Group items tagged
What is Terrorism - 0 views
-
What is Terrorism Terrorism is the use of force and threats against individual people, groups, or governments, for political or other various purposes. Terrorism is not a modern activity. Hundreds of years ago, societies were not as organized as they are today with modern facilities like roads, telephone, regular police forces. Back then, heads of strong groups of people such robbers, and warriors made use of force and threats to life and property to achieve their aims. Now, terrorism itself is quite an organized activity. There are terrorist organizations and societies which train terrorists for their purposes. Sometimes these organizations are supported by foreign governments with huge funds and modern weapons.
US troops in Afghanistan-What more can US troops do before they leave - 0 views
-
The American troops had established their base in Afghanistan. In the process of fighting the terror groups, so many people have lost their lives in a manner that cannot be understood. However, people should not be biased and take the efforts that had been extended in the Afghanistan in a negative way. Surely, there is much more that has been achieved by the soldiers in Afghanistan. It is evident that the people can now take part in their daily activities without the fear of being attacked by the terror groups all to the courtesy of the American troops. Even though there is much more the Afghanistan government and civilians can thank the troops for, the Americans need to understand that there is much more that they need to do before they leave Afghanistan, so that they ensure everything runs as smoothly as it was before the terror attacks. It is very evident that thousands of people have died in the process of fighting.
Islamic Organizations in Russia - 0 views
-
Islamic organizations in Russia The first official Islamic organization in Russia appeared in 1788, when by decree of Catherine II was created by the Orenburg Mohammedan Spiritual Assembly, engaged in the construction of mosques and marital affairs. However, after the revolution of a mosque in 1917, as the Orthodox Church, were closed, and the clergy was subjected to repression. Many Muslim organizations formed in Central Asia and the North Caucasus during the Great Patriotic War were split during the "perestroika" (1980-1990). In 1994 was created by the Supreme Coordinating Center of Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia (DUMR private commercial enterprise), which lasted four years and in 1998 joined the newly formed Council of Muftis of Russia. On the territory of European Russia and Siberia after the collapse of the Soviet Union announced the creation of new autonomous organizations. In 1996 the First Congress of the leaders of the Muslim Board of Russia, where it was decided to set up the Council of Muftis of Russia. A year later the organization was established Spiritual Board of Muslims of the Asian part of Russia. In 1998, the Conference North spiritual offices in Nazran, it was decided to establish the Higher Coordination Centre of North Caucasus Muslims, some of whose members initially included, also a member of the Council of Muftis of Russia. However, because of the differences, was forced to leave. In 2009-2010, decided to join forces to achieve unity of Russian Muslims and strengthen the traditional Islamic religious principles of the Muslim nation. However, by the great success it has not resulted. To date, the Russian equivalent approved two Muslim organizations that claim to the national character: TsDUM (Central Muslim Spiritual Board of Russia) and CMP (Council of Muftis of Russia). Each of them combines a number of relatively independent of the Spiritual Board of Muslims, based on the principle of administrative division. Beyo
Chavez lauds new Latin American alliance - 0 views
-
qt: Chavez called the foundation of CELAC an achievement 200 years in the making, the realisation of the ambitions of independence hero Simon Bolivar. "'Only unity will make us free,' Chavez said to applause at the opening ceremony. 'This is the path: Unity, unity, unity!'" "Usually all these countries, whenevever they would have met, it would have been the US and Canada. This is the first time they're doing it without these two countries, and their aim is to foster regional integration."
How Corporations Buy Congress | BuzzFlash.org - 0 views
-
With the November elections quickly approaching, the majority of Americans will be thinking one thing: "Who cares?" This apathy isn't due to ignorance, as some accuse. Rather, working people's disinterest in the two party system implies intelligence: millions of people understand that both the Democrats and Republicans will not represent their interests in Congress. This begs the question: Whom does the two party system work for? The answer was recently given by the mainstream The New York Times, who gave the nation an insiders peek on how corporations "lobby" (buy) congressmen. The article explains how giant corporations - from Wall-mart to weapons manufacturers - are planning on shifting their hiring practices for lobbyists, from Democratic to Republican ex-congressmen in preparation for the Republicans gaining seats in the upcoming November elections: "Lobbyists, political consultants and recruiters all say that the going rate for Republicans - particularly current and former House staff members - has risen significantly in just the last few weeks, with salaries beginning at $300,000 and going as high as $1million for private sector [corporate lobbyist] positions." (September 9, 2010) Congressmen who have recently retired make the perfect lobbyists: they still have good friends in Congress, with many of these friends owing them political favors; they have connections to foreign Presidents and Kings; and they also have celebrity status that gives good PR to the corporations. Often, these congressmen have done favors for the corporation that is now hiring them, meaning, that the corporations are rewarding the congressmen for services rendered while in office, offering them million dollar lobbyist jobs (or seats on the corporate board of directors) that requires little to no work. The same New York Times article revealed that the pay for 13,000 lobbyists currently bribing Congress is a combined $3.5 bil
t r u t h o u t | Iraq: The Age of Darkness - 0 views
-
In the immediate aftermath of the 2003 invasion, the triumphalist verdict of the mainstream media was that the war had been won; Iraq was assured of a benevolent, democratic future. The Times's writer William Rees-Mogg hymned the victory: "April 9, 2003 was Liberty Day for Iraq … It was achieved by "the engine of global liberation," the United States. "After 24 years of oppression, three wars and three weeks of relentless bombing, Baghdad has emerged from an age of darkness. Yesterday was an historic day of liberation."
Chris Hedges: Power and the Tiny Acts of Rebellion - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig - 0 views
-
There is no hope left for achieving significant reform or restoring our democracy through established mechanisms of power. The electoral process has been hijacked by corporations. The judiciary has been corrupted and bought. The press shuts out the most important voices in the country and feeds us the banal and the absurd. Universities prostitute themselves for corporate dollars. Labor unions are marginal and ineffectual forces. The economy is in the hands of corporate swindlers and speculators. And the public, enchanted by electronic hallucinations, remains passive and supine. We have no tools left within the power structure in our fight to halt unchecked corporate pillage.
Big Content condemns foreign governments that endorse FOSS - 0 views
-
-
University of Edinburgh law lecturer Andres Guadamuz wrote a blog entry this week highlighting some particularly troubling aspects of the IIPA's 301 recommendations. The organization has condemned Indonesia and several other countries for encouraging government adoption of open source software. According to the IIPA, official government endorsements of open source software create "trade barriers" and restrict "equitable market access" for software companies. The profound absurdity of this accusation is exacerbated by the fact that Indonesia's move towards open source software was almost entirely motivated by a desire to eliminate the use of pirated software within the government IT infrastructure. It's important to understand that Indonesia has not mandated the adoption of open source software or barred government agencies from purchasing proprietary commercial software. The Indonesian government issued a statement in 2009 informing municipal governments that they had to stop using pirated software. The statement said that government agencies must either purchase legally licensed commercial software or switch to free and open source alternatives in order to comply with copyright law. This attempt by Indonesia to promote legal software procurement processes by endorsing the viability of open source software has apparently angered the IIPA. In its 301 recommendations for Indonesia, the IIPA demands that the government rescind its 2009 statement. According to the IIPA, Indonesia's policy "weakens the software industry and undermines its long-term competitiveness" because open source software "encourages a mindset that does not give due consideration to the value to intellectual creations [and] fails to build respect for intellectual property rights." The number of ways in which the IIPA's statements regarding open source software are egregiously misleading and dishonest are too numerous to count. The IIPA seems to have completely missed the fact that there is a very robust ecosystem of commercial software vendors in the open source software market and that open source software is at the heart of some of the most popular consumer electronics products that are sold in the United States. It has clearly become an important part of the US software economy and increasingly serves as an enabler of innovation and technological progress. In light of the profitability of Red Hat and other open source leaders, it seems absurd to contend that open source software adoption will weaken the software industry or reduce its competitiveness. In fact, the emergence of open source software has contributed to creating a more competitive landscape in the software industry by offering alternative business models that enable smaller companies to gain traction against the dominant incumbent players. The IIPA's position is profoundly hypocritical, because many parts of the US government, including the Department of Defense, have issued their own memos endorsing open source software adoption. The IIPA's disingenuous move to equate open source software with piracy reeks of desperation. The BSA and other IIPA members are likely losing sleep over open source software because that development model and approach to licensing will empower developing countries to build their own domestic IT industries, eliminating the need for them to tithe to American software giants. It's another failing of the 301 review, which Big Content wants used to coerce other countries into adopting ever-more-stringent copyright laws.
-
In accordance with US trade law, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) is required to conduct an annual review of the status of foreign intellectual property laws. This review, which is referred to as Special 301, is typically used to denounce countries that have less restrictive copyright policies than the United States. The review process is increasingly dominated by content industry lobbyists who want to subvert US trade policy and make it more favorable to their own interests. We have already noted the targeting of Canada for its supposedly lax copyright laws, but that is not the only nation drawing the ire of Big Content. One of the organizations that plays a key role in influencing the Special 301 review is the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), a powerful coalition that includes the RIAA, the MPAA, and the Business Software Alliance (BSA). The IIPA, which recently published its official recommendations to the USTR for the 2010 edition of the 301 review, has managed to achieve a whole new level of absurdity.
Simon Johnson: Tax cuts move U.S. closer to fiscal crisis - 0 views
-
President Barack Obama is receiving congratulations for moving to the center on the tax agreement with Republicans last week. Both sides think they got something: Democrats feel this will nudge unemployment below 8.5 percent in 2012, helping the president get re-elected; Republicans achieved long-standing goals on measures such as the estate tax and think they will get most of the credit for an economic recovery that's already under way. The truth is, the deal moved us closer to a fiscal crisis, just as the euro zone now is experiencing.
ThinkProgress » Fulfilling Father's Campaign To Segregate Public Schools, Koc... - 0 views
-
Today in the Washington Post, reporter Stephanie McCrummen detailed how a right-wing campaign in the Wake County area of North Carolina has taken over the school board with a pledge to end a very successful socio-economic integration plan. The integration plan, which created thriving schools in poor African-American parts of the school district along with achieving diversity in schools located in wealthy white enclaves, was a model for the nation. However, Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the Tea Party group founded and funded by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, worked with local right-wing financier (and AFP board member) Art Pope to fundamentally change Wake County's school board:
Yes, There Are Ways to Reduce Unemployment and Revive the Economy | Op-Eds & Columns - 0 views
-
As President Obama begins the second half of his term with a campaign for "jobs and competitiveness," we would do well to consider how he might achieve these worthy goals. It is jobs that matter most to the vast majority of Americans, and unemployment remains at 9.4 percent - about double its pre-recession level. This is a terrible punishment to inflict on millions of Americans who did nothing to deserve it. It will cause long-term and even permanent damage to many of the unemployed and their children.
Trade4Target: Trade4Target Tips - 0 views
-
Trade4Target is a leading name in the arena of service providers offering accurate trading tips such as Nifty Tips, Intraday Tips, Option Tips and share tips"We at trade4target are dedicated and devoted to proffer you with nothing but the very best when it comes to precise trading tips and calls to assist you achieve your financial goals. http://trade4targetindia.blogspot.com/2011/05/trade4target-tips.html
The People's Budget - 0 views
-
Technically, the federal government has now reached the limit of its capacity to borrow money. Raising the debt ceiling used to be a technical adjustment, made almost automatically. Now it's a political football. Democrats should never have agreed to linking it to an agreement on the long-term budget deficit. But now that the debt ceiling is in play, there's no end to what the radical right will demand. John Boehner is already using the classic "they're making me" move, seemingly helpless in the face of Tea Party storm troopers who refuse to raise the ceiling unless they get their way. Their way is reactionary and regressive - eviscerating Medicare, cutting Medicaid and programs for the poor, slashing education and infrastructure, and using most of the savings to reduce taxes on the rich. If the only issue were cutting the federal deficit by four or five trillion dollars over the next ten years, the President and Democrats wouldn't have to cave in to this extortion. That goal can be achieved by doing exactly the opposite of what radical Republicans are demanding. We can reduce the long-term budget deficit, keep everything Americans truly depend on, and also increase spending on education and infrastructure - by cutting unnecessary military expenditures, ending corporate welfare, and raising taxes on the rich. I commend to you the "People's Budget," a detailed plan for doing exactly this - while reducing the long-term budget deficit more than either the Republican's or the President's plan does. When I read through the People's Budget my first thought was how modest and reasonable it is. It was produced by the House Progressive Caucus but could easily have been generated by Washington centrists - forty years ago.
In a pure coincidence, Gaddafi impeded U.S. oil interests before the war - Glenn Greenw... - 0 views
-
As usual, the ideas stigmatized with the most potent taboos are the ones that are the most obviously true.
-
When the war in Libya began, the U.S. government convinced a large number of war supporters that we were there to achieve the very limited goal of creating a no-fly zone in Benghazi to protect civilians from air attacks, while President Obama specifically vowed that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake." This no-fly zone was created in the first week, yet now, almost three months later, the war drags on without any end in sight, and NATO is no longer even hiding what has long been obvious: that its real goal is exactly the one Obama vowed would not be pursued -- regime change through the use of military force. We're in Libya to forcibly remove Gaddafi from power and replace him with a regime that we like better, i.e., one that is more accommodating to the interests of the West. That's not even a debatable proposition at this point. What I suppose is debatable, in the most generous sense of that term, is our motive in doing this. Why -- at a time when American political leaders feel compelled to advocate politically radioactive budget cuts to reduce the deficit and when polls show Americans solidly and increasingly opposed to the war -- would the U.S. Government continue to spend huge sums of money to fight this war? Why is President Obama willing to endure self-evidently valid accusations -- even from his own Party -- that he's fighting an illegal war by brazenly flouting the requirements for Congressional approval? Why would Defense Secretary Gates risk fissures by so angrily and publicly chiding NATO allies for failing to build more Freedom Bombs to devote to the war? And why would we, to use the President's phrase, "stand idly by" while numerous other regimes -- including our close allies in Bahrain and Yemen and the one in Syria -- engage in attacks on their own people at least as heinous as those threatened by Gaddafi, yet be so devoted to targeting the Libyan leader?
Status Anxiety | Watch Free Documentary Online - 0 views
-
Why doesn't money (usually) buy happiness? Alain de Botton breaks new ground for most of us, offering reasons for something our grandparents may well have told us, as children. It is rare, and pleasing, to see a substantial philosophical argument sustained as well as it is in this documentary. De Botton claims that we are more anxious about our own importance and achievements than our grandparents were. This is status anxiety.
The Blog : How Rich is Too Rich? : Sam Harris - 0 views
-
I've written before about the crisis of inequality in the United States and about the quasi-religious abhorrence of "wealth redistribution" that causes many Americans to oppose tax increases, even on the ultra rich. The conviction that taxation is intrinsically evil has achieved a sadomasochistic fervor in conservative circles-producing the Tea Party, their Republican zombies, and increasingly terrifying failures of governance. Happily, not all billionaires are content to hoard their money in silence. Earlier this week, Warren Buffett published an op-ed in the New York Times in which he criticized our current approach to raising revenue. As he has lamented many times before, he is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary is. Many conservatives pretend not to find this embarrassing. Conservatives view taxation as a species of theft-and to raise taxes, on anyone for any reason, is simply to steal more. Conservatives also believe that people become rich by creating value for others. Once rich, they cannot help but create more value by investing their wealth and spawning new jobs in the process. We should not punish our best and brightest for their success, and stealing their money is a form of punishment. Of course, this is just an economic cartoon. We don't have perfectly efficient markets, and many wealthy people don't create much in the way of value for others. In fact, as our recent financial crisis has shown, it is possible for a few people to become extraordinarily rich by wrecking the global economy. Nevertheless, the basic argument often holds: Many people have amassed fortunes because they (or their parent's, parent's, parents) created value. Steve Jobs resurrected Apple Computer and has since produced one gorgeous product after another. It isn't an accident that millions of us are happy to give him our money. But even in the ideal case, where obvious value has been created, how much wealth can one person be allowed to keep? A trillion doll
To Occupy and Rise - 0 views
-
The Occupy Wall Street movement is well into its second week of operation, and is now getting more attention from media as well as from people planning similar actions across the country. This is a promising populist mobilization with a clear message against domination by political and economic elites. Against visions of a bleak and stagnant future, the occupiers assert the optimism that a better world can be made in the streets. They have not resigned themselves to an order where the young are presented with a foreseeable future of some combination of debt, economic dependency, and being paid little to endure constant disrespect, an order that tells the old to accept broken promises and be glad to just keep putting in hours until they can't work anymore. The occupiers have not accepted that living in modern society means shutting up about how it functions. In general, the occupiers see themselves as having more to gain than to lose in creating a new political situation - something that few who run the current system will help deliver. They are not eager for violence, and have shown admirable restraint in the face of attack by police. There may be no single clear agenda, but there is a clear message: that people will have a say in their political and economic lives, regardless of what those in charge want. Occupy Wall Street is a kind of protest that Americans are not accustomed to seeing. There was no permit to protest, and it has been able to keep going on through unofficial understandings between protestors and police. It is not run by professional politicians, astroturfers, or front groups with barely-hidden agendas. Though some organizations and political figures have promoted it, Occupy Wall Street is not driven by any political party or protest organization. It is a kind of protest that shows people have power when they are determined to use it. Occupy Wall Street could be characterized as an example of a new type of mass politics, which has been seen in
Hey President Obama ... | Adbusters Culturejammer Headquarters - 0 views
-
If thousands of us hang in there day after day, week after week, we may be able to create a spectacular revolutionary experience that fires up the public imagination and eventually maneuvers Obama into doing something that he has so far not had the guts to do: agree to a bold, decisive stroke against the financial corruption of America. Now that would get the American people behind us and cheering us on from coast to coast. If we can achieve that, the sky will be the limit … further demands will follow and a new America will be born.