Group items tagged

The Silsilah Dialogue Movement is a Filipino movement in Mindanao that aims to unite Christians and Muslims, as well as other people of different religion and faith. Prof. Alzad Sattar is proud to be a member and Muslim coordinator of the Inter-faith Council of Leaders in Basilan. He took up Political Science in Basilan State College and had his Masters Degree in the University of the Philippines. He became a professor in Basilan State College since 1996. Presently, he is the Assistant Dean of Academic Support and Services and Dean of the College of Islamic Studies. He is also an active participant and member of non-government organizations that promote peace and harmony like the Silsilah Dialogue Movement. As a child born in the city of Basilan, he believes that this place is very beautiful. Despite of this harmonious scenery with its natural white beach and sea resources, for him, Basilan has a large diversity when it comes to cultures and religions between the people living in this paradise. He hopes that someday this diversity would surpass through the help of the Dialogue. The following are some excerpts and inspiring keys mentioned by Prof. Alzad Sattar in an interview in the Silsilah Dialogue Movement: What was the impact of Silsilah Dialogue Movement to you as person? Prof Sattar: Silsilah actually transformed a lot in me as a person. I remember in the past, I had biases and prejudices against Christians because of a lot of factors. Number one factor is the orientations that I had, that Christians are like this and that and the second factor was the situation that I had experienced. I was born during the Martial law and at that time, many of my relatives died. The people who killed them are the Philippine soldiers who happened to be Christians. This contributed to my perception about the Christians. One factor that also contributed in my biases is the books I read. Like what I said, I was a PolSci graduate and because of that I rea

This is essentially the story of the latest attack on social security. Everyone who looks at the projections agrees; the scary budget stories being hyped in the media and by the Wall Street crew are driven almost entirely by projections of exploding health care costs. But instead of proposing ways to fix the health care system, these deficit hawks want to attack social security. They tell us that fixing health care is hard. By contrast they think that cutting money from social security will be relatively easy. The facts on this are straightforward and known by everyone involved in the budget debate. The US health care system is broken. We pay more than twice as much per person as the average for other wealthy countries. And it is projected to get worse. In three or four decades we are projected to pay three or four times as much per person for health care as people in countries like Germany and Canada. Since more than half of our health care is paid through public sector programs like Medicare and Medicaid, this explosion in health care costs will bankrupt the government if it actually occurs. Of course it will also devastate the private sector. On the other hand, it is easy to show that if we contain health care costs then our budget problems are relatively minor. In fact, the current projections of enormous budget deficits two or three decades out would flip over to projections of enormous budget surpluses if our health care costs were comparable to those of any other wealthy country.

'President-Elect Obama's advisors feared in 2008 that authorities would revolt and that Republicans would block his policy agenda if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a law school dean who served as one of Obama's top transition advisers.' Andrew Kreig, Justice Integrity Project

Obama is neither liberal nor conservative, he's a middle of the roader. It sure would've been nice if voters had noticed that before they elected him.

I'd sure like to see Obama "kick some ass", instead of allowing the Repubs to do the same thing they've been doing for the past eight or nine years. Mainly bully and intimidate, and use scare tactics to get what they and big business want.

Frank: The democrats have a 60 vote majority and Obama doesn't need them at all for anything. He pretty much has let them know "We Won!" He also has pretty much let them know he doesn't need them. This is a Liberal controlled White House, Senate and House. Stop the blame game. Let's put the focus exactly where everyone who is truthful, here, understands: On the Democratic controlled Administration and Congress. They have all the marbles and they don't need the Republicans' vote. The problem Obama has is that he realizes that there is going to be a bloodbath. Please, don't say otherwise - even his own people are starting to prepare the party. Why do you suppose four Democrats announced that they are retiring - they aren't even running over the next 10 1/2 months. More will reitre before election day. He has the same problem that Clinton had - he could possibly lose the House and he would then be somewhat in the same position of Clinton - who was forced to the middle because he would not be able to get anything else approved. I may be wrong, history will decide, but I think the American people no longer trust either party. Are you happy with the Democrats? We now have senators selling their vote for $300,000,000 in one instance and Sen. Nelson just got a permanent exemption for Medicaid cost that States have to pay - Forever! All 49 other states must pick up this states cost - all for one vote! Do you believe this is what the Democrats, Republicans or Independents expect or want from their government. I don't. Getting back to my point, the people of America don't trust either party, now, and want them closely divided so they don't do too much harm. Independents have swung away from Obama in a very big way. He ran more as a centrist and now people fill lied to. Seven days before he took office he said he was fundamentally going to change America. No one had heard this before - not "Fundamentally". They expected a far more bipartisan