I am astonished that anyone could consider the viewing of pornography on an employer's computer anything but discreditable. The only excuses that I can imagine are that one investigates the stuff on behalf of an employer or is in the pornography business. If I were a supervisor I would frequently examine the history of use of a computer. It's not simply that such a use of computer is a waste of time (so is any recreational use); it's that pornography

(1) creates the potential for sexual harassment
(2) may offend people whose religious values preclude pornography, and the big one --
(3) pornography often serves as a conduit for computer malware that can do great damage not only to a computer but to precious data upon it.

(really, any high-risk recreational use of a company-owned computer should be a violation of company policy -- which includes downloading of pirated video and software).

If someone wants to view pornography on a computer, then let him do it on his own time and on a computer not dedicated to company use.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I am astonished that anyone could consider the viewing of pornography on an employer's computer anything but discreditable. The only excuses that I can imagine are that one investigates the stuff on behalf of an employer or is in the pornography business. If I were a supervisor I would frequently examine the history of use of a computer. It's not simply that such a use of computer is a waste of time (so is any recreational use); it's that pornography

(1) creates the potential for sexual harassment
(2) may offend people whose religious values preclude pornography, and the big one --
(3) pornography often serves as a conduit for computer malware that can do great damage not only to a computer but to precious data upon it.

(really, any high-risk recreational use of a company-owned computer should be a violation of company policy -- which includes downloading of pirated video and software).

If someone wants to view pornography on a computer, then let him do it on his own time and on a computer not dedicated to company use.

Downloading pornography is considered a fireable offense in some
corporations. Nonetheless:

• Jack the executive visits "high class" (no malware) porn sites
  during his lunch hour. Should he be fired?
  
• Nobody sees Jack's porn visits. Is that still sexual harassment?
  
• Sally the receptionist has lots of free time during the day. She
  spends it visiting "women's" sites which sell clothes or have women's
  discussion groups. A male executive goes behind her desk to access a
  file cabinet, and sees what she's doing. Should she be fired?
  
• Sally visits sites that sell female undergarments and display
  models wearing them, which the male exec finds offensive. Should she
  be fired?
  
• An employee brings a mobile device to work and accesses the
  network with his own device. Does that change any answers?

John

*** 17-Nov-13 World View -- Britain threatens Sri Lanka with war crimes investigation

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Pakistan mobilizes army to quell sectarian violence in three cities
• Britain's David Cameron threatens Sri Lanka with a war crimes investigation.
• Generational analysis of the Sri Lanka civil war

****
**** Pakistan mobilizes army to quell sectarian violence in three cities
****


The army in Rawalpindi on Saturday

A curfew has been ordered in Rawalpindi, a suburb of Pakistan's
capital city Islamabad, after major sectarian clashes on Friday
spawned retaliatory violence on Saturday in at least two other cities.
Clashes in Rawalpindi on Friday, when a Shia Muslim procession passed
by a Sunni mosque. Ten people were killed and dozens injured, forcing
the army to intervene and impose a curfew. The clashes appear to have
occurred spontaneously and were not triggered by Taliban attacks, as
happens in many other cases. However, on Saturday, retaliatory
clashes occurred in Rawalpindi and in two cities in southern Pakistan,
forcing the army to be called in all of those cases. Daily Times (Pakistan)

****
**** Britain's David Cameron threatens Sri Lanka with a war crimes investigation.
****

Sri Lanka's president Mahinda Rajapaksa rejected the demand by
Britain's prime minister David Cameron to conduct an internal war
crimes investigation by March, saying, "People who live in glass
houses shouldn't throw stones."

The confrontation occurred in the context of the biannual CHOGM (The
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting), being held this year in Sri
Lanka. This is the meeting of the leaders of the British Commonwealth
of Nations, 53 member nations, mostly former British colonies. The
Commonwealth is considered irrelevant by many, but Britain promotes it
as a force for world peace and prosperity.

The major controvery about this year's CHOGM was whether it should be
held in a country being accused of human rights abuses, stemming from
the Sri Lanka civil war that ended in 2009. The leaders of India,
Mauritius and Canada are boycotting the event.

Britain's prime minister David Cameron attended CHOGM, but pulled a
major publicity stunt. Cameron left the meeting and went to Jaffna,
the heart of Tamil territory, to see for himself the conditions under
which Tamils continue to live. Cameron said this at a press
conference:

<QUOTE>"I told President Rajapaksa that there is need for a
credible, transparent and independent internal inquiry into the
events at the end of the war (against LTTE) by the end of
March. If that does not happen I will use our position to move the
UN Human Rights Commission and work with the Rights Commissioner
for an independent inquiry.<END QUOTE>

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa was not moved. He fired
back:

<QUOTE>"It is his view. This is a democracy. He can say
whatever he wants. People living in glass houses must not throw
stone at others."<END QUOTE>

Rajapaksa was apparently referring to inquiries into the war
in Iraq and into the "Bloody Sunday" massacre in Ireland.

Sri Lanka has very good relations with China and Pakistan, and very
poor relations with India. Sri Lanka is expected to side with China
in the approaching Clash of Civilization world war, and the island
nation will be an important naval base for China. Australian Broadcasting and BBC

****
**** Generational analysis of the Sri Lanka civil war
****

Long-time readers know that I covered the Sri Lanka civil war pretty
closely. (See "Sri Lanka appears close to war"
from 2006.) The civil war followed
the pattern that Generational Dynamics predicts for almost all
civil wars.


Indian subcontinent, with the island of Sri Lanka off the southern tip of India.

World War II was a generational crisis war for Ceylon, and the two
ethnic groups, the Sinhalese (who are Buddhist) and Tamils (who are
Hindu), lived in peace through the generational Recovery era and into
the beginning of the generational Awakening era. But as the post-war
generation reached adulthood, tensions grew between the two groups,
and became very sharp in 1972, , when Ceylon changed its name to Sri
Lanka and Buddhism was given primary place as country's religion.

What always happens is that low-level conflicts start. Periods of
conflict alternate with periods of peace, but each period of conflict
is worse than the last. In 1976, a separatist rebel group was formed,
demanding a separate Tamil state. The group called itself the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), and were called the "Tamil
Tigers" for short. A non-crisis civil war began in 1983, alternating
between peace and conflict. The last peace expired in 2006, when war
between the Tamil Tigers and the Sinhalese army became serious. In
2008, the Sri Lanka military commands promised "to defeat the Tamils
once and for all" by the end of the year. That declaration signalled
that a "regeneracy" had occurred, and a full-scale generational crisis
war was in progress.

What always happens during a generational crisis war is that the value
of an individual human life goes to zero, and the only thing that
matter is the survival of the society and its way of life. This
happened to America in World War II, as American soldiers poured onto
the beaches of Normandy and were shot down like fish in a barrel, and
then entire cities in Germany and Japan, including Dresden and Tokyo,
were firebombed and destroyed, while other Japanese cities were
destroyed with nuclear weapons.

This is what happens when a generational crisis war reaches a climax.
In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers increasingly forced Tamil women and
children to sit in front of military targets, so that Sinhalese shells
would kill them, which is exactly what the Sinhalese shells did. At
that point, nobody cared who died.

In early 2009, it was clear that the war was close to ending. Based
on a Generational Dynamics, I predicted that once the Sinhalese army
was victorious, the war would be over, just as the war against Germany
and Japan was completely over in 1945. As far as I know, every other
journalist and analyst in the world predicted that, with the war
having gone on for 26 years, it would continue to go on after a
Sinhalese army victory. Generational Dynamics was right, and
everybody else in the world was wrong. (See
"Tamil Tigers surrender, ending the Sri Lanka crisis civil war" )

So now come the recriminations. The Sinhalese army killed, tortured
and jailed Tamil civilians, and the Tamils deserve legal retribution.
But the same thing happens as the climax of any generational crisis
war approaches and, if you look at the actions of psychopathic
genocidal monster Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria, can
sometimes happen in non-crisis wars.


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Pakistan, Rawalpindi, Islamabad,
Britain, David Cameron, Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapaksa,
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, CHOGM,
Tamils, Tamil Tigers, Sinhalese, India,
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, LTTE

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Downloading pornography is considered a fireable offense in some
corporations. Nonetheless:

• Jack the executive visits "high class" (no malware) porn sites
  during his lunch hour. Should he be fired?

• On his lunch hour, on his own personal computer and either not on company property? No. But as for pornography, it is a bad idea to bring a copy of even Playboy to the workplace.
  
  
• Nobody sees Jack's porn visits. Is that still sexual harassment?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> Sally visits sites that sell female undergarments and display
> models wearing them, which the male exec finds offensive. Should
> she be fired?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

> One might want to discuss the appropriateness of the
> material. Such could have lesbian overtones.

No, it's just an ordinary, every day women's shopping site. Go to
macys.com, click on "women's" and then on "lingerie".

I recall a number of conversations in the 1970s, when pornography was
considered much more unacceptable than it is today, where the big joke
was that the best source of porn in those days was the Sunday New York
Times Magazine, each issue of which was filled with hundreds of
pictures of nearly nude women in lingerie ads, where the advertisers
appeared to be competing with one another to go up to "the decency
line" without crossing over it. I particularly remember my aunt, who
had three sons, ranting about how something had to be done about the
Sunday New York Times Magazine.

*** 18-Nov-13 World View -- Cholera epidemic spreads from Haiti to Cuba to Mexico

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• China's end of one-child policy doesn't dent Vietnamese wife trade
• The Hijab becomes a national problem for Russia
• Does the Koran require a woman to wear a hijab?
• Cholera epidemic spreads from Haiti to Cuba to Mexico
• Obamacare software contractor CGI reports unexpectedly high profit

****
**** China's end of one-child policy doesn't dent Vietnamese wife trade
****


Typical Chinese maternity ward: Five boys (white) and three girls (pink) (Source: CNN - from 2007)

China announced this week a loosening in its 30-year-old one child
policy, permitting some couples to have 2 children, rather than having
to stop at 1. Over the years, this policy has resulted in many news
stories of government officials conducting regular forced pregnancy
checks of women, all the way to grabbing up pregnant women, putting
them into a clinic, and forcing an abortion and sterilization. The
other part of this picture that women, wanting a son as their only
child, kill their unborn daughters after getting an ultrasound, or
kill their newborn daughters after birth. One trick that many women
used is to take fertility drugs, hoping that their one pregnancy leads
to twins or triplets. The result of the one-child policy is that
there is a ratio of 1.18 males to each female in China, giving rise to
significant social problems.

The change to the one-child policy will not help the current crop of
young adult males, who are unable to find Chinese wives, many of whom
are "buying" Vietnamese wives. Buying Vietnamese wives is in a legal
gray zone in China -- against the law, but the law is not enforced.
Matchmaking brokers charge $5-15,000 to help a customer find a
Vietnamese wife, which covers costs such as a dowry, wedding feast,
visas and travel. But this matchmaking service is coming under
increased scrutiny, as more young Vietnamese girls are being kidnapped
for sale, and more Chinese males are being defrauded. Xinhua and Global Times (Beijing)

****
**** The Hijab becomes a national problem for Russia
****

The recent suicide bombing in Volgograd
by a female suicide bomber has focused attention on women
in the North Caucasus, Russia's southern provinces. Russian
authorities are increasing pressure on women who wear Islamic dress,
including the hijab, which covers the head, and sometimes the entire
female body. In December 2012, Russia's president Vladimir Putin
categorically stated at a press conference that "in our culture (when
I say 'our,' I mean traditional Islam), there are not any hijabs
whatsoever," which is truly a bizarre statement. Putin even forced
mullahs, muftis and other religious figures to agree with Putin's
assertion. Muslims were infuriated when several Muslim girls were
barred from school for wearing hijabs. Putin hoped that announcing a
return to the use of uniforms in the country’s schools, as it was
during the Soviet period, would resolve the issue. However, in an
unexpected turn, a well-known figure in the Russian Orthodox Church
supported the Muslims, saying that a campaign against the hijab might
end up banning Orthodox children from wearing crosses in schools.
This disagreement over the hijab is just one more factor separating
the Caucasian population from the ethnic Russia population. Jamestown

****
**** Does the Koran require a woman to wear a hijab?
****


Iranian college girls wearing the hijab

The Jamestown article referenced above says that the Koran requires
women to wear a hijab, and quotes a verse from the Koran. This was a
surprise to me, because it can't possibly be true. Some Muslim
countries require the hijab, some don't, but they're all Muslim
countries. Based on this, I've always assumed that the Koran did NOT
require women to wear a hijab. So the reference in the last article
caught my interest.

I looked up the referenced verse, 33:59, and found a web page
that gives translations from different Islamic scholars. The
results were quite interesting:

• Sahih International: O Prophet, tell your wives and your
  daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves
  [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will
  be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and
  Merciful.
  
• Pickthall: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the
  women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when
  they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised
  and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
  
• Yusuf Ali: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the
  believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their
  persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be
  known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most
  Merciful.
  
• Shakir: O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the
  women of the believers that they let down upon them their
  over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and
  thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving,
  Merciful.
  
• Muhammad Sarwar: Prophet, tell your wives, daughters, and the
  wives of the believers to cover their bosoms and breasts. This will
  make them distinguishable from others and protect them from being
  annoyed. God is All-forgiving and All-merciful.
  
• Mohsin Khan: O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the
  women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their
  bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye
  to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as
  free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever
  Oft*Forgiving, Most Merciful.
  
• Arberry: O Prophet, say to thy wives and daughters and the
  believing women, that they draw their veils close to them; so it is
  likelier they will be known, and not hurt. God is All-forgiving,
  All-compassionate.

In all cases, the translations are telling how to appear as a
virtuous, respectable Muslim woman, so she will not be annoyed or
molested. But there is a wide range. Muhammad Sarwar says that
breast should be covered, which is pretty much the rule in Western
countries. But Mohsin Khan tells women to cover their entire bodies,
except for the eyes. In some cases, the advice only to when they "go
abroad."

So, as in the case of everything else these days, it all depends on
your ideology. If you're a strict Muslim conservative, you'll pick
the full body hijab translation; if you're more liberal, you'll pick
the breasts-only translation, or perhaps something involving a hijab.
As in the case of Christianity and the Bible, you can believe many
things, and almost always find a verse or two that can be interpreted
to support your position. Quran.com

****
**** Cholera epidemic spreads from Haiti to Cuba to Mexico
****

Mexico is reporting 176 confirmed cases of cholera, including one
death. Mexico had an outbreak of cholera between 1991 and 2002, which
was finally extinguished. The new outbreak has been traced back to
the United Nations soldiers from Nepal, where cholera is endemic, who
were sent to Haiti to aid people following the huge Haiti earthquake
in 2010. Since that time, the disease spread first to the Dominican
Republican, then to Cuba, where cholera hadn't been seen in 100 years,
and from there to Mexico. It's feared that vacationers to Cuba from
Chile, Venezuela, Italy, Germany and Holland are inadvertently
carrying the disease back home. Cholera is most often spread through
food or through the water supply. It's believed unlikely that the
epidemic will spread to the United States, because the water is
chlorinated. World Socialist Web Site

****
**** Obamacare software contractor CGI reports unexpectedly high profit
****

CGI Group Inc., the main contractor for the Obamacare web site
HealthCare.gov, reported better than expected profits in the last
quarter, based on a 53% rise in revenues. CGI, a Canadian software
company, said that bookings of U.S. government business were strong,
despite the web site problems.

Based on my decades of experience as a senior software engineer, the
Obamacare web site should have cost $5-10 million, and should have
been working long before now. If you take into account the enormous
wastes and screwup that are typical of any government project, then
the Obamacare web site should have cost $10-25 million.

Instead, I'm hearing reports, not being denied by anyone, that the web
site cost $300-600 million, and that it's a software engineering
disaster.

So here are my questions:

• Where the hell did all that money go? We're talking about hundreds
  of millions of wasted dollars. Into the bank accounts of what executives
  or Obama administration politicians did that money go?
  
• There are reports that CGI got the Obamacare deal because there's
  a family connection with Michele Obama. Is that true?
  
• There are reports that CGI is top-heavy with executives, and
  that's the reason why the costs are 10X or 20X what they should have
  been. Is that true?
  
• Based on the 3rd quarter earnings and revenues, it appears that
  CGI is being financial rewarded by the Obama administration for the
  HealthCare.gov disaster and for overcharging by 10-20X. Is anyone
  being held accountable for either the overcharging or the software
  disaster?
  
• There are reports that the web site costs are expected to exceed a
  billion dollars within a few months. Is that true?
  
• How high does the corruption and fraud go in the Obama
  administration?

Reuters


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, one-child policy, Vietnam,
Russia, hijab, North Caucasus, Volgograd bombing, Koran,
cholera, Mexico, Nepal, Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic,
Obamacare, CGI Group Inc.

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

In December 2012, Russia's president Vladimir Putin
categorically stated at a press conference that "in our culture (when
I say 'our,' I mean traditional Islam), there are not any hijabs
whatsoever," which is truly a bizarre statement.

"Bizarre" how? Educate yourself a bit. The word "hijab" as it occurs in the Qu'ran refers to curtains, and even that only specifically regarding Muhammed's wives. The 'hijab' as it being discussed today is just the veil. And the veil is something the traditional Islam picked up from the Persians, Assyrians, and Semetic peoples. And Sufis (which is what 90+% of Russia's muslim population self-identify as) aren't hard-core on dress codes, either.

*** 19-Nov-13 World View -- Philippine typhoon disaster draws clear lines between US and China

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Philippine typhoon disaster draws clear lines between US and China
• Saudi Arabia denies reports of cooperation with Israel over Iran
• Tensions grow along India's border with Myanmar

****
**** Philippine typhoon disaster draws clear lines between US and China
****


China's hospital ship, the 'Peace Ark'

China is still receiving international criticism over its stingy aid
response to the disaster that occurred on its doorstep, when Typhoon
Haiyan, the largest typhoon on record, completely destroyed dozens of
Philippines cities, killing thousands. The irony is that China's
hospital ship, the "Peace Ark," is one of the newest and biggest
hospital ships in the world, and has just returned from a four-month
public relations trip, visiting eight countries in Asia and Africa,
treating thousands of patients during goodwill stops, and pledging to
work with other navies. But all that public relations work has been
reversed because when it comes to the Philippines, the Peace Ark
stayed home, matching China's paltry aid donations.


On the other hand, the U.S. response has been breathtaking. In
addition to $20 million in aid, the USS George Washington nuclear
powered aircraft carrier was deployed, along with about 50 ships and
aircraft, including 10 C-130 transport planes, 12 V-22 Ospreys and 14
Seahawk helicopters air-dropping supplies.

The contrast between the two responses has been enormous, and the
responses send important messages. The message from the Chinese is
that the Philippines is an enemy. One Chinese military strategy is
"Kill a chicken to scare the monkeys," which means that China would
win a short, decisive war with Vietnam, the Philippines or Japan, and
then everyone else would do as China demands. The other part of this
strategy is that the Americans would "run like rabbits."

The message from the U.S. is that the Americans would not run like
rabbits, and that the U.S. would defend its ally, the Philippines.
CS Monitor and Reuters

****
**** Saudi Arabia denies reports of cooperation with Israel over Iran
****

Saudi Arabia and Israel don't have formal diplomatic relations, but
even so, for months there have been unconfirmed reports that the
Saudis and Israelis were making plans for a military strike to prevent
Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The reports become more frequent
in the last few weeks, as both the Saudis and Israelis have become
increasingly furious that the Obama administration has betrayed them
on issues surrounding Iran and Syria.

On Sunday, the London Times claimed to have facts to back up the
military plans. According to the paper, Saudi Arabia will let Israel
use its airspace in a military strike, and will cooperate with Israel
over the use of rescue helicopters, tanker plans, and drones.

However, on Monday a Saudi foreign ministry spokesman said that
the report was "completely unfounded":

<QUOTE>"[The kingdom] has no relations or contacts with
Israel of any kind or at any level."<END QUOTE>

Times of Israel and Al-Jazeera

****
**** Tensions grow along India's border with Myanmar
****

India's plans to build a fence along the border with Myanmar (Burma)
are causing protests among the numerous tribes that live along the
border. The border is an artificial line that cuts across houses and
villages, dividing several tribes, such as the Singphos, Nagas, Kukis
and Mizos. The result is that the tribes refuse to recognize the
border, and refuse to allow a fence to be built. The fence is needed
because the border is infested with numerous insurgencies that are
taking advantage of the ability of tribal members to pass back and
forth easily between the two countries. Insurgents cross into Myanmar
to receive training in arms, and return to carry out subversive
activities. The border has become the main conduit for trafficking of
arms and high quality heroine from Myanmar, as well as trafficking of
women and children. Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA - India)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Philippines, China, Typhoon Haiyan,
Peace Ark, Vietnam, Japan,
Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran,
India, Myanmar, Burma, Singphos, Nagas, Kukis, Mizos

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

In all cases, the translations are telling how to appear as a
virtuous, respectable Muslim woman, so she will not be annoyed or
molested. But there is a wide range. Muhammad Sarwar says that
breast should be covered, which is pretty much the rule in Western
countries. But Mohsin Khan tells women to cover their entire bodies,
except for the eyes. In some cases, the advice only to when they "go
abroad."

So, as in the case of everything else these days, it all depends on
your ideology. If you're a strict Muslim conservative, you'll pick
the full body hijab translation; if you're more liberal, you'll pick
the breasts-only translation, or perhaps something involving a hijab.
As in the case of Christianity and the Bible, you can believe many
things, and almost always find a verse or two that can be interpreted
to support your position. Quran.com

This verse sounds like it has a cultural context--i.e. the idea that women should dress that way was suggested for the practical reasons of not being harmed/molested by others: suggesting that in the cultures in those areas in those times, such appearances would be a factor in how a woman was treated. (And that there is variance in interpretation, and that the verse was vague enough to allow such differing interpretations, suggests that there was probably variance in such standards in different lands in the area.) There is nothing that says a culture must stay that way, or if that doesn't apply in a culture the woman should still dress that way. Basically it sounds more like advice for fitting into the world at the time, than an ironclad and unchangeable law.

There is a similar pair of verses in Corinthians which some fundamentalists (like the Baptist church I was exposed to for a few years in the late 70s) have fixated on regarding long hair on men:
"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).

This was in a letter from Paul to the budding church in Corinth, and scholars generally agree it was written in the context of the local culture in that city: that the wild partiers and men of general ill repute tended to wear their hair long, and Christian men there should take care not to be seen as someone like that. Many prophets from Judea wore their hair long though, and in the Nazarite order, an order of men absolutely dedicated to service to God, the men were instructed to never cut their hair (nor drink wine or other spirits)--Samson and Samuel were among those who took these vows. Most depictions of Jesus had Him with long hair, which was probably how Jewish men in the Levant generally wore it in those days. But the Southern Baptists of the 70s were probably trying to make a point about "hippies" and how ungodly they supposedly were, so I'm sure that's why the fixation. (Well, some hippies were "wild partiers", some were not, and some were indeed Christians or otherwise spiritual people.) Anyway, Paul's writing this can be taken as practical, culturally-contextual advice to the Corinthians he was writing to, suggesting they look "respectable" in the cultural context (I think men having trimmed hair was generally the normal and "respectable" look throughout Greco-Roman culture, but I'm not sure). My point being, what he said there isn't some "eternal truth", but a practical advisement for that local church. And this Koranic verse sounds similarly like practical advice, and in that day and age a woman (especially a strange woman, i.e. one travelling "abroad") probably would get unwanted attention if she didn't dress by standards of modesty prevalent in the day in those lands. Doesn't mean times and cultures can't (or shouldn't) change.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

This verse sounds like it has a cultural
context--i.e. the idea that women should dress that way was suggested
for the practical reasons of not being harmed/molested by others:
suggesting that in the cultures in those areas in those times, such
appearances would be a factor in how a woman was treated. (And that
there is variance in interpretation, and that the verse was vague
enough to allow such differing interpretations, suggests that there
was probably variance in such standards in different lands in the
area.) There is nothing that says a culture must stay that way, or if
that doesn't apply in a culture the woman should still dress that
way. Basically it sounds more like advice for fitting into the world
at the time, than an ironclad and unchangeable law.

There is a similar pair of verses in Corinthians which some
fundamentalists (like the Baptist church I was exposed to for a few
years in the late 70s) have fixated on regarding long hair on men:
"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is
a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For
her hair is given to her for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).

This was in a letter from Paul to the budding church in Corinth, and
scholars generally agree it was written in the context of the local
culture in that city: that the wild partiers and men of general ill
repute tended to wear their hair long, and Christian men there should
take care not to be seen as someone like that. Many prophets from
Judea wore their hair long though, and in the Nazarite order, an order
of men absolutely dedicated to service to God, the men were instructed
to never cut their hair (nor drink wine or other spirits)--Samson and
Samuel were among those who took these vows. Most depictions of Jesus
had Him with long hair, which was probably how Jewish men in the
Levant generally wore it in those days. But the Southern Baptists of
the 70s were probably trying to make a point about "hippies" and how
ungodly they supposedly were, so I'm sure that's why the
fixation. (Well, some hippies were "wild partiers", some were not, and
some were indeed Christians or otherwise spiritual people.) Anyway,
Paul's writing this can be taken as practical, culturally-contextual
advice to the Corinthians he was writing to, suggesting they look
"respectable" in the cultural context (I think men having trimmed hair
was generally the normal and "respectable" look throughout Greco-Roman
culture, but I'm not sure). My point being, what he said there isn't
some "eternal truth", but a practical advisement for that local
church. And this Koranic verse sounds similarly like practical advice,
and in that day and age a woman (especially a strange woman, i.e. one
travelling "abroad") probably would get unwanted attention if she
didn't dress by standards of modesty prevalent in the day in those
lands. Doesn't mean times and cultures can't (or shouldn't)
change.

That's an interesting comparison with the Christian issue of men's
long hair, and I think you're right about the cultural context.

What I know about the cultural context at the time of Mohammed is that
on the Arabian peninsula, war was a way of life -- given that there's
little food and water available in a desert. War usually means that
men are killed and women are raped or left alone. Either way, there's
a surplus of women. That's the reason why Mohammed had multiple wives
and prescribed polygamy -- because an unattached woman is in danger of
rape and is a destabilizing factor in society. Thus, when there's a
surplus of women, polygamy protects the women and society.

Presumably the same considerations apply to women's dress in such an
environment. If you have a lot of unattached women competing for the
attentions of the few men, then once again, both women and society are
in danger. And so, prescribed modest dress would have the effect of
protecting both.

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

*** 19-Nov-13 World View -- Philippine typhoon disaster draws clear lines between US and China

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

[list][*] Philippine typhoon disaster draws clear lines between US and China
[

****
**** Philippine typhoon disaster draws clear lines between US and China
****


China's hospital ship, the 'Peace Ark'

China is still receiving international criticism over its stingy aid
response to the disaster that occurred on its doorstep, when Typhoon
Haiyan, the largest typhoon on record, completely destroyed dozens of
Philippines cities, killing thousands. The irony is that China's
hospital ship, the "Peace Ark," is one of the newest and biggest
hospital ships in the world, and has just returned from a four-month
public relations trip, visiting eight countries in Asia and Africa,
treating thousands of patients during goodwill stops, and pledging to
work with other navies. But all that public relations work has been
reversed because when it comes to the Philippines, the Peace Ark
stayed home, matching China's paltry aid donations.


On the other hand, the U.S. response has been breathtaking. In
addition to $20 million in aid, the USS George Washington nuclear
powered aircraft carrier was deployed, along with about 50 ships and
aircraft, including 10 C-130 transport planes, 12 V-22 Ospreys and 14
Seahawk helicopters air-dropping supplies.

The contrast between the two responses has been enormous, and the
responses send important messages. The message from the Chinese is
that the Philippines is an enemy. One Chinese military strategy is
"Kill a chicken to scare the monkeys," which means that China would
win a short, decisive war with Vietnam, the Philippines or Japan, and
then everyone else would do as China demands. The other part of this
strategy is that the Americans would "run like rabbits."

The message from the U.S. is that the Americans would not run like
rabbits, and that the U.S. would defend its ally, the Philippines.
CS Monitor and Reuters

[b]****
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Philippines, China, Typhoon Haiyan,
Peace Ark, Vietnam, Japan,
Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran,
India, Myanmar, Burma, Singphos, Nagas, Kukis, Mizos

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Hah! Noblesse Oblige is to empire what anesthesia is to a surgeon (see "What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us?"). Too bad China has not yet learned that - or scorns the very thought. They're not only on the wrong side ethically, they're shooting themselves in the foot.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Hah! Noblesse Oblige is to empire what anesthesia is to a surgeon (see "What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us?"). Too bad China has not yet learned that - or scorns the very thought. They're not only on the wrong side ethically, they're shooting themselves in the foot.

I don't think the Chinese care. They're very contemptuous of the Philippine people,
and they're preparing for war, so don't care about much else.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I don't think the Chinese care. They're very contemptuous of the Philippine people,
and they're preparing for war, so don't care about much else.

Even so -- the Philippines has a large and influential Chinese community. As an illustration, the late Corazon Aquino had the maiden name Cojuanco (Koh-Huang-Koh, including the very common Chinese surname "Wong").

I am not going to deny Chinese military potential; some disputed shoals and atolls have been disputed between the Republic of China and such countries as Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines for years. Those shoals and atolls are useful largely for asserting claims to fishing rights and potential undersea oil fields.

China seems no more militaristic than Japan, Russia, India, Iran, South Korea, or the United States -- and far less militaristic than North Korea. There's no ambiguity about the message "See Panda -- see teeth, see claws, see muscles". China did execute a pirate who murdered some Chinese merchant seamen in the Mekong (which China considers international waters) after pressuring some other countries to arrest and deport him... but that is about piracy and murder anyway. We Americans would probably do much the same, and so would the Japanese. China has the classic example of velvet glove over a mailed fist in its legal system and its foreign policy. But that should be familiar to us Americans too.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

> China seems no more militaristic than Japan, Russia, India, Iran,
> South Korea, or the United States -- and far less militaristic
> than North Korea.

I would agree with you if all we had to go on was official actions and
statements of the Beijing government. But what I've seen many times
in the last few years was highly nationalistic hatred for the
Philippines from the younger generations of Chinese, so it would not
take much for a "minor disagreement" to spiral into something a lot
more serious.

I've reported on several of these examples of nationialistic hatred. Here
are a couple of them from last May:

** 13-May-12 World View -- China denies preparing for war with the Philippines
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...13.htm#e120513

** 10-May-12 World View -- China drills for oil as 'strategic weapon' in South China Sea
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...10.htm#e120510

In the last one, a young girl interviewer on Chinese tv "accidentally"
claimed that the Philippines was China's "inherent territory," as
an "indisputable fact." From what I can see, this reflects a common
highly nationalistic attitude among young people.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I don't think the Chinese care. They're very contemptuous of the Philippine people...

And Americans respect Filipinos oh so very much...

The Philipines were the keystone of the Japanese Empire.

*** 20-Nov-13 World View -- Lebanon bombing sharply escalates sectarian Mideast conflict

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Lebanon bombing sharply escalates sectarian Mideast conflict
• Japan's anti-China diplomacy given boost by Typhoon Haiyan

****
**** Lebanon bombing sharply escalates sectarian Mideast conflict
****


Bomb site outside of Iranian embassy in Lebanon on Tuesday (AFP)

Twin suicide bombers attacked the Iranian embassy in a super-secure
area of Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, killing dozens. The first
suicide bomber approached on a motorcycle, and did relatively little
damage. As crowds rushed to the scene, a second suicide bomber
arrived in a large Sports Utility vehicle, packed with explosive. At
least 25 people were killed, and hundreds were injured. One of those
killed was an Iranian diplomat.

Iran's foreign ministry called it "an inhuman action," and reflexively
said, "The Islamic Republic of Iran takes the Zionists and their
mercenaries responsible for this action." But as the Iranians and
everyone else know, it's much more likely that the perpetrators are
Sunni jihadists who are targeting Shia Iran and Hezbollah for their
support of Syria's president Bashar al-Assad. In fact, in view of
last week's desperate statement by Iran's foreign minister warning of
the rise of Sunni jihadists, it's possible that the Iranians were
aware that something like this was coming. (See "12-Nov-13 World View -- Iran's statement on Syria shows signs of desperation"
)

The al-Qaeda linked Abdullah Azzam Brigades have taken credit for the
bombing, which appears to be a major new step in the escalation of the
sectarian Sunni versus Shia conflict in the Mideast. The trigger that
started this growing sectarian conflict is the actions by Syria's
Shia/Alawite pathological genocidal monster, Bashar al-Assad, using
everything from mortars to chemical weapons to kill innocent Sunni
civilians in Syria. But the conflict has been made much worse by the
catastrophic actions of Russia and Iran in supplying weapons and
fighters to support al-Assad in his mass slaughter. This has drawn
Sunni jihadists, sometimes funded by Saudi Arabia, from countries near
and far to come to Syria to fight against al-Assad. The war may have
been largely restricted to Syria up till now, but Tuesday's bombing is
a major step forward, on the road to a major war engulfing the entire
Mideast.

At any rate, Tuesday's bombing is blowback from Iran's own actions,
and is well-deserved retribution. So what's Iran going to do now? If
they strike back against the Saudis, they'll escalate the war; if they
don't, they'll show weakness, and invite more bombings. We'll have to
see how Iran resolves this conundrum. Daily Star (Beirut) and Fars News (Tehran) and CS Monitor

****
**** Japan's anti-China diplomacy given boost by Typhoon Haiyan
****

Since taking office less than a year ago, Japan's prime minister
Shinzo Abe has visited all ten members of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN), a first for a Japanese leader. Although
Cambodia and Laos have traditionally been close to China, Abe expects
the other eight countries to join Japan in a united front against
China in the numerous territorial disputes in the region. In
particular, China is claiming territory in the South China Sea that
has historically belonged to Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia and
the Philippines, while Japan itself is facing daily military
confrontations with China around the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

Japan's case has been boosted by China's niggardly aid response to the
Typhoon Haiyan. (See "19-Nov-13 World View -- Philippine typhoon disaster draws clear lines between US and China"
.) According to one Japanese analyst:

<QUOTE>"Some ASEAN member countries are very much vulnerable
to China’s economic and political influence. [By boosting
military cooperation,] we are giving assurance we will stand by
those ASEAN member countries. As China’s neighboring countries
develop their own capability, China needs to think twice before
taking assertive actions."<END QUOTE>

On the other hand, China's government-run news agency hits back:

<QUOTE>"But Abe has not yet held formal talks with leaders
from China and South Korea, with whom ties have been stalled by
the hawkish Japanese leader's hard-line policy on territorial
disputes and his unapologetic attitude toward Japan's 20th-century
wartime atrocities in the two countries."<END QUOTE>

Bloomberg and China Daily


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Lebanon, Beirut, Iran,
Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Abdullah Azzam Brigades,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Shinzo Abe,
ASEAN, Typhoon Haiyan, Philippines

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Originally Posted by TimWalker

The Philipines were the keystone of the Japanese Empire.

In Japan's dreams.

Albuquerque's Bataan Memorial Park has a monument to the troops who died on that march, and Douglas MacArthur won a big chunk of fame taking the Philippines back from the Imperial Troopers.

I don't think the Filipinos have forgotten, either.

*** 21-Nov-13 World View -- U.S. and Afghanistan agree on post-2014 security pact

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• U.S. and Afghanistan agree on post-2014 security pact
• China relents and sends 'Peace Ark' hospital ship to Philippines
• Was Tuesday's suicide bombing in Beirut Lebanon self-inflicted?

****
**** U.S. and Afghanistan agree on post-2014 security pact
****


Almost 100 people were killed in and around Baghdad, Iraq, on Wednesday, from ten coordinated car bomb attacks across the city and the country (CNN)

Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that the U.S. and Afghan
governments have agreed on terms for a security arrangement to allow
U.S. military presence to continue in Afghanistan after the main force
withdrawal in 2014. There are currently 60,000 U.S. troops in
Afghanistan, down from a peak of about 100,000. The agreement does
not specify the size of the force that will remain after 2014.

The main area of contention in negotiating the agreement is a
provision that gives the U.S. military legal jurisdiction over its
forces. This means that if an American soldier commits a crime, then
he'll be prosecuted in American courts, rather than in Afghan courts.
Iraq had refused a similar provision in its joint security agreement
with the U.S., and so American forces were withdrawn completely in
December 2011. Since then, al-Qaeda linked terrorist violence in Iraq
has surged.

However, the Afghan agreement still must be reviewed by a "loya
jirga," or tribal council, that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has
convened this week in Kabul. The council could raise objections that
might delay or even prevent a signing. In particular, Karzai has
demanded an apology for behavior of the U.S. troops, which the Obama
administration has already refused to provide. USA Today

****
**** China relents and sends 'Peace Ark' hospital ship to Philippines
****

International pressure is forcing China again to reluctantly relent on
its stingy aid response to the Philippines after the devastation of
Typhoon Haiyan. (See "19-Nov-13 World View -- Philippine typhoon disaster draws clear lines between US and China"
)

China's initial offer of $100,000 aid was minuscule compared to what
was offered by other countries, especially the United States that
provided $20 million dollars and an entire carrier task force to aid
typhoon victims. An embarrassed China increased its aid donation to
$1.6 million, but that amount was still criticized as being smaller
than the $2.7 million that furniture maker Ikea is providing in aid to
the Philippines.

Now China was forced to back down again. China has one of the largest
and most modern hospital ships in the world, the "Peace Ark," but
they've refused to allow it to help the Philippine people. But on
Wednesday, China announced that the Peace Ark will travel to the
Philippines after all. According to a government spokesman:

<QUOTE>"We hope its mission will help ease the lack of
medical services in the disaster areas in the Philippines, as a
token of Chinese people's friendship to the Philippine
people."<END QUOTE>

We hope that he didn't choke on the word "friendship". Xinhua

****
**** Was Tuesday's suicide bombing in Beirut Lebanon self-inflicted?
****

As we reported yesterday
, the
Mideast sectarian conflict sharply escalated on Tuesday because of a
major double-suicide bombing targeting Iran's embassy in the most
super-secure area of Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. 25 people were
killed, including a senior Iranian diplomat. The self-proclaimed
perpetrators were the al-Qaeda linked Abdullah Azzam Brigades,
presumably supported by Saudi Arabia, presumably taking revenge for
Iran's and Hezbollah's support for the bloody actions of Syria's
genocidal monster president, Bashar al-Assad.

But a report by Debka, which sometimes gets things wrong, is quoting
its intelligence sources as saying that there's no such group as the
Abdullah Azzam Brigades, and that the whole attack was perpetrated by
Hezbollah itself, targeting the assets of its puppetmasters in Iran.
According to the report, Hezbollah wanted to withdraw all its forces
from Syria, having suffered hundreds of casualties in Syria so far.
Thus, it continues, Hezbollah staged the terrorist attack to justify
keeping its fighters home in Lebanon - to defend against further
terrorist attacks. It's possible that the staged terrorist attack was
more successful than planned, killing and injuring more people than
intended.

This story sounds so fantastical that it's hard to know what to
believe, and it comes from Israel-linked Debka, which never hesitates
to show Iran and Hezbollah in as negative a light as possible. On the
other hand, what are we dealing with is a terrorist group (Hezbollah),
for whom slaughtering innocent civilians is an almost daily way of
life. If they're willing to blow up an innocent crowd of shoppers
just to create terror, why wouldn't be willing to blow up a bunch of
people walking by the Iranian embassy? Blowing up innocent people is
just a way of life. When you put it that way, the self-inflicted
attack is really not so fantastical, after all.

If this story is true, Iran is certain to seek retribution against
Hezbollah, probably by forcing Hezbollah to do its bidding and send
many more thousands of Hezbollah fighters into Syria, further
inflaming the Sunni jihadists. Either way, this massive attack on the
Iranian embassy is going to escalate the sectarian fighting in the
Mideast. Debka


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Afghanistan, John Kerry, Iraq,
Hamid Karzai, Beirut, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iran,
Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
China, Peace Ark, Typhoon Haiyan, Philippines, Ikea

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

*** 22-Nov-13 World View -- New American drone strike stirs outrage in Pakistan

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• New American drone strike stirs outrage in Pakistan
• Climate change activists walk out of climate change conference

****
**** New American drone strike stirs outrage in Pakistan
****


Pakistani madrassa students look at parts of the missile shot by the drone strike on Thursday (AFP)

At least two senior Haqqani network leaders, along with three Taliban
leaders, were killed by an American drone strike in Pakistan on
Thursday. The drone strike targeted a madrassa run by the Haqqani
network, which has been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks in
Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are blamed for thousands of
U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan.

The drone strike has stirred outrage in Pakistan. First, it occurred
just a day after the U.S. reportedly promised the Pakistanis that
there would be no more drone strikes for a while. And second, it
occurred in a densely populated area with a civilian government in
Pakistan's northwest, while previous drone strikes have been in the
sparely populated tribal area, a strip of land on the border with
Afghanistan. Pakistan's Foreign Office spokesman condemned
the drone strike, saying that they were a violation
of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Imran Khan, Pakistan's former cricket superstar turned
anti-American politician, is planning to hold a large
rally on Saturday. According to Khan:

<QUOTE>"We will announce at the protest on Saturday that we
will permanently block the supply route until they stop drone
attacks. If it’s in our hands, we will block it today. Our powers
are that we can tell them that NATO supplies can’t pass through
our province."<END QUOTE>

Khan has threatened to block the U.S. supply route through Pakistan to
Afghanistan many times before, but this would be the first time he
carries through with the threat, if he does. Pakistan's politicians
publicly object to the drone strikes, but it's widely believed that
they support the drone strikes in private. AFP and Daily Times (Pakistan)

****
**** Climate change activists walk out of climate change conference
****

Over 800 representatives of NGOs (non-governmental organizations)
staged a walkout from climate change negotiations being held in
Warsaw, Poland. India's Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan came
forth with the following gobbledygook:

<QUOTE>"I fully share the sentiments of the NGOs and call on
developed countries to show their determination to implement
commitments and increase their ambition to address the mitigation
gap and provide enhanced means of implementation and ensure that
the negotiations reach a meaningful conclusion in the Conference
of Parties.

It is a matter of deep concern to my country that there has been
absolutely no progress in any of the issues of interest to
developing countries in this Conference of Parties.

Discussions on crucial issues of direct importance to developing
countries like finance, technology and Loss and Damage have
remained deadlocked due to lack of will by developed country
Parties."<END QUOTE>

The last sentence was pretty clear, and encapsulates the whole point
of the NGO's protest: They want the U.S. and Europe to pay billions of
dollars to them (the NGOs) and to favored political leaders who,
history has shown, will simply pocket the money. I have never heard
these people utter even a single credible sentence that paying money
will lead to reduced carbon emissions. What they're conducting is a
financial scam, and they're furious because no one is listening, even
the ultra-liberal Barack Obama. The Hindu


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Pakistan, Haqqani network, Taliban,
Afghanistan, Imran Khan,
climate change, India, Jayanthi Natarajan

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

NGO's : -:Pttttttttttttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht

Worthless.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Over 800 representatives of NGOs (non-governmental organizations)
staged a walkout from climate change negotiations being held in
Warsaw, Poland.

How much do these 800 representatives make a year?

India's Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan came
forth with the following gobbledygook:

<QUOTE>"I fully share the sentiments of the NGOs and call on
developed countries to show their determination to implement
commitments and increase their ambition to address the mitigation
gap and provide enhanced means of implementation and ensure that
the negotiations reach a meaningful conclusion in the Conference
of Parties.

It is a matter of deep concern to my country that there has been
absolutely no progress in any of the issues of interest to
developing countries in this Conference of Parties.

Discussions on crucial issues of direct importance to developing
countries like finance, technology and Loss and Damage have
remained deadlocked due to lack of will by developed country
Parties."<END QUOTE>

Quite a piece of work a politician can conjure up eh?

IOW, "I fully share concerns wrt doling out cash to NGO's to get them off our backs. We are fully aware that developing countries are flat broke and can't engage in the payola you wish to have. Furthermore, we're sorry that we've neglected to address assorted bad stuff that will befall developing nations because we're deadlocked at present."

Yes, John, I know that you don't like GenX in general, but our reply to said walkout would be "Fuck you and don't let the door hit y'alls asses too hard" Cya.

The last sentence was pretty clear, and encapsulates the whole point
of the NGO's protest: They want the U.S. and Europe to pay billions of
dollars to them (the NGOs) and to favored political leaders who,
history has shown, will simply pocket the money. I have never heard
these people utter even a single credible sentence that paying money
will lead to reduced carbon emissions. What they're conducting is a
financial scam, and they're furious because no one is listening, even
the ultra-liberal Barack Obama.

Obama is an Xer, and besides, there's only so many other pockets to pad.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

> Yes, John, I know that you don't like GenX in general ...

That's not true. I hate the sins but love the sinners.

Clinate Change Activists Walk Out....where would they expect those billions of dollars to come from? The developed countries are in economic distress.

*** 23-Nov-13 World View -- JFK: We shall pay any price, bear any burden for the success of liberty

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Afghanistan security agreement may be close to collapse
• JFK: We shall pay any price, bear any burden for the success of liberty

****
**** Afghanistan security agreement may be close to collapse
****


Loya Jirga delegates walk on the streets of Kabul, Afghanistan, on Friday (AP)

Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai has apparently torpedoed the
security agreement with the U.S. that Secretary of State John Kerry
had been negotiating. This is the agreement that authorizes American
soldiers to remain in Afghanistan past the official 2014 withdrawal.
It was thought that once Afghanistan's grand assembly, the "Loya
Jirga," approved the security agreement, then Karzai would sign it,
and the deal would be complete. But everyone was shocked when Karzai
said that even after the Loya Jirga approval, the agreement would not
be signed until after the elections of April 5, 2014. Kerry's
spokesman Jen Psaki said,

<QUOTE>"Failure to conclude (the deal) ... would be seen as a
signal to the world that Afghanistan is not committed to a
partnership with its supporters and that it is willing to
jeopardize all of the financial and practical help that has been
offered."<END QUOTE>

The entire Mideast is littered with failed peace deals and betrayed
promises from Kerry and the Barack Obama administration, so unless
Kerry can convince Karzai to change his mind, this will be just one
more. AP and
Reuters

****
**** JFK: We shall pay any price, bear any burden for the success of liberty
****

On the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John
F. Kennedy, a lot of people who evidently don't have the vaguest clue
what his principles were are lauding him for their own purposes. Here
are a few paragraphs from his 1961 inaugural address:

<QUOTE>"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of
that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and
place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to
a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by
war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient
heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of
those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed,
and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we
shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support
any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and
the success of liberty. ...

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been
granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum
danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I
do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other
people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the
devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country
and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light
the world

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for
you—ask what you can do for your country."<END QUOTE>

People on tv keep asking about JFK's ideology. Politicians today
can't even imagine taking a stand on principle. There's nothing but
ideology.

Kennedy's address had nothing to do with ideology. It was based on
his life experience.

He was in the generations that had seen massive famine and genocide.
He had seen American soldiers tortured, mutilated and killed on the
Bataan death march, or shot down like fish in a barrel on the beaches
of Normandy. He had seen America and its allies kill millions of
civilians, women and children, with huge firebombs and nuclear
weapons. He had seen human beings at their worst, worse than the most
vicious animals. And he was saying that America must pay any price,
bear any burden, meet any hardship to keep it from happening again,
because he knew that paying that price was a tiny fraction of the cost
of not paying it.

Can you imagine any politician, particularly any Democrat, saying
anything like that today? Politicians were different in 1961 because
they had survived the worst war in world history. Today's politicians
think that the generations that survived that war are simply full of
crap.

Today, under the leadership of President Barack Obama, Washington has
turned into a cesspool. Any lie is OK, any law can be violated,
because the Administration is lawless. Financiers who had defrauded
millions of Americans with fraudulent subprime mortgage backed
synthetic securities still appear on CNBC and lie about stock
valuations (price/earnings ratios).

(By the way, according to Friday's Wall Street Journal, the S&P 500 Price/Earnings index (stock
valuations) on Friday (November 22) morning was 18.85, which is a new
recent high, and astronomical by historic standards, indicating that
stocks are far overpriced, and the stock market bubble is worse than
ever.)

The Russians and Iranians are providing massive weapons and military
support to one of the worst genocidal monsters since World War II,
Syria's Bashar al-Assad. Europe is seeing the rise of Nazi groups
that dominated World War II. And China is massively preparing for
preemptive thermonuclear war with the United States, while America's
armed forces are cutting back.

We could use a little of JFK's attitude about now. Kennedy's Inaugural Address


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai,
John Kerry, Loya Jirga,
John F. Kennedy

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail