Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Israeli PM to resign

Hopefully this blog will be a tad more interesting, apologies for the other.

I'm actually not focused on Omert here, but rather his imminent successor. Tzipi Livni has an impressive political background behind her and I find the BBC's comment on lack on military expertise to be false. However, I am unsure as to how much good she could do as PM. Livni seems far too cold to do much good in Palestinian talks and I find her far too ambitious and disloyal to her PM. She has done more than simply distance herself from Olmert, but openly lashed out at him and at the same time prop herself up as a much better candidate than him. It is my belief that she has stayed within his ministry solely to execute her power. While she has been untouched by scandal, her downright refusal to come to Olmert's aid at all (whether he is guilty or not) shows that she is unwilling to get her hands even the slightest bit dirty. As Sharon's former protégé, she is fiercely aggresive and I believe her to find scandal and compromise as and unhuman (more likely, un-Israeli) thing and one-hundred percent unacceptable. If she can downplay these, it is my hope that she isn't forced to live in Golda Meir's shadow.

I realise many of these are good in a leader but still lean slightly against her premiership, though there certainly isn't a better candidate right now.


What do you think of Livni as Prime Minister of Israel?

Saturday, July 26, 2008

New blogger, and our ecomnomy.

Hey I'm Chetblong, an admin from the English Wikipedia. I consider myself a republican conservative, yet in some things I lean to the middle. I hope to write an entry here soon, but for now just two questions:

What do you think about our economy right now? Which candidate do you think will help solve the crisis, and why?

Al gore

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4129

I think we can all agree that Al Gore is an idiot.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Gordon Brown's right hand

I've been trying to figure out since he came to office who his second was.

Technically, the answer is Harriet Harman (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal, Minister for Women and Equality, Labour Party Chair and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party). She fills in at Prime Minister's Questions when he is unable and would become Acting Prime Minister in the event of his death. However, at the beginning of his term there was talk as to why she had not been named Deputy Prime Minister, First Secretary of State or both and Brown stated that she would not fill the deputy role she is now filling.

My second candidate is Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice). There was significant talk at the beginning of Brown's term that he had given Straw both right hand positions which were later refuted by both Brown and Straw. While I was in London one headline really caught my eye amongst the hundreds of adverts: WILL BROWN BUT STRAW'S LOYALTY WITH DEPUTY JOB?

Next on my list is the next most mentioned minister, Alistair Darling (Chancellor of the Exchequer). Darling holds Brown's former post where Brown held the most power but Brown doesn't seem to be giving Darling the power he had while he was under Tony Blair. The chancellor is known to be one of the positions whose power is determined by who the Prime Minister is.

Fourth is someone who I recently switched with the below. Jacqui Smith (Secretary of State for the Home Department). Not very well known among many of the others on the list, after speaking with several people, I have been told the the Home Secretary is one of the most powerful positions in the government, bar none. One Londoner told me that Home Secretaries are generally an unofficial deputy.

Fifth is the man who I descended after seeing how little he is mentioned even though he does hold one of those godly positions in Cabinet: David Miliband (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs). Despite his position, he I have rarely seen him in news and don't consider a powerful man.

To round out the list is Des Browne (Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Scotland). He is simply here because of his high positions.

The could go on but beyond these men and women, the rest of Cabinet's status among each other, the ministry, parliament and the government as a whole are very difficult for me to understand.

Who do you think the positions should go to?

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Personal introduction as a new member

Hi everybody. For those that don't me, I'm Leonard^Bloom, here and on en.wiki (I have SUL though). (Also, for two posts on the google.group, my nick was jjj; currently Leonard^Bloom). I specialize in international politics and civil issues. I don't really keep up with election business and such; I prefer watching the world "go down in flames" through an international lense. For most issues, I'm a liberal democrat, but I don't really approve of partisan politics, so don't hold me to a label. I'm a pascifist, humantarian, and civil rights activist (that's the jist of it).

In order to not bore anyone, I pose a question:

"Has the U.N. failed at its goal?"

Feel free to define goal as whatever you wish, but be sure to back it up.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

interesting stats

Why Do Politicians and The Main Stream Media Distort the Numbers? Military Deaths!

Military losses, 1980 through 2006

These are some rather eye-opening facts.


Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through today, we have lost over 3,000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents



As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 ........ 2,392
1981 ......... 2,380
1984 ......... 1,999
1988 .......... 1,819
1989 .......... 1,636
1990 ....... 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 .......... 1,213
1994 .......... 1,075
1995 ...........2,465
1996 ......... 2,318 Clinton years @14,000 deaths
1997 .......... 817
1998 ......... 2,252
1999 .......... 1,984
2000 .......... 1,983
2001 .......... 890
2002 .......... 1,007
2003 ........ 1,410
2004 .......... 1,887
2005 ...... 919
2006.......... 920 Bush years (2001-2006): 7,033 deaths

If you are confused when you look at these figures, so was I.

Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton 's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!

These figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those "facts" which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?

Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant; that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, are mostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN! Just one more media lie!



The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
European descent (White) ...... 69.12%
Hispanic ........................................ 12.5%
Black............................................ 12.3%
Asian ............................................... 3.7%
Native American .......................... . ..1.0%
Other ............................................ ... 2.6%

Now.. here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:

European descent (white) ...... 74.31%
Hispanic .................................... 10.74%
Black ........................................ 9.67%
Asian ........................................... 1.81%
Native American ........................ 1.09%
Other ........................................... . 0.33%

You do the Math! These figures don't lie, but, Media-liars figure and they sway public opinion !



(These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf )

Now ask yourself two questions:

"Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?" and
"Why do the mainstream media hate the (world wide) web as much as they do?"

Submitted by Roy B.
reposted from its a very interesting bit of information

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Enthusiastic supporters

Out of all the campaigns this year, Ron Paul really seemed to have the most enthusiastic supporters, while holding single digits in primary polls. Rudy Giuliani, meanwhile, lead national polls, yet he had some of the least enthusiastic supporters. Why is this? Has anyone figured this out?