How did all the continents become populated with members of the human species? Obviously, human beings love to travel! Sometimes, as is presently the case with migrating Syrians and Africans, it's out of fear of being killed, but many times it stems from a thirst for adventure or for searching for a land flowing with milk and honey--as in the story of the Jews' plight from Egypt.
Migrants don't always get a warm welcome in the lands they journey to. Witness how many Americans yell to the Hispanic migrants entering the US, "Go home where you belong!" But occasionally, migrants receive a warm welcome--as in the case when the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, recently encouraged fleeing Syrians, "Come to Germany!" The issue of whether the migrants enter legally or illegally is a matter of how the country to which they go regards them, e.g., the legal status bestowed on them, not how they feel about themselves and what within is driving them forth.
Note that birds are simply tolerated by the countries they fly over and nest. Nevertheless, occasionally, even birds are shooed away as being pests!
In the instances of humans on a migration track, countries may find reason to welcome them. Youthful Hispanics on the prowl in the US are tolerated by those governmental officials who see the migrants as potential workers, capable of helping to pay for aged citizenry in their retirement years. Moreover, US business finds Hispanics non-complaining, industrious workers and family-oriented, willing to work for what wages are offered them, making fewer demands on corporate management.
Regardless how receptive any particular people or government may be, migrants are on a self-propelling mission to go wherever their inner Spirit moves them! They have so acted in accord with their nature as human beings; and they will so act in millennia to come!
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Code for 'US must lead militarily to defeat ISIS'
I suppose if the US had unlimited resources, then anytime an American was attacked or killed by ISIS, the US could simply send forces to wherever and wipe out the offending enemy hostile cell or army grouping. But this is simply wishful thinking on the part of right-wing conservatives in this country. Moreover, if the US were to go after every hostile enemy who would harm a US citizen, as a first-line defense of its sovereignty, then at some point even our allies would come to hate us-- certainly to be afraid of us, lest at some juncture we turn on them! The US would have created a hostile world environment in which to act.
The Argument for US leadership in the cause to defeat and obliterate ISIS
Ever since the Arab Spring event swept over the Middle East, Islamic rebels have sought to establish their own caliphate while expanding their own power and might in the countries caught in political chaos, e.g. Libya, Yemen, even Egypt. As the leading power in the world with the largest military of any country, it behooves the US to recognize its primary and essential mission to eradicate this marauding radical Islamic force not only to protect its own borders but to re-establish what peace and stability there was in the region prior to the advent of the Arab Spring movement. Moreover, ISIS' military aggression has led to the displacement of millions of persons living in the region, giving rise to the emigrant problem for EU countries.
It is assumed that the US could call upon international cooperation, as through its heavily supported, NATO.
US involvement in serious conflicts and destabilizing situations around the world
Be it recognized that the US is already confronting and attempting to cope with many threatening situations having implications for the peace and stability of geographical regions in the globe or for the smooth conduct of international trade and commerce:
1. China's aggressive posturing to overtake its lack of innovation by pirating copyrighted and patent materials from US companies. Its further aggression in the Asian seas near Japan and the Philippines so as to establish its claimed right to control these waterways.
2. North Korea's development of ballistic weaponry capable of delivering nuclear bombs and devices even to US shores.
3. Potential threats from Russia and China to shut down electrical and communications grids in the West.
4. The US' own debt that has reached un-heard-of levels heretofore.
5. The US' efforts to aid the European nations amid worldwide economic slowdown; and to establish a viable EU, retaining the UK within its structure.
6. Doing whatever is necessary militarily and diplomatically to preserve the independence of formerly Russian-controlled states, as in the Ukraine.
7. Maintaining some 700+ installations in over 170 countries as a deterrent to the collapse of governments worldwide.
The list is yet longer. The point being the ISIS crisis is only one among many that threaten not only world peace but the US' ability to function as a unitary nation.
Nevertheless, I am convinced that with the advent of Globalization, there's a lingering desire on the part of international financiers to hope with glee that the US might be involved so deeply around the world as to cause its own demise. These individuals, mindful how the Netherlands dominance gave way to British and French colonization and that to US influence in world affairs, are looking forward to establishing yet another dominant nation or state-cluster in need of goods and services that mean astronomical profits for them.
The US' Priorities List of degree of involvement
Obviously, the US must engage in prioritizing how to allocate its resources and restrict its degree of involvement in any particular threatening or destabilizing situation.
Moreover, the US recognizes that not only is military might available to handle conflicts but diplomacy.
So the Code for 'US must lead militarily to defeat ISIS' is to my mind that the US should rush towards its own destruction!
The Argument for US leadership in the cause to defeat and obliterate ISIS
Ever since the Arab Spring event swept over the Middle East, Islamic rebels have sought to establish their own caliphate while expanding their own power and might in the countries caught in political chaos, e.g. Libya, Yemen, even Egypt. As the leading power in the world with the largest military of any country, it behooves the US to recognize its primary and essential mission to eradicate this marauding radical Islamic force not only to protect its own borders but to re-establish what peace and stability there was in the region prior to the advent of the Arab Spring movement. Moreover, ISIS' military aggression has led to the displacement of millions of persons living in the region, giving rise to the emigrant problem for EU countries.
It is assumed that the US could call upon international cooperation, as through its heavily supported, NATO.
US involvement in serious conflicts and destabilizing situations around the world
Be it recognized that the US is already confronting and attempting to cope with many threatening situations having implications for the peace and stability of geographical regions in the globe or for the smooth conduct of international trade and commerce:
1. China's aggressive posturing to overtake its lack of innovation by pirating copyrighted and patent materials from US companies. Its further aggression in the Asian seas near Japan and the Philippines so as to establish its claimed right to control these waterways.
2. North Korea's development of ballistic weaponry capable of delivering nuclear bombs and devices even to US shores.
3. Potential threats from Russia and China to shut down electrical and communications grids in the West.
4. The US' own debt that has reached un-heard-of levels heretofore.
5. The US' efforts to aid the European nations amid worldwide economic slowdown; and to establish a viable EU, retaining the UK within its structure.
6. Doing whatever is necessary militarily and diplomatically to preserve the independence of formerly Russian-controlled states, as in the Ukraine.
7. Maintaining some 700+ installations in over 170 countries as a deterrent to the collapse of governments worldwide.
The list is yet longer. The point being the ISIS crisis is only one among many that threaten not only world peace but the US' ability to function as a unitary nation.
Nevertheless, I am convinced that with the advent of Globalization, there's a lingering desire on the part of international financiers to hope with glee that the US might be involved so deeply around the world as to cause its own demise. These individuals, mindful how the Netherlands dominance gave way to British and French colonization and that to US influence in world affairs, are looking forward to establishing yet another dominant nation or state-cluster in need of goods and services that mean astronomical profits for them.
The US' Priorities List of degree of involvement
Obviously, the US must engage in prioritizing how to allocate its resources and restrict its degree of involvement in any particular threatening or destabilizing situation.
Moreover, the US recognizes that not only is military might available to handle conflicts but diplomacy.
So the Code for 'US must lead militarily to defeat ISIS' is to my mind that the US should rush towards its own destruction!
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Code for 'Make US the leader of the world again!'
Once upon a time, when the civilized country of Germany allowed Hitler to rule on the grounds of the false claims in biological science that hailed the Aryan Race as the model of perfection in human development, the US became the leader of the Western world in a struggle against Fascism in both Italy and Germany. Through WWII and for several decades thereafter, the United States, by championing scientific innovation, continued to lead the Free World; and the countries aligned with it. as if it were the parent of a sometimes recalcitrant brood of kids--those in need of training and guidance, and occasionally, scolding and correction!
Meantime, other nations emerged on the global scene, such as China and African Third World entities in search of the knowledge and know how, which the US was providing to its Western allies. These "backward countries" were smart learners--sending their leaders' offspring to universities and colleges in the US to be trained in the ways promulgated according to scientific rules and principles.
What resulted is that the United States maintained its position of leadership as it evolved a global economy through the decades after WWII, dominated by a class of decision-makers known as technocrats, all sharing a common core of knowledge and practices approved through scientific inquiry. And the emerging global economy took on a nomenclature of its own centered around the concept of Globalization, understood as a technocratic economy controlled by technocrats. thoroughly trained in the application of scientific knowledge to the world's problems.
Before WWII, globalization was in the works worldwide but more narrowly engineered. Ever since the 17the Century, Europe ventured forth into the hinterlands of Asia and India and Africa for sake of trade and commerce for resources and raw materials that could be used in the manufacture of goods back home. Thus, the rise of commercial giant nations as the Netherlands, then England and France dominating the sea lanes, bearing all kinds of goods for exchange with the less
technologically advanced countries, but resource rich. What globalization added was that countries designated Third World could become just as advanced as the most advanced in the West--yes, and that includes even as advanced as the US! And, as more and more of once 'backward nations' are ever gaining in their wealth and power, the less there is need of a teacher-nation to dominate the world scene, bingo: the US loses its political posture as 'king of the hill.'
'Make the US the leader of the world again!'
So now, in this Presidential election year, there is a whole political group of "Conservatives" who yearn for the good old days when the United States "taught" the rest of the world how to live in accordance with the technocratic rules and principles developed through science. And they point to Iran in order to claim that there's still need for an all-knowing eye of scientific acumen. But if so, they have yet to demonstrate that it is the US who should assume that role in the modern era. And it is far less compelling that the US has something unique to offer, since the world already lives in technocracy.
Better is the model espoused by the Iranians that all nations should be treated as equal partners in a joint venture of cooperation to overcome social and political differences that threaten world peace and tranquility. According to this plan, no nation is 'king of the hill'; and differences existing among nations must be settled through negotiation whenever such differences need resolve. Interesting, this is precisely the position of President Obama.
Meantime, other nations emerged on the global scene, such as China and African Third World entities in search of the knowledge and know how, which the US was providing to its Western allies. These "backward countries" were smart learners--sending their leaders' offspring to universities and colleges in the US to be trained in the ways promulgated according to scientific rules and principles.
What resulted is that the United States maintained its position of leadership as it evolved a global economy through the decades after WWII, dominated by a class of decision-makers known as technocrats, all sharing a common core of knowledge and practices approved through scientific inquiry. And the emerging global economy took on a nomenclature of its own centered around the concept of Globalization, understood as a technocratic economy controlled by technocrats. thoroughly trained in the application of scientific knowledge to the world's problems.
Before WWII, globalization was in the works worldwide but more narrowly engineered. Ever since the 17the Century, Europe ventured forth into the hinterlands of Asia and India and Africa for sake of trade and commerce for resources and raw materials that could be used in the manufacture of goods back home. Thus, the rise of commercial giant nations as the Netherlands, then England and France dominating the sea lanes, bearing all kinds of goods for exchange with the less
technologically advanced countries, but resource rich. What globalization added was that countries designated Third World could become just as advanced as the most advanced in the West--yes, and that includes even as advanced as the US! And, as more and more of once 'backward nations' are ever gaining in their wealth and power, the less there is need of a teacher-nation to dominate the world scene, bingo: the US loses its political posture as 'king of the hill.'
'Make the US the leader of the world again!'
So now, in this Presidential election year, there is a whole political group of "Conservatives" who yearn for the good old days when the United States "taught" the rest of the world how to live in accordance with the technocratic rules and principles developed through science. And they point to Iran in order to claim that there's still need for an all-knowing eye of scientific acumen. But if so, they have yet to demonstrate that it is the US who should assume that role in the modern era. And it is far less compelling that the US has something unique to offer, since the world already lives in technocracy.
Better is the model espoused by the Iranians that all nations should be treated as equal partners in a joint venture of cooperation to overcome social and political differences that threaten world peace and tranquility. According to this plan, no nation is 'king of the hill'; and differences existing among nations must be settled through negotiation whenever such differences need resolve. Interesting, this is precisely the position of President Obama.
Monday, January 4, 2016
Reformed Islam of today neither Sunni nor Shia'
While Reformed Muslims are from Sunni and Shia' traditions (or may identify with some other tradition) the distinctive feature of the movement as I conceive it (viewing it from a non-Muslim perspective) is its attempt to make Islam a vital force in today's cultural milieu. Specifically, women are not only to be acknowleged as equal to men but must be treated thusly in everyday affairs. Morevoer--importantly-- the concept of jihad as an aggressive, hostile response to supposed injustice has no longer relevance to the modern era. That is to say, tendencies to embrace traditional attitudes out of respect to the Islamic past that did aver behaviors (which may have been appropriate) in another cultural epoch have no place, I believe, in the modern practices and beliefs of a Reformed Islam.
Nevertheless, I heard, just today on TV, one or another analyst of the contemporary strife between these two major Islamic traditions contend that through the one or the other the believer can rightfully claim to be Reformist. To my mind, such an appellation amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking.
The point I'm trying to make is that just as in Christianity, the Reformation from Martin Luther on wrought significant attempts by enlightened clerics to overhaul Christianity so as to appear meaningful in the manifold of contemporary changing social climates, even so (I now contend) Islam must embrace a changing world with the Muslim changeless message of the importance of prayer and dedication to Allah in one's life--that we are called to draw nigh to the Creator. I can't emphasize enough that Islam as a religion, not as a political force, has a grounding in human hope and dedication to life-giving principles vital for mankind irrespective of cultural situations. Please, don't attempt to resurrect an Islamic past that no longer is relevant to the world of today! Focus upon the divinity Islam enables us to find, no matter our generation's situ.
Put succinctly, a Muslim has every right to claim the divine truth of Islam based on his religious encounters, but he ought not thereby to claim exclusivity for Islam as The Way to experience God. For there are many ways a person knows the Creator and eternal Life-Force; and a cloud of witnesses, only some of the Islamic faith, attest to God's power in their own lives.
Nevertheless, I heard, just today on TV, one or another analyst of the contemporary strife between these two major Islamic traditions contend that through the one or the other the believer can rightfully claim to be Reformist. To my mind, such an appellation amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking.
The point I'm trying to make is that just as in Christianity, the Reformation from Martin Luther on wrought significant attempts by enlightened clerics to overhaul Christianity so as to appear meaningful in the manifold of contemporary changing social climates, even so (I now contend) Islam must embrace a changing world with the Muslim changeless message of the importance of prayer and dedication to Allah in one's life--that we are called to draw nigh to the Creator. I can't emphasize enough that Islam as a religion, not as a political force, has a grounding in human hope and dedication to life-giving principles vital for mankind irrespective of cultural situations. Please, don't attempt to resurrect an Islamic past that no longer is relevant to the world of today! Focus upon the divinity Islam enables us to find, no matter our generation's situ.
Put succinctly, a Muslim has every right to claim the divine truth of Islam based on his religious encounters, but he ought not thereby to claim exclusivity for Islam as The Way to experience God. For there are many ways a person knows the Creator and eternal Life-Force; and a cloud of witnesses, only some of the Islamic faith, attest to God's power in their own lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)