Euro News: 'Women Get The Right To Vote in Saudi Arabia'

Source:Euro News- women finally voting in Saudi Arabia.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed in many countries (e.g., not in the USA) via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia  

"It has been described as an extraordinary development. Women in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia are to be given the right to vote and stand in municipal elections. The announcement was made by the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, at the opening of a new session of the Shura council. He also said women would be allowed to join the advisory council as full members and the changes will take effect from next year. Euro News" 

From Euro News

This is a big step forward for the Saudi Kingdom. (Thats basically a combination of a monarchy and a theocracy) The Kingdom made up of their ruling family and their laws based on Islamic law (or an interpretation of it) with women not allowed to be in public uncovered, they until their next elections not able to vote, and not even able to drive and of course sub-servant to the men in Saudi Arabia. (Which is what Christian-Nationalists want in America)

Saudi Arabia have a very sexist government and culture (at least by Western standards) but these new reforms by King Abdullah is a big step forward in Saudi Arabia and definitely progressive (progressive in its classic and real sense) change especially for a country and a region up until recently has been very slow to progress, but they are now are going through a big revolution. And I believe the democratic revolutions that have gone on in the Middle East (Iran a few years ago) and I believe that movement effected what happened in Tunisia. 

The democratic movements that happened in Egypt and Libya as well as Yemen, because all of the countries can get access to the others countries news (whether the government's allow it or not) especially in this information age and social networking, these different Arab democratic revolutions have played a role in each others country. 

The Egyptian Revolution that ousted former President Hosni Mubarak and ousted the President of Tunisia and hopefully the President of Yemen as well and of course the democratic revolution thats going on now in Syria that will hopefully oust President Bashar Al-Assad, ,but he seems to have an upper hand in holding on to power right now. 

But the Saudi Kingdom sees what's going on in these other Arab states with these other authoritarian regimes falling and they don't of course want the same thing to happen to them. They obviously want to stay in power indefinitely, but I believe the Saudi Kingdom understands and they are more progressive than Syria and Egypt with the development of their economy and are basically a developed nation, in the heart of the third world surrounded by countries that live in poverty like Yemen, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and others. And know that they have to change and progress to stay in power. 

Hopefully this is just a sign of things to come as far as progress in Saudi Arabia and that the Kingdom moves even forward and allows women to run for office, has an elected multi-party legislature that represents all of Saudi Arabia. And independent judiciary and looks more like a federal republic in the future, instead of a theocratic monarchy where women and people who speak out against the government are oppressed. But we'll see in the future.

CBS News: 60 Minutes- Mike Wallace Interviewing The Shah of Iran (1976)

Source:CBS News- the Shah of Iran being interviewed by CBS News investigative correspondent Mike Wallace, in 1976.

“In 1976, Mike Wallace revealed to the Shah of Iran that the CIA considered him a dangerous megalomanic and an uncertain ally.”

From CBS News

Source:Aryuo Padafand- The Shah of Iran, talking to CBS News's Mike Wallace, in 1976.

"60 Minutes M. Valles with Shah 1976. Shah Bozorg Mard Iran dar 60 Minutes."

From Aruyo Padafand

What Iran had in the Shah was much better for the America and Europe than what Iran has now in the Islāmic Republic. Because with the Shah we had an ally that would work with, that we would trade with and we could rely on for our energy needs.

With the Islāmic Republic, we have a state that sponsors terrorism and is now attempting to get nuclear weapons. But as valuable as an ally as the Shah was to the West, he wasn’t that great for his own people.

Which was a big reason for the Islāmic Revolution of 1979 and he and his monarchy being kicked out-of-power. Even though the Shah did some positive things to develop the Iranian economy and military, to a certain extent. He was an authoritarian dictator with a secret police that would pick people up off the street. As well as torture inmates, close down publications that seemed unfavorable to the Monarchy.

What’s going on in the Islāmic Republic today, but the difference being that the Islāmic Republic, is bad for its people, but also bad for the Middle East and West. With its sponsorship of Islāmic terrorism groups that have killed Americans as well as our soldiers. Like with the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983. the Islāmic Republic did replace the Monarchy.

But Iran left in a lot of the authoritarian policy’s that the Monarchy had, as well as probably having some of their own. And they haven’t done much to advance Iran economically in its thirty-two years despite its vast resources in energy and its well-educated public and its middle class. Iran has all the resources that they need to be a first world country, but they’ve mismanaged them so badly. That they are still a third world country.

What the Shah should’ve done and had he done these things, I believe he could’ve saved his Monarchy, was as he continued to build up the economy, education and infrastructure and the Iranian military, then liberate his people. Let them live their own lives which would’ve put them ahead of everyone else in the Middle East. Except for Turkey and maybe Israel, but Iran and Turkey are so much bigger than Israel. But the Shah of Iran would’ve been a very popular leader in Iran had he done these things.

And then maybe with all of these progressive reforms, Iranians wouldn’t have looked to theocrats, the most conservative of Religious Conservatives, to save them and save their country from the Shah. Who in some ways on economic and foreign policy, was a fairly liberal leader, as Middle Eastern leaders go.

The Shah of Iran, I believe would’ve lasted as the Leader of Iran, had he liberalized his large country and became President of Iran instead. With a federal legislature, independent judiciary and of course his people to answer too. And turned the Monarchy into more of a ceremonial institution like in Britain. But he didn’t do those things and was kicked out-of-power.

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Marijuana Community: Dylan Ratigan- 'Legalizing Marijuana is Number One Issue At the White House GOV Website!'

Source:Marijuana Community- MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan, talking about marijuana legalization, being talked about at The White House.

"Legalizing Marijuana is Number ONE Issue At the White House GOV Website!" 

From Marijuana Community

The White House is clearly not interested in decriminalization of marijuana as far as decriminalizing it. Just one issue that I disagree with them on, but there are plenty of people who are in the country who are interested in it, which is why we are now seeing measures on ballots in states to decriminalize marijuana. California being one in 2010 and Colorado will be at least one in 2012. 

Now the question will be will the Obama Administration if they were to get reelected (and thats a big if at this point) would not get in the way of Colorado and not force anti-marijuana laws in that state. I doubt it, they don't seem to be a big believer in states rights and federalism (Letting states pass and enforce their own laws) I hope they would stay out of the way of Colorado and let them mange their own laws and enforce their own drug policies. 

Drug enforcement from the Obama Administration, which is a big disappointment to me because Barack Obama is clearly a very intelligent man with a great legal background. Along with Attorney General Eric Holder and they must be able to see that our War on Drugs is not working and has failed and that it's time we try something else. And decriminalization of marijuana would be a way to reform our drug policies, letting people decide for themselves whether to use a drug thats about as dangerous as alcohol, instead of arresting people for smoking or possessing pot. 

Decriminalization of marijuana is a bi-artisan issue with bipartisan support in Congress with Representative Ron Paul and Representative Barney Frank one of the oddest of odd couples having a bill together to do this. The lessons that we learned from alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and 30s, can be applied to marijuana prohibition from 1937 up till today, that if people want to do or use something bad enough, they'll find a way to do it whether it's legal or not. 

People have been smoking marijuana since 1937 and a lot of them have never been to prison for it. People who are smart with pot and don't get addicted to it, similar to alcohol prohibition. People still drank and organized crime made a lot of money off if alcohol by producing and selling it (tax free by the way) because they obviously weren't going to report those activities to government. 

So if we were smart (which is a gigantic if) we would decriminalize marijuana and treat it like alcohol. And regulate and tax it like alcohol to make it as safe s possible. Decriminalization of marijuana is clearly not the biggest issue that President Obama is facing today. But it's important enough because with our failed forty-year so-called War on Drugs. That they at least look at their drug policies and if anything step back and let the states try some different things here. And see what happens from them. 

Q R Legal: 'Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income Benefits in Pennsylvania'

Source:QR Legal- attorney at law in Pennsylvania.

"The attorneys at Quatrini Rafferty help you apply for Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income SSD/SSI in Pennsylvania. The lawyers at the Greensburg office of Quatrini Rafferty will explore your case for filing for either SSD or SSI. If you have been seriously impaired and can no longer work you may be able to apply for Social Security Disability or Social Security Income. The attorneys at Quatrini Rafferty can help you with your claim and case and are members of the National Organization of Social Security Representatives. Working on a contingency fee, we get no fee if we don't win you case, no fee charged to you." 

From QR Legal

All this talk about Social Security reform I believe is healthy as long as the proposals are about reforming this critical social insurance program. As long as the proposals are designed to improve this program not to end the program or privatize the program. But whatever the proposal is, it has to include Disability Insurance which is also part of Social Security. So however we decide to reform Social Security, it has to be done in a way that doesn't hurt Disability Insurance. And if anything improves Disability Insurance to make that program as strong as it can be as well. 

My ideas for Social Security reform gets too, choice and competition, as well as decentralization. Not privatization which is a different concept. Privatization is about letting people take over with payroll tax investing it in Wall Street and anything else on their own. And if they make bad investments, too bad for them or they end up getting bailed out by taxpayers. Two options are horrible, as a country we are not going to let senior citizens starve and go without income. At least not anymore and we are not going to bail out people who made bad investments with their own money. 

We have to reform Social Security in a way to avoid both potential disasters. What choice and competition is about in retirement planning or as I would put it, freedom of choice in retirement planning is about, to give people for freedom and ability to plan their own retirements. Which is called Social Security Plus: keep the payroll tax intact, except raise it on people who can afford to pay more to fix the financing and that the current payroll tax would just be there to fund a base income for people on Social Security.  

What Social Security Plus is about, is an additional fund or tax that people could on their own or not set up for themselves to help them finance their own retirement, that they would pay into and their employer would match. That they could invest in the Stock Market as well as other business opportunities as long as they don't take that money out to spend until they are eligible to retire. And the money thats put into a personal retirement account (not my term, by the way) would be tax free, like an IRA or individual retirement account which are private retirement accounts as well. 

As far as decentralization and reforming Disability Insurance goes, this might be the only thing that I agree with Texas Governor Rick Perry and maybe immigration reform. Turn Social Security over to the states in this sense, each state would have their own version of Social Security with their own program. But they wouldn't run them just regulate them like the FEDS as well. Each State would have their own version Social Security that would be a semi-private, non-profit, supplemental pension program. And get the Administration and Congress's hands off of it. 

And with Disability Insurance, anyone physically and mentally capable of working at least part-time, would be required to or at least looking for work and getting trained for work. And Disability Insurance would be required to help them with that. Which would also be my approach with Unemployment Insurance. 

You can't reform Social Security without doing it in a way that doesn't hurt Disability Insurance because they are both part of the same program. And both have populations that depend on it in order to survive, pay their bills, eat, etc. So we have to reform Social Security as a whole in a way that can only make this critical program stronger. 

Mike Gardner: CBS Evening News With Walter Cronkite- 'President Richard Nixon Enlists Governor's Aid In The War on Drugs (1971)'

Source:Mike Gardner- The CBS Evening News, covering President Richard M. Nixon and his failed War on Drugs, in 1971.

"Nixon enlists Governor's aid in the war on drugs. Nixon's psychedelic film experiment." 

From Mike Gardner 

I'm not sure about the exact year of this newscast, but I believe it's 1971. 

President Nixon actually seemed to have some good ideas up front when he launched the fake War on Drugs in 1971. Programs designed that were about prevention and treatment. Teaching students the dangers of using narcotics and get drug addicts into treatment instead of jail. 

Now, had President Nixon actually followed through on those policy's in his five and a half years as President, maybe the so-called War on Drugs wouldn't be the failure and joke that it is today. Where if anything narcotics are more available forty years later than they were then. And where we now have 2M people in prison today, the largest prison population in the world. And we only represent about 6% of the world's population, both China and India have four times as many people as we do and we have more prison inmates than they do. 

We have so many prison inmates, that we have overcrowded prisons and jails all across the country. Where hundreds of thousands of these people are in jail for using or possessing narcotics. You can actually go to prison or jail in America "The Land of the Free" for possession of narcotics. We now have drug addicts taking jail and prison cells that would normally be operated by violent offenders, people who belong in prison and belong there for a long time. 

Actually, one good thing about our overcrowded prisons and cells, is that some states like California (to use as an example) are now releasing non-violent offenders like drug addicts (to use as an example) shoplifters (would probably be another one) hopefully to halfway houses and drug rehab where they can get help for their issues. And help finding a job so they can be productive and saving that prison space for people who need to be there instead. California also has a debt and budget crisis as well. 

What we learned the last forty years in the fake War on Drugs or what we should've learned is how not to fight the War on Drugs. That it's not smart to treat drug dealers the same as drug addicts. Drug addicts are patients with a disease, called addiction they are not able to tell themselves that they've had enough cocaine. Or whatever they are addicted to, similar to obesity or alcoholism, 

Drug addicts should be treated like patients: send cocaine, heroin, and meth addicts to drug rehab instead of jail or prison and put them on what's called a three strikes policy to get them off of their addiction, not cure them, but get them off of whatever narcotics they are addicted to. 

Strike one, voluntary drug rehab. Strike two, involuntary drug rehab in jail. Strike three, jail time as well as more drug rehab in jail. And make them pay for all of their drug rehab as well. 

Drug dealers though should be treated like the criminals that they are because they prey off of addicts in order to make as much money from them as possible. Including blackmail and extortion and these people need to be in prison doing long sentences. And of course give them a shot at building their lives so they can get a legal job once they leave prison. 

The fake War on Drugs is about supply and demand like anything else in our economy. If people want something bad enough, there's going to be somebody to sell them what they want. So if drug dealers have less customers wanting their dope, meaning fewer drug addicts, they'll make less money. 

Euro News: 'EU Food Row Could Spark Poverty Crisis'

 

Source:Euro News- poverty is everywhere.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed in many countries (e.g., not in the USA) via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"A dispute over aid to Europe's poorest citizens threatens to spark a major food crisis, France has warned. The EU programme currently provides hand outs to at least 13 million poverty-hit Europeans at centres like this in Brussels. But that could be axed after a group of six countries, including Germany and Britain, threatened to pull the plug on a 500-million-euro yearly scheme. Volunteers at charity Resto du Coeur say a cut to the funding would be devastating. Euro News." 

From Euro News

Here's more evidence that America is not the only developed nation in the world, that Europe as well as Japan and Korea have poverty as well. It's not just a liberal democracy like the United States that has struggled with poverty, but these social democracies (even when Conservatives are in power) in Europe has poverty of their own. 

And that even social democracies have poverty as well that they have to deal with and of course if people have more freedom like people do in America as it relates to economic freedom, of course there's a chance that they'll make mistakes with their own lives. Not getting educated enough, having kids too soon before they are emotionally and financially ready to care for them. Or make bad investments with their money, all things that can to lead to poverty. 

With economic freedom at least individual are making their own mistakes, instead of big government doing that for them. They are making mistakes with their own lives, instead of government making mistakes with their lives. Which can happen in a social democracy where the government has more authority and more control over its people as it relates to the economy. 

All these countries in Europe have universal health care, education, pension, transportation, housing, etc. And yet they have people living in poverty, urban and rural, they have homeless people. Chances are some of the people in this video getting this Food Assistance are also homeless. 

Europeans immigrated from Europe obviously to America to the point. that 7-10 Americans are of European descent, not the other way around. Because they wanted their freedom and a chance to make it in the world with economic opportunity. And the freedom to chart their own course in life and by the way. 

Europeans are still immigrating to America today, obviously not as much as hundred years ago with the Jews, Irish, Italians, Poles, etc, but they are still coming. America has proven as a country that if you give people a good education, raise them properly and let them get themselves get a good job and you properly regulate the economy and everyone is paying their fair share in taxes, that Americans can chart their own course in life and make it on their own.  

What Economic Freedom and American Capitalism is all about (not cowboy capitalism that we've seen the last ten years) is about opportunity for everyone to succeed in life on their own. This is how Americans built the largest economy in the world as well as the most powerful military. 

What America has failed to do at least so far, is find a way where most is not all Americans can benefit from American capitalism. Which is why we have such a high poverty rate for a developed nation. And thats a big challenge for America in the 21st Century. 

So the two competing versions of democracy in the world, are liberal democracy from the United States and social democracy in the European Union. Me I prefer liberal democracy because even though we've made plenty of mistakes as a country, at least we are able to make these mistakes with our own lives. 

Durban Zanrik: John Stossel- 'Stupid in America'

Source:Durban Zanrik- Jimmy Kimmel Live With Jay Leno: hopefully not talking to the best that America has to offer.

"Stupid in America" is a nasty title for a program about public education, but some nasty things are going on in America's public schools and it's about time we face up to it." 

From Durban Zanrik

Are we stupid in America as a country? Well, if you consider the fact that a lot of Americans know exactly which rehab their favorite celebrities are currently staying at or which jail they're currently residing at (after being pulled over their latest drunk driving arrest) but couldn't name their own mayor or governor, even if you spotted them their first and last names, perhaps even their city and state, that would suggest to a lot of intelligent people that we're pretty stupid as a country. 

But what do intelligent people know anyway? We're they one of the first five people to buy the latest I-Phone (because they camped outside the store the night before) no, because they have lives and better things to do. 

To sound serious just for a minute: of course not we're not stupid as a country (even with all of our escaped mental patients and morons hogging up our airwaves and media) otherwise we  wouldn't be as developed as a nation as we are, with the largest economy in the world, with a military not only capable of defending ourselves very well, but also other developed nations but do we have stupid people. 

Looking at the intelligence levels of Americans is sort of like looking at Islamic or Christian terrorists: sure, there are terrorists in those groups, but the percentage is so small that you can't define those groups as terrorists, but you have enough spoiled food in them to make their groups look and taste bad. Show me a country that doesn't have stupid people and I sell you my Miami beach house that's located in Minnesota. 

Do we have stupid policy's? Of course in government and the private sector, education being a perfect example of that. 

To give you a couple of examples: we reward educators for their time of service, not quality of service. And once they've served a certain amount time, it's almost impossible to fire them, which is called teacher tenure. And them we wonder (or some of us may wonder) why we are 39th in the world in education, even though we have the largest economy. Because our educators know that they don't have to do the best job they can in order to keep it. Or get a raise, all they have to do is serve a certain amount of time. Where all other professions the employees are judged by the job that they do, not by how long they've been doing their job. 

A major cause for our lack of education in America, gets to  teacher unions, who's number one job is to give their members who pay for their service the best compensation and benefits possible, which they do a great job of. They are not in the business to make our public education System the best it can be. Thats supposed to be the job of our public officials. But if they get a lot of contributions from teacher unions, that makes their job very hard, because they know who pays for their campaigns. 

If we don't educate our students, we are not going to be able to produce enough workers in the future that we need working high skilled jobs and making good livings, making our economy as strong as it can be. And being ranked 39th in the world in education is not educating your students well enough. 

Because of our lack of quality of education (not quantity) we are going to have to continue importing high-skilled workers from other countries and in some cases developing countries like China and India as well as exporting those jobs over there to countries that have the high-skilled workers to work these jobs. Which means we have to treat our education profession which is one of our top five most important professions. Because without it, people wouldn't be able to get the education they need in order to get a good job. 

So we need to treat this critical profession as important as it is. Good workers are rewarded for the work, bad workers are retrained or removed and our customers (meaning the students and parents) get a choice in where they consume this service. We don't as a country treat our education system as important as it is, we allow low-performing educators stay in the system. 

As well as low-performing schools stay in the system, some students are forced to go to bad schools, because of where they live. And then or some of us wonder why we are 39th in the world in education.