FACE IT:THE WORLD MIGHT NOT BE SAFER WITHOUT BIN LADEN

Is the world a safer place now that Bin-laden is gone?. I doubt it,but that wouldn't stop the US and everyone from proclaiming huge victory for freedom and democracy. Personally I don't see anything democratic about the execution of a prisoner without trial. But hey, he murdered 5,000 + civilians so that's alright then isn't it?.                                                                                               

It is too soon to say that the world is a safer place without Osama Bin Laden. Indeed, in the short term it may be more dangerous, with the risk of revenge attacks by his followers.

My stand point on the whole issue is that the world isn't necessarily safer but better, in the sense that a message has been sent to all terrorist out there that no matter how long it takes,they shall be brought to justice. Which makes the world a better place.                                  

what do you think?                                                                                                             FACE IT : (Al Qaeda is not like the IRA or other organized militia around the world fighting a cause. They are an ideological army fighting in small disorganised groups, with no real leadership per Se. So does the death of Bin laden really mean anything?)

FACE IT

Are politicians Idealistic men and women who want to make the world a better place, or corrupt men and women who are self-serving and egomaniacal. Whatever your view on politics, there is one aspect of the lives of politicians that takes up more column inches than even the worst of political gaffes. Even as America tears itself to pieces over the issues of economic efficiency while the UK parliament reels from the MP expenses scandal, you can be sure that a good old-fashioned sex scandal would overshadow all these issue. Its has become a norm to add a sex scandal to ones political history as one attains greater political heights. The likes of Bill clinton, Strauss kahn,Arnold schwarzenegger,Mark foley and John edwards to name a few.
In previous posts,I discussed the cases of both Arnold schwarzenegger and Strauss kahn.


After months of denying the allegations, the onetime Vice Presidential candidate confessed on Aug. 8, 2008 to having had an affair with a 42-year-old aspiring actress turned political documentarian named Rielle Hunter, whom Edwards' staff had hired to make videos for his campaign. In a plot twist fit for a Jerry Springer episode, Edwards, whose wife Elizabeth had been diagnosed in Nov. 2004 with incurable breast cancer, vehemently denied fathering Hunter's child, as had been alleged in the Enquirer report, and offered to take a paternity test.


Mark Foley was a well-respected Republican congressman whose reputation was irreparably damaged in 2006, when news broke that he had been sending explicit messages to young male pages. One was as young as 16, and while there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against him, there was enough sordid detail and innuendo to effectively ruin his career.


Once a political figure has been related to a scandal,his or her career is ruined.Whether the allegations turn out to be wrong or not,At such heights in life a scandal shouldn't be heard of. 
The question now is 'Do role models still exist out there?'.It is as though the microscopic spot light of fame not only illuminates ones virtues,but ones flaws overtime. This are people we voted for, listened to and used as examples of ideal lives.
We just have to face it.

FACING THE WORLD

Facing the world this time around is former movie star and governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger.
He said.After leaving the governor's office I told my wife about this event, which occurred over a decade ago," Schwarzenegger said. "I understand and deserve the feelings of anger and disappointment among my friends and family. There are no excuses and I take full responsibility for the hurt I have caused. I have apologized to Maria, my children and my family. I am truly sorry."  
  


Here comes the irony.In 2003,Shriver described her husband as an "A-plus human being" when he was accused of sexual misconduct. She recently released a written statement calling it "a painful and heartbreaking time."

FACING THE WORLD

Facing the world this week is Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)who is presently fighting charges that he tried to rape a 32-year-old hotel maid, has been denied bail and sent to New York's Rikers Island jail.

Lawyers for Strauss-Kahn, who appeared in a New York court on Monday, said he would plead not guilty to the accusations.
The IMF chief, accustomed to luxury hotel suites and first-class plane travel, was moved to a bare cell at Rikers hours after being denied bail. He is due to appear in court again on May 20.

Making his first court appearance on the sex charges, the Frenchman looked grim-faced as he stood before a judge in a dark raincoat and open-collared shirt.
 Strauss-Kahn, 62, said nothing as a lawyer professed his innocence and strove in vain to get him released on bail.

HUMILIATION

In my opinion,regardless of the outcome of the trial,Strauss-kahn has lost all credibility. His hopes of running as a presidential candidate in the next French elections are ruined.


"I am also hearing rumors that Mr Strauss-Kahn is considering stepping down from the IMF, not withstanding any court appearance. 

FACE IT:ECONOMIC GROWTH IS THE WRONG GOAL.

But I have to wonder, do we really want to recommend economic growth as a policy goal for any nation? The success of modern nations in our quest for unending economic growth is largely responsible for the ecological crises we face. We’ve taken a detour off the path to true happiness and fulfillment; why encourage others to follow? If we work to enable populations to have “their fair share” of economic growth, aren’t we just like  drug-pushers? “Come on. Give it a try. It’ll blow your mind. Everyone’s doing it!” It seems Peter Victor (and many others) would have us use less of the drug so we can distribute it more widely and get others hooked.
Maybe “economic growth” isn’t the right goal for the nations who aren’t already addicted. Certainly their people are entitled to have a good life – to have needs met and live happy, fulfilled lives. And conventional wisdom is that economic growth lifts people out of poverty. In my view, there are just two problems with hanging your hat on that concept. First, there is a growing body of evidence that economic growth does not correlate strongly with better lives. Second, we’ve now proven economic growth is not a sound long-term strategy. We in the richer world are struggling mightily to get unhooked from our dependence on economic growth, which, as ecological economist Herman Daly likes to remind us, has become “uneconomic.” So, can we do the rest of the world a favor and not entice them to become fellow addicts, setting them up to go down a difficult and destructive path?
I’m not denying that increasing income, up to a point, does have an impact on happiness. And I’m not denying the current arrangement between haves and have-nots is inequitable. It is a sad truth that the rich world has already commandeered the lion’s share of Earth’s resources. The developing world is too late to the party and can’t join the dance. But it turns out the dance we’ve been tripping out to is not the answer. So I’m suggesting we recommend a dance that is not the dance of death, a dance that will bring real fulfillment and happiness, not the hedonistic treadmill and empty illusion of prosperity from increasing material consumption.
Even if developing nations temporarily require some components of economic growth to reduce hunger, disease and poverty, let’s not brand it “economic growth.” Let’s at least change the vocabulary. Let’s more narrowly define what we recommend to them. Rather than the open-ended term, “growth,” let’s opt for “sufficiency.” Otherwise we’ll greatly increase the population of growth addicts struggling to get into a recovery program.