Iran Derangement Syndrome

Iran Derangement Syndrome

By Patrick J. Buchanan, Creators Syndicate, July 06, 2012

Iran is not seeking to have the atomic bomb, possession of which is pointless, dangerous and is a great sin from an intellectual and a religious point of view.”

Thus did supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declare in February that Iran’s possession of atomic weapons would be a mortal sin against Allah.

It is also the unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community, declared in 2007 and affirmed in 2011, that Iran has abandoned any program to build nuclear weapons.

Is the Ayatollah lying? Is the entire U.S. intel community wrong?

Iran’s plants, at Natanz, where uranium is enriched to 5 percent, and at Fordow, where it is enriched to 20 percent–both below weapons grade–are under constant U.N. monitoring. Iran has offered to surrender its 20 percent uranium and cease enriching to that level, if the West will provide isotopes for its nuclear medicine and lift some of the more onerous sanctions.

No deal, says the United States. Iran must give up enrichment entirely and indefinitely.

This is the sticking point in the negotiations. Iran contends that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, she has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. On this, the Iranian people stand behind their government.

Should this deadlock be a cause for war?

Assume Iran did divert low-grade nuclear fuel to some secret plant to enrich it to weapons grade. The process would take months, if not years. Iran would then have to build and test an explosive device that the world would know about in hours. Iran would then have to weaponize the device.

The whole process would take longer than a year, perhaps several. We would learn about it and have time to exercise a military option long before it came to pass.

The Israelis, with hundreds of nuclear weapons, would probably have learned about it before us. And, fearing Iran more, they would not hesitate to use what they have to prevent an atom bomb in Tehran.

Comes the retort: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a certifiable fanatic who has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. He cannot be allowed to get anywhere near a nuclear weapon.

Yet whatever Ahmadinejad said years ago, and that remains in dispute, he does not control the military, he does not decide on war, and he leaves the presidency next July and heads back to academia.

Where, then, is the mortal threat to justify the U.S. preparations for war with Iran described in the national press this week?

The Financial Times’ Gideon Rachman argues that our obsession with Iran is obscuring a far greater potential threat.

Pakistan possesses perhaps 100 nuclear bombs and is building more, and anti-Americanism there is far more rampant than in Iran. He writes:

“Pakistan provided nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran itself. It came dangerously close to nuclear conflict with India in 1999. As for terrorism, Osama bin Laden was actually living on Pakistani soil for many years, and the tribal areas in Pakistan are still al-Qaida’s most important base.

“Pakistan was also the launch pad for the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 2008, in which 164 people were killed. Although Pakistan’s government condemned the attacks, there is strong evidence that the terrorists had links to Pakistan’s intelligence. If the Mumbai attacks had been launched from Iran, the West would be shouting about ‘state-sponsored terrorism.’”

Seven in 10 Pakistanis regard America as an enemy. And the drone strikes ramped up by President Obama, which have taken the lives of many innocent Pakistanis, have increased the animosity.

Yet, U.S. planes and warships are heading into the Persian Gulf, as 44 U.S. senators have urged the president to break off talks with Tehran, toughen the sanctions even further and prepare for war.

Meanwhile, Iran is testing missiles that can hit Israel and U.S. bases, and its large fleet of missile boats is exercising in the Gulf.

Otto von Bismarck said that preventive war was like committing suicide out of fear of death. Are we Americans headed for yet another unnecessary war?

In 1959, President Eisenhower invited Nikita Khrushchev, the Butcher of Budapest, to the United States for 10 days of touring and talks. In 1972, Richard Nixon traveled to Beijing to toast and talk with Chairman Mao, who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese and tens of thousands of Americans in Korea.

Ronald Reagan sought constantly for an opportunity to sit down across from the rulers of the “evil empire.”

Iran is not remotely in that league, either in crimes attributed to the regime or any actual or potential threat to the United States.

Have we no statesmen who can sit down, like Reagan at Reykjavik, and negotiate with Iran’s leaders for verifiable guarantees that she is not moving to nuclear weapons in return for something approaching normal relations?

If we could sit down with Stalin and Mao, why are the Ayatollah or Ahmadinejad so far beyond the pale? Can we just not handle that?

Read More

The Oasis

by Dennis Edwards:
Print

Several years ago, I spent two weeks in Sahrawi refugee camps near the oasis city of Tindouf, in southwest Algeria. Ten of us, from teenagers to fifty-somethings, had made the trip from our base in Granada, Spain, to speak and perform in the camps’ schools and community centers.

The Sahrawi people are the remnant of the nomadic tribes that roamed the deserts and coasts of the former Western Sahara. During the 100 years that they lived under Spanish rule, they became accustomed to living in more stationary situations and built large communities like Smara.

When Spanish colonial rule collapsed in 1975, Morocco and Mauritania rushed to fill the vacuum. The indigenous Sahrawis fought a losing battle, while most of the international community looked the other way. For over 30 years, nearly 200,000 Sahrawis have lived in squalid conditions in the hamada—a type of desert landscape consisting of largely barren, rocky plateaus. Summer temperatures there reach 55ºC (130ºF).

We were impressed by the humility of the Sahrawi. They are neither politically nor religiously fanatical. Their plight has been largely ignored for nearly four decades, but they are not bitter. God looks down upon them, they say, and will one day save them.

We lived with three families during our stay, and each treated us royally. The living conditions were basic—there was no running water, electricity was only from solar panels and 12-volt batteries, and the heat was almost unbearable—but the hospitality and camaraderie more than compensated. Family and greater family units were strong. No violence, crime, or drugs were evident. No noisy city traffic or construction work. The blanket of stars in the night sky was not hidden behind high-rises or obscured by the reflected glare of city lights. We had stepped back in time, where globalization and modern conveniences were nearly nonexistent, yet we were renewed and invigorated spiritually.

We laughed and danced and sang. We talked and listened. Even the days were tranquil. We had a barbeque by moonlight on the sand dunes, and sang songs together about love and peace and faith in God.

When we returned to Spain, our friends applauded us. “What a great sacrifice you made to go to those refugee camps,” they said. But we answered, “No, we were blessed!”

Email

Read More

Ermes Borgnino on Jesus of Narareth Film

Read More

Concerns about Reiki! YouTube

Read More

Reiki Exposed!

Read More

Lessons For Europe and America: Why Iceland Bounced Back So Fast!

Lessons For Europe: Why Iceland Bounced Back So Fast

By Henryk M. Broder, Die Welt, July 5, 2012

REYKJAVIK—What kind of a crisis can you neither see nor smell, touch nor taste?


Here, in fact, the hotels are booked solid, cafes are full, the stores full of merchandise, although a visitor may be surprised that an Icelandic tomato costs twice as much as an imported Italian one. The new opera and concert venue called the Harpa in Reykjavik, which cost 170 million euros to build, is featuring Jethro Tull, with its iconic lead singer Ian Anderson performing “Thick As A Brick” in its entirety. The big 1,800-seat hall is completely sold out even with tickets costing between 50 and 60 euros each.

“You really don’t notice anything,” says Olafur Isleifsson, a professor at the Haskolinn i Reykjavik, the country’s largest private university. It trains economists, computer scientists, engineers and jurists. Olafur, 57, earned his Bachelor degree in mathematics at the University of Iceland, and his Masters in economy at the London School of Economics, then worked for the International Monetary Fund in Washington, Iceland’s Central Bank, and as advisor to Prime Minister Thorstein Palsson. Since 2003 he’s been teaching economics and statistics at the Haskolinn.

“And do you know why you don’t see anything?” Olafur makes a face like a poker player about to reveal his hand. He recalls Oct. 5, 2008, when then-Prime Minister Geir Haarde called a state of emergency and ended his speech to the nation with the words ‘May God bless Iceland’. “It was as if an atomic bomb had exploded,” he recalled. “But it turned out to be not an atomic bomb but a neutron bomb. And a neutron bomb doesn’t destroy houses: it only destroys paper assets.”

In early 2008, the total assets of the three largest Icelandic banks were ten times the country’s gross national product. No government in the world would have been in a position to save these banks. Within days they were nationalized. How things could have come to that is something Icelanders are still asking themselves four years later.

“It became a chain reaction. Businesses couldn’t get credit and went bust, unemployment rose to nearly 10%, and the Icelandic krone was devalued by 50%.” Which among other things resulted in disaster for Icelanders who’d let their banks talk them into taking out cheap euro or dollar mortgages—loans that they could now no longer afford to service. Somebody who had borrowed 10 million kroner suddenly found themselves with a debt of 20 million kroner—often, sums that were greater than what their property was worth.

Olafur favored an “American solution.” This meant that instead of spending a lifetime paying for a house or apartment that would never belong to you, “you cleared your stuff out, sent the key to the bank, and moved elsewhere.” The solution didn’t catch on, and the now nationalized banks ended up writing off part of what they were owed.

The ones who really took a beating were the 300,000 British and 120,000 Dutch who, attracted by high interest rates, deposited their savings in the country’s largest bank, the Landsbanki. The program was known as “Icesave” and was anything but risk-free. The British ended up losing some five billion euros, and the Dutch 1.7 billion.

The Icelandic government said that it was willing to pay partial compensation to those who had lost money, and parliament approved a law—albeit by only a tiny majority—to that effect.

And then something happened that absolutely no one had expected. President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson refused to sign the law into being. While the British and Dutch raged and threatened sanctions, Icelanders were delighted and called for a referendum—a first in the country’s history.

And on March 6, 2010, 93% of voters rejected the compensation law. The government, anxious to preserve its credibility, put a modified version of the law before parliament which was approved by a large majority. Until 2046, it would have paid out on a yearly basis no more than 5% of state revenues. President Grimsson refused to sign that law too, and at a referendum on April 9, 2011, 57% of voters also rejected the law.

“It was a morally sound and economically sensible decision,” says Olafur. “Investors who let themselves be seduced by high interest rates have to accept the higher risk involved.” Icelanders also didn’t see why they should be liable for bank speculation. After all, “when things were going well, the bankers didn’t share their profits with us.”

The idea that has established itself in Europe—that profits stay private but that losses have to made up by society at large—is something that doesn’t sit with Icelanders, who set great store by individual responsibility. One can have success, but one can also fail—and responsibility for either should not be passed off onto others. In this regard, Icelanders could be seen as lagging behind the Europeans, or as way ahead of them.

“We’re doing well,” says Olafur: unemployment is on the decline, although at around 5% it’s still a little higher than it was in 2008; for a year now the economy has been improving and economists are predicting growth of 2.5% in 2012. However, inflation—at around 6%—is worrisome. Nevertheless: “We’re in the process of pulling ourselves out of the swamp.”

The country’s banks have stopped operations outside Iceland, and now only serve Icelanders. Turnovers at the fisheries are substantial and profits large. The construction industry, which came to a standstill in 2008, is gearing up again. And since the krone was devalued the country has become more attractive to tourists—not cheap, exactly, but not much more expensive than Italy or Austria. “We’re back in reality,” says Olafur.

Though it will still be several years before the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis are fully overcome, one thing is already clear: nobody in Iceland is talking about joining the EU or introducing the euro. They haven’t forgotten the malicious and vindictive remarks they heard from Europeans during the crisis. But that doesn’t mean they’re holding a grudge. They know they depend on the European market. Who else is going to buy their fish, read their writers, and worship singer-songwriter Björk?

“We really sincerely wish Europeans well,” Olafur says.

Read More

Less Confident People Are More Sucessful

By Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, HBR, July 6, 2012

There is no bigger cliché in business psychology than the idea that high self-confidence is key to career success. It is time to debunk this myth. In fact, low self-confidence is more likely to make you successful.

After many years of researching and consulting on talent, I’ve come to the conclusion that self-confidence is only helpful when it’s low. Sure, extremely low confidence is not helpful: it inhibits performance by inducing fear, worry, and stress, which may drive people to give up sooner or later. But just-low-enough confidence can help you recalibrate your goals so they are (a) more realistic and (b) attainable. Is that really a problem? Not everyone can be CEO of Coca Cola or the next Steve Jobs.

If your confidence is low, rather than extremely low, you stand a better chance of succeeding than if you have high self-confidence. There are three main reasons for this:

1. Lower self-confidence makes you pay attention to negative feedback and be self-critical:Most people get trapped in their optimistic biases, so they tend to listen to positive feedback and ignore negative feedback. Although this may help them come across as confident to others, in any area of competence (e.g., education, business, sports or performing arts) achievement is 10% performance and 90% preparation. Thus, the more aware you are of your soft spots and weaknesses, the better prepared you will be.

Low self-confidence may turn you into a pessimist, but when pessimism teams-up with ambition it often produces outstanding performance. To be the very best at anything, you will need to be your harshest critic, and that is almost impossible when your starting point is high self-confidence. Exceptional achievers always experience low levels of confidence and self-confidence, but they train hard and practice continually until they reach an acceptable level of competence. Indeed, success is the best medicine for your insecurities.

2. Lower self-confidence can motivate you to work harder and prepare more: If you are serious about your goals, you will have more incentive to work hard when you lack confidence in your abilities. In fact, low confidence is only demotivating when you are not serious about your goals.

Most people like the idea of being exceptional, but not enough to do what it takes to achieve it. Most people want to be slim, healthy, attractive and successful, but few people are willing to do what it takes to achieve it—which suggests that they don’t really want these things as much as they think. As the legendary Paul Arden (ex-creative director at Saatchi & Saatchi) noted: “I want means: if I want it enough I will get it. Getting what you want means making the decisions you need to make to get what you want.”. If you really want what you say you want, then, your low confidence will only make you work harder to achieve it—because it will indicate a discrepancy between your desired goal and your current state.

3. Lower self-confidence reduces the chances of coming across as arrogant or being deluded. Although we live in a world that worships those who worship themselves—from Donald Trump to Lady Gaga to the latest reality TV “star”—the consequences of hubris are now beyond debate. According to Gallup, over 60% of employees either dislike or hate their jobs, and the most common reason is that they have narcissistic bosses. If managers were less arrogant, fewer employees would be spending their working hours on Facebook, productivity rates would go up, and turnover rates would go down.

Lower self-confidence reduces not only the chances of coming across as arrogant, but also of being deluded. Indeed, people with low self-confidence are more likely to admit their mistakes—instead of blaming others—and rarely take credit for others’ accomplishments. This is arguably the most important benefit of low self-confidence because it points to the fact that low self-confidence can bring success, not just to individuals but also to organizations and society.

In brief, if you are serious about your goals, low self-confidence can be your biggest ally to accomplish them. It will motivate you to work hard, help you work on your limitations, and stop you from being a jerk, deluded, or both. It is therefore time debunk the myth: High self-confidence isn’t a blessing, and low self-confidence is not a curse—in fact, it is the other way around.

Read More

What is polonium-210 and how can it kill?

Jill Lawless, AP, Jul 5, 2012

LONDON (AP)—Polonium first hit the headlines when it was used to kill KGB agent-turned-Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006.

This week, Yasser Arafat’s widow has called for the late Palestinian leader’s body to be exhumed after scientists in Switzerland found elevated traces of radioactive polonium-210 on clothing he allegedly wore before his death in 2004.

What is polonium and how dangerous can it be?

WHAT IS POLONIUM? Polonium-210 is one of the world’s rarest elements, discovered in 1898 by scientists Marie and Pierre Curie and named in honor of her country of origin, Poland. It occurs naturally in very low concentrations in the Earth’s crust and also is produced artificially in nuclear reactors. In small amounts, it has legitimate industrial uses, mainly in devices to eliminate static electricity.

IS IT DANGEROUS? Very. If ingested, it is lethal in extremely small doses. Less than 1 gram (0.04 ounces) of the silver powder is sufficient to kill. A 2007 study by radiation experts from Britain’s Health Protection Agency concluded that once polonium-210 is deposited in the bloodstream, its potent effects are nearly impossible to stop. A poisoning victim would experience multiple organ failure as alpha radiation particles bombard the liver, kidneys and bone marrow from within. The symptoms shown by Litvinenko—nausea, hair loss, throat swelling and pallor—are also typical.

WHO CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON IT? The good news—not too many people. The element can be a byproduct of the chemical processing of uranium, but usually is made artificially in a nuclear reactor or a particle accelerator. These nuclear facilities are monitored and tightly regulated under international agreements.

John Croft, a retired British radiation expert who worked on the Litvinenko case, said a dose large enough to kill would likely have to come from a government with either civilian or military nuclear capabilities. That category includes Russia—producer of the polonium believed to have killed Litvinenko—and Arafat’s foe, Israel. But it also includes dozens of other nations, including the United States.

WHY WOULD IT BE ATTRACTIVE TO ASSASSINS? Polonium makes a good weapon. Its large alpha particles of radiation do not penetrate the skin and don’t set off radiation detectors, so it is relatively easy to smuggle across international borders. Polonium can be ingested through a wound or inhaled—but the surest method would be to have the victim consume it in food or drink. Litvinenko drank tea laced with polonium during a meeting at a luxury London hotel.

WHO HAS IT KILLED? Polonium poisoning is so rare that it took doctors several weeks to diagnose Litvinenko’s illness and security experts struggled to think of a previous case. More than five years after Litvinenko’s death, no one has been arrested. British prosecutors have named ex-KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi as their chief suspect, but Russia refuses to hand him over.

Some speculate that the Curies’ daughter Irene, who died of leukemia, may have developed the disease after accidentally being exposed to polonium in the laboratory.

Israeli author Michal Karpin has claimed that the cancer deaths of several Israeli scientists were the result of a leak at the Weizmann Institute of Science in 1957. Israeli officials have never acknowledged a connection.

CAN SCIENTISTS PROVE WHETHER ARAFAT WAS POISONED WITH POLONIUM? Scientists caution that traces on Arafat’s clothing aren’t sufficient proof of poisoning. Exhuming his body would a surer method. Derek Hill, a radiological science expert at University College London, said eight years after Arafat’s death in 2004, any polonium would have decayed and would be far less radioactive than it was at the time. But he says it would still be much higher than normal background levels and with an autopsy it should be possible to tell “with a pretty high confidence” whether Arafat had polonium in his body when he died.

Read More

Like a father pities his children! powerpoint

Read More

The name of the game is faith and trust!

The name of the game is faith and trust.

The Lord loves to see if you've got real faith and you're going to trust Him no matter what. Sometimes our faith can be tested right to the brink, to the edge, even to death to show that it's real faith! That's the faith you've got to have if you're really going to make it. You've got to be willing to trust the Lord, live or die, sink or swim!--Like JOB! Job finally made it, and it's one of the most glorious testimonies in the whole Bible of suffering and defeat and discouragement and yet a faith that carried him through.That's the greatest victory of all, when you seem to be defeated and you still trust the Lord.

That must be the greatest and the most pleasing thing to God, that even when it looks like you're defeated, you still trust Him anyhow, like Job. The Lord must really be pleased with that kind of faith.--Faith in the face of disaster, faith in the face of agony, faith in the face of death! (Heb.11:6; 1Jn.5:4)

He loves to watch you make it in spite of all the tests and trials. He loves to watch you win, win the race, endure the affliction and the battle and fight through and win! So, God bless and keep you trusting!

Did you enjoy this Daily Might article? If so, you might want to subscribe to receive them daily in your own email box!
Deep Truths

Read More