to Dorothy and Henry for their speeches.

When we decided to talk about democracy tonight I immediately remembered a primary school I visited in Sheffield recently. I was trying to explain to the pupils how Westminster works and what it means to be an MP. I talked about elections, about making decisions on grand matters of state...that kind of thing... And a little girl put up her hand and said:

"But what is it that you do?"

She had that look on her face that only children can do - my eldest son does it all the time. Earnest. Innocent. Deadly.

The thing was, although she probably didn't realise it, she had a real point. What do politicians do?

Frankly, what we do in Parliament probably isn't a million miles away from what that little girl sees in the playground every day. We jump around and shout at each other like children. But worse behaved.

I don't know how many of you have spent much time in Parliament, but I'm sure the MPs and Westminster staff here will back me up.

The place is obsessed with pointless procedures and rules that make no sense in the modern world.

Take my first committee room debate. I was new to Parliament, and I had been under the impression that outside of the big, set pieces in the main debating chamber, I could skip the "Rt Hon Member for such and such" stuff and call people by their names. Not their first names - obviously. Just a bit of "Mr this", "Mrs that" - 1950s style. Big mistake. Ann Widdecombe, was chairing the debate. She stood up. She screeched at me...

"Please refrain immediately from calling people by their names..."

"Mr Clegg".....?

Even the cafes in Westminster have silly rules. There's a sort of coffee shop-cum-bar arrangement in the Commons where you can go if you're an MP. Or if you're a Peer that used to be an MP. But not if you're a peer that wasn't. And if you're an MP you can take three guests. But if you're an MP's spouse you can only take one.

Keeping up?

And down the corridor there's a very ordinary canteen where anyone who works in Westminster can get lunch. Except temps. Temps can't have lunch at lunchtime because they're temps. And this is the place where we legislate on workers' rights.

I could go on all night with these kind of stories - don't even get me started on who can use the lifts. But I don't just want to carp about the silliness of Westminster. Because this stuff matters - it matters a lot.

What is left of "the Mother of Parliaments" when you take away the wigs, the rods, the cat-calls and the jeers?

Not a lot. Just broken politics. We know that every time there's a vote in Parliament, it's not the argument that wins. It's the Government. Labour was elected with the support of 22% of Britain's voters. And in 11 years they have been defeated just three times.

Three times. One of which was a vote on whether or not MPs should all go home early. That's not accountability. It's not democracy. It's got to end.

This is broken politics. Westminster is home to a political class sheltered from reality and shielded from an increasingly alienated society. Its rules are designed to keep out real protest, real emotion, the hardships endured by real people.

Earlier this year I met fifty retired Gurkha soldiers who had been refused the right to live in Britain. They felt so let down, so dejected, that they surrendered their long service and distinguished conduct medals to me as a symbol of protest.

They were awarded these medals after risking their lives for this nation. Just imagine what it means to give up something so hard-won, so treasured, so meaningful.

I was ashamed of the government that day. Ashamed that any veteran of our British Army could be so mistreated he would want to return his medals. I wanted to take one of these medals into the Chamber, for the Prime Minister to see it for himself.

Because those medals convey more strongly than words ever could their sense of betrayal. But I was told it was impossible. The same rule book that concerns itself with knee breeches and silver buckles forbids anyone taking a "prop" into a debate.

You can dismiss this silly rule as trivia. You can dismiss every one of the thousands of rules. But you can't dismiss what they add up to.

When I look at that medal it has even more meaning for me now than before. It tells me you shouldn't look for freedom of expression in parliament. You should look in village halls, in kitchens, in staff rooms. Anywhere where you can have real debate.

Britain needs a real change if we're going to mend our broken politics. And you can be sure the Conservatives won't ever offer it. Because they are waiting for their "go".

David Cameron thinks that two parties take it in turns to run this country. Neither is willing to change the system because it's that very system that returns them to power every few elections.

British politics has become like a giant dance of the hokey cokey. David and Gordon skipping round in circles, hand in hand. Taking it in turns, left foot in, right foot out, left foot out, right foot in.

You see, while Labour and the Conservatives purport to be the greatest of enemies, when it comes to keeping power, they are actually the best of friends. And let's face it the Prime Minister needs all the friends he can get.

You see there are friends, there are enemies. And then there are Cabinet colleagues. And then - there are party whips.

Poor Gordon - he must know its bad - he's even been jilted by his beloved Darling.
Do you know David Cameron has already held conversations with "the security people" about measures he'll need to take "once" he's in Number 10? How's that for arrogance?

Here's a man who'll speak fondly of "hardworking families" but has no actual plans to help them. A man who - with recession looming - puts millionaires first. A man who hopes that soundbites can fix the economy.

The best George Osborne can offer is that Gordon has failed to "save for a rainy day". Apparently George would "fix the roof while the sun is shining". What is this? Just William? The Secret Seven?

If you want real solutions for Britain's economy are you really going to call this bunch of Conservative Cowboys? There's only one man who can be trusted with our economic future, and it's Vince Cable.

And there's only one party that can be trusted with our political future, and it's the Liberal Democrats. In 2001, for the first time in election history, more people stayed at home than voted for the party that took power.

The same happened in 2005. It's not right. It's up to us to change that, and I know we can. We can do things differently to make our country better.

And that's what I told that little girl in Sheffield when she asked me what politicians do. I told her that the job of a politician is to give a voice to the voiceless. Maybe it sounded a bit sentimental for an 8 year old's taste. But even if it's cheesy, it's true.

Our Government just isn't listening. It keeps the public at arms length with layers of confusing, impersonal and inefficient bureaucracy. Faceless Britain. Where form-filling and paper pushing have become a national sport.

I could at least understand it if the computerised bureaucracy replacing human face-to-face contact was doing the job properly.

But when it comes to Government IT systems, the computer can't even say no. The Department's lost the file.

Is it really a surprise that millions of people feel powerless? This sense of helplessness - of not being able to control your own life - is a blight on our society.

It breeds anger, cynicism and fear. It creates hopelessness. Frustration. It is fertile breeding ground for extremism.

This is broken politics. This is not the society that I want to live in. This is not the society I want my children - any of our children - to live in. This is not a Liberal Britain.

But we - we together - can change it. We can rock the establishment. We can shake-up the system so that Whitehall doesn't control our lives. We can put power back in the hands of those who know best.

Let's give patients, parents and pupils power.

Let's give school and hospital staff a say over the services they provide each day. Let's give communities control. Where Liberal Democrats are in power locally this is already happening. You heard it earlier tonight from Dorothy.

In Liberal Democrat controlled Kingston any 100 local people can call in any council decision. In Sheffield within days of winning power we announced new community panels to take power from the town hall down into the hands of the people who count.

Imagine that. Real control. Real accountability.

Liberal Democrats trust people.

That's why I'm announcing today that over the next nine months we'll be knocking on one million doors across the nation. Listening, connecting, and engaging with people.
I want us to reinvent community politics for a new generation. The Liberal Democrat vision is shaped by the experiences of real people. Which is why only the Liberal Democrats will bring down the faceless state.

We will protect the front line services at the heart of communities across the country. We will redirect billions of pounds of tax payers' money by making central Government accountable for every penny they spend in our name. We will protect the privacy of British individuals by scrapping the preposterous and expensive ID card scheme.

We are the only party committed to taking the price tag off power - capping donations, slashing party spending and keeping politics clean.

And - we will reform the voting system so that each and every person counts.

Only the Liberal Democrats can reunite people and politics. Because we do it up and down the country every day.

Our councillors make change happen. Our councils give power and money back to the communities they serve. Our MPs stand up for people when the system lets them down. Our MEPs are the difference between a Europe that tackles climate change and one that turns a blind eye.

Liberal Democrats - make no mistake we are already a party of power.

And this week we will set out our blueprint for a freer, fairer Britain.

******************

Source:

http://www.libdems.org.uk/home/nick-cleggs-speech-to-bournemouth-2008-rally-658381;show

******************

** Nick Clegg is the elected leader of the LibDems.

******************

Comments:

- What do politicians do in Egypt?

* You mean apart from sending ex-police chiefs to kill ex-wives in x-countries?

When they are not busy drafting corrupt "anti-monopoly" laws which will only protect their turfs and possibly double their profits, profiteering or really racketeering from monopolized commodities?

What do politicians do in Egypt?

Politicians in Egypt come in three kinds really ... the opposition kind ... often ending up in jail, like Ayman Nour ... and the NDP unkind, which has obtained "a permit to exploit the people" from the regime ... for and on behalf of the regime itself ... the third kind ... is the harmless opposition or independent kind ... minding its own business ... often busy in interpreting dreams and singing the praises for Mubarak and his regime ...

... and that's about it ... that is what politicians do in Egypt ...

LibDems - Bournemouth Sep 2008

- مين يجيبللي حبيبي؟

* ما تقوم تفز إنت تجيبه !

يقام المؤتمر السنوي لحزب الليبراليين الديمقراطيين LibDems or Liberal Democrats في مدينة بورنموث الساحلية في الجنوب الانجليزي. وقد دعى الحزب شبكة الليبراليين العرب للمشاركة. المؤتمر رائع وضخم وفعاليته كثيرة جداً ومتعددة، لا يمكن المشاركة فيها كلها، حيث يوجد حوالي 10 محاور متوازية قوامها ورش عمل، وحلقات نقاش، وأنشطة تدريبية، وندوات في مختلف القضايا، تعقد في مركز المؤتمرات بقاعاته المتعددة علاوة على قاعات 5 فنادق قريبة من المركز.

التنظيم رائع وبسيط في نفس الوقت، لم أنبهر فقط بالمحاضرين والخبراء وصناع السياسات، بل انبهرت أكثر بالمواطن البريطاني العادي، الذي يشارك في صنع حياته ومستقبله، ويدافع عن حقوقه وحرياته بصورة نشطة، وليس على طريقة "مين يجيبلي حبيبي"!.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/conference

Liberal Voices

NAL on Nile TV!

The Network of Arab Liberals (NAL) has been a project in the making for about two years. Finally, in July 2008, NAL was launched in Cairo, the Internal Charter was ratified by the General Assembly of the founders, a President, Mr. Mohamed Tamaldou (Morocco) was elected, and an Executive Board was also elected.

The conference, which was sponsored by Friedrich Naumann Foundation (FNF), also included a workshop about the Role of the Liberal Opposition Parties in the Arab World. We were approached by an editor from Nile TV to record an interview about the conference, NAL and about the "Role of Opposition Parties" in the "Arab World" and in Egypt. Mrs. Amira Abdel Fattah, Regional Program Coordinator, FNF, and myself, from NAL were hosted in the show.

Thanks to NAL's program officer, Ms. Cynthia Farahat, we have a clip to show of that interview.

Press here to see Clip 1 and Clip 2 of that video on YouTube.com ... or watch it here:

Probably Good, Probably Fair: Morality in a Probabilistic World

Integrating Probability and Morality

 

In a previous article, we discussed the "Order of Probabilities" which govern our universe, material universe, that is.

We observed that the universe came with a set of "Rules", which govern the workings and interactions between all matter, energy and bodies, large or small.

That these rules come in the form of "possible" paths for all things to happen. And because there are always so many paths for any single event, that we have to describe our universe in terms of "Probability", that certain paths are more probable to be taken than others. And as V would say, in Wachowski brothers' Masterpiece, "V for Vendetta", "There is no Certainty, only Opportunity".

But even if the odds are extremely high for a certain path, other paths are also taken, less frequently, but they do eventually occur. This seeming chaos is responsible for the way the universe evolved, for bringing life to this earth through a process of evolution.

Genetic mutation, is an occurence whereby "an error" takes place during the process of making genetic "copies". This error, is an example of an improbable path. Such error could be responsible for a hereditary disease suffered by the off-spring, or a deformed baby or a miscarriage. But this genetic "error" is also responsible for giving birth to a new specie in the evolution process. And as errors mount and accumulate over a period of about a billion years, life forms went through a tedious process of selection and evolution, where we stand today, watching how Man emerged as an intelligent being, capable of inventing networked computers which enable you to read this article, coming at the end, so far, of a chain which probably started with a single cell amoeba.

But if there are pre-defined "paths" for everything to happen, where would "our choice" fit into this? Or did such "Order" lay out zillions of "potential" paths, each presenting "opportunity to happen", "probability to occur"? Can one "improve such probabilities"? Is that it? Is this what it is all about? That we just have pre-defined paths, and all we can do is to work really hard to make our "chosen path" more probable than others?

Can we absolve ourselves of "responsibility" then, since the limit of our responsibility is to make desired "outcomes" more probable, not more probable than "undesired" results, but rather more probable as compared to their original chance, if we were not there to influence such chance?

If we can accept, that the limit of our abilities, is to merely improve the probabilities, can we live and function as happier human beings, more in harmony with ourselves, with others, and with the universe which surrounds us, the universe which we can not change or alter in any significant way. Is this something we can accept? Is it productive, or do we sound to be victimizing Man and denying it "a larger degree of choice"?

When it comes to morality, we have always been told that if you do good, behave yourself and be good to your neighbor, you will be rewarded with good consequences. You go to heavens. In New-age religions, where rewards take place in this life, you live a happy and healthy life achieving harmony and inner peace. Evil behavior and crime do not pay. But every once in a while, we see the opposite taking place. Crime sometimes pay. In many situations, evil behavior goes unpunished. Some people practically get away with murder.

When this happens, it just demotivates us. We have learned that when we all respect the traffic laws, everyone will arrive faster and streets will be safer. But every once in a while, we see someone who zips through on a red light and he does seem to arrive even faster still. Sure. If we all did that, chances are, no one will be able to arrive to their destination in the first place. The Order can accept deviation. An improbable, rarely-occurring deviation, just like a mutation. And just like mutations are necessary for evolution, deviation from the system are also necessary because they eventually teach us new ways to doing things. Ninety Nine point nine nine nine percent of the time, these deviations, would be as unsuccessful as genetic mutations leading to a deformed embryo or a child who suffers from a hereditary disease. But every once in a while, these deviation serve to give us a new way of doing things better!

I like to define "good" as whatever works, most of the time- that is, on the long term achieving a balance between self-interest and others' interests. Our social experience has provided us with a set of values, behaviors, norms, religious teachings and even laws defining what is "good" and what is "not". But what is "good"? How did we know what is good and what is not? It basically comes in a social context, marking those values and behaviors which the society find acceptable and supporting to its survival (survival again, as an order of evolution), as good. I had earlier mentioned a "balance" between self-interest and that of the society, a balance between an individual's survival and group's survival. But the more the person sacrifices his own interest, trades his own survival for that of the "Group's", the more good, the better, he is, until that person becomes a "hero", foregoing all self-interest and sacrificing all for the well-being of the society. On the other hand, the person who focuses only on his or own interests, survival, neglecting interests of the group, sabotaging "survival" of the group, that person is deemed "bad" and "evil" and self-serving.

So, the essence is, continue being good to your neighbor. Pay your taxes. Be nice to other people, even if sometimes you meet people who despite being evil to their neighbors and big-time offenders, yet they seem to be happy and rise to high offices of power, wealth and fame. When you meet such exceptions, such error cases, do not get alarmed or disheartned. The "Order" is still there. It still works. But it does not work every time in the same way. Do not be frustrated that you start scratching your neighbor's fender! This is a part of the Order of Probability. It is like when you go gambling. The odds are that you will always lose money on the gambling table. So, you would better not gamble, except perhaps for fun. But you see people who gamble and clean the house collecting huge wins! It does happen, but it is highly unlikely and most likely unsustainable! You can think of this as a high-risk investment or a dangeorus sport. It is enjoyable, and some people win, but more often than not, those who go down that path eventually lose.

Goodness will probably prevail, as per definition above, and life will most likely be fair. But do not get disheartened when you find that life ocassionally is not fair. You just hit an unlucky streak and it is likely to change soon. Things will just have to get better, in compliance with the Order of the universe.

Blessed be the Order, which gives existence, life, meaning and Good Probabilities!