Journal & Articles

Several months have passed since Russia announced that it would be ready to take Iran’s uranium for enriching process. This could have been a feasible solution to long thorny nuclear crisis. Apparently few persons do not know that there are suffice reasons to assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons, yet at the same time Iran continues to claim that it needs nuclear energy for peaceful purposes only. Most of the representatives of Western countries that participate in negotiations with Iran on this issue claimed that it was a reasonable solution to the stalemate in the crisis. Moreover it looked like Iran might be inclined accept this solution as well.

Even if Iran agreed on Russian proposals, there is no guarantee that this would be an effective solution for the long term period. One must remember that Iran had been developing nuclear program secretly before it was revealed several years ago. Even if most of Iranian nuclear program was transferred to Russia, Iran would still have suffice resources, knowledge, professionals and above all-will to produce nuclear weapon. If one takes into account past experience, then it is possible to draw the conclusion that Iran will continue its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons whatever solutions other countries and nations might provide. Iran is determined to become regional superpower. Few persons who are know current social, economic and political situation in this region would doubt that Iran has all reasons to transform itself into the strongest military power in the region. It has comparatively modern and highly-equipped army as well as large resources of oil and other energy sources. As one can judge by current internal situation in Iran some hardliners and conservatives might believe that Iran should acquire nuclear weapons in order to enhance its power in the world.

Neither there are substantial grounds to believe that Iran will inform other nations about its decisions in the future. So what steps must be taken to resolve the issue?! In order to answer this question one should differentiate between long-term and short-range prospects. Apparently none of current proposals is fully acceptable for all nations that participate in negotiations. Productive progress can be possible only if there are some valuable concessions from Western countries. Concessions such as concrete proposals to resolve some economic and social problems in Iran in return for the abandoning of nuclear ambitions of the country might help to resolve this protracted and very dangerous crisis.

If you are wondering why the United States can send troops around the world, but failed to respond to a domestic emergency in a timely manner, you are not alone. Expect the lack of planning for emergency relief, in the aftermath and devastation left behind by Hurricane Katrina, to be the subject of a federal investigation.

The National Guard arrived in large numbers on Friday, September 2nd, but how is it possible that the poor people of New Orleans were left four days to fend for themselves? Doesn’t the United States have a rapid deployment force? Yes, we do, and many large military installations are within an hour of the Gulf Coast, when traveling by air. Many more military bases are within two hours of the devastation.

On Sunday, August 28th – one day before Hurricane Katrina landed on the Gulf Coast it was labeled a category 5 hurricane. So, what was the emergency rescue plan? Was anybody planning any rescue efforts on Sunday night?

As luck would have it, Katrina turned out to be a category 4 Hurricane. Can you imagine the devastation, if this storm had been worse? Some parts of New Orleans are 10 feet below sea level and a system of levees, normally, keeps the surrounding water out.

Referring to the Federal response for relief help, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said, “They don’t have a clue what’s going on down here.” Mayor Nagin’s remarks are an understatement. Logistically speaking, this is not as complicated as a relief effort to Somalia.

President Bush said, “A lot of people are working hard to help those who’ve been affected. The results are not acceptable.” He is not kidding; if we can airlift food and weapons to Afghanistan, why is delivery to the Gulf Coast and New Orleans a problem?

The United States constitution was designed to provide equal protection under the law. However, from some of the recent stories which have been publicized, it is apparent that the law lacks consistency. Consistency in the law would ultimately mean that for every particular crime of which one is convicted; they should receive the same punishment.

Our society has witnessed this inconsistency with capital punishment. Questions arise as to why certain people receive the death penalty and others just walk away with life in prison. So why the discrepancy in this course of action; it is because before anyone is sent to death the governor of each respective state would have to sign that he agrees to have the death penalty carried on. It must not be surprising that some governors do not believe in this type of punishment, inmates will, however, end up sitting on death row till they die. This can be a very long and daunting experience for the inmates whose fate is rarely unknown.

I challenge the Justice system by asking,” is this social justice under the law?” Does it mean that depending on where one commits a crime you get a better chance of not being sent to death? If so, will it elucidate why certain states have reported higher rates of crime? It is imperative for the courts to come to a consensus as to what will bring consistency within the judicial system. As the adage goes, what is good for the goose is good for the gander; therefore what a convicted felon gets in Texas for murder should be the same in New York. The sovereignty of state courts in declaring certain statutes unconstitutional has been a major factor why each state can not have similar laws.

It may be time for the United States Supreme Court to take a firm stance as to whether the country should follow other industrial nations in abolishing the death penalty or not. Even though their action may not bring contentment to each citizen, it will give to the law what it is lacking; consistency. There are a million reasons advocates of the death penalty will argue as to why it should not be abolished and in countering there are an equal number of reasons why it should be abolished. This text, however, is not debating about the controversy surrounding capital punishment. The law was designed to provide equal protection; therefore that is what the judicial system should try to uphold.

The failure is sundered within each of us, it festers as blame to others, a manifestation of the shame that belongs not to ourselves but of the participants of a deadlier game. Yet innately the affectation begins with our own visceral manumission of guilt, and sadly, empirically lies buried in our own personal failings.

We ponder all that which seems inherently wrong. We awaken to ourselves each morning and gaze at the soul that stares back at us, and ask, “What do I know of such things?” Politically we are involved in a myriad of wars; our own political system has become moribund and incapable of decisive and thoughtful long-term beneficial actions. At the same time we have managed to cause a global warming process that may not be reversible, with unfathomably catastrophic consequences. Yet we no longer trust our scientific community, as we undermine their ability to help them help us make informed decisions. Corporations are now the new soulless leaders of the same communities that we raise our children in: our children, pain and agony none withstanding, are but fodder for their institutionalized thought and labor. Lobbyists are but jackals, which obfuscate and enable the lack of clear and forward thinking that would be required to navigate through these complicated times.

Woe be to the participants: the excoriated politicians, the confused and parsed scientists, the unfeeling and automatonic corporations, the jack-booted lobbyists with their narrow-minded obfuscations, and still there are bureaucrats, the ever-plodding stewards of the status quo. All are to blame. It becomes utterly confusing and so we consequently throw up our hands and hope that serendipity might take us all to the promised land of Biblical and Koranic paradises of no responsibility and perfect harmony for all eternity. When we each awaken in the morning and look in the mirror, the failure should be obvious. Our visage stares back at us in mute mirth smirking at our lack of insight. How convenient that they should all provide themselves as cannon fodder for our obvious shortcomings.

Chaos complexity theory applies here in its truest sense. Things are not so simple, and become ever more complicated and require ever more attention then before. The problems today are more complicated; any pandering to a simple explanation is an abject definition of ignorance. There are no backwoods colloquialisms that fit a particular situation, present day analogies aside. The query remains, what we know as a collective, intrinsically defined by what we know individually, and how we apply this knowledge so we can make informed decisions in our lives as well as a people. Requiring less dooms us to failure as the founders of democracy failed in old Greece.

Guilt is a primordial emotion we all feel, and all are too familiar with its cold narcissistic touch. We wrap ourselves in a comforting cocoon of justification, but as the feeling is primordial it is useless to try and escape its darkening touch. It declares us to be unfit fathers and mothers, a chronic waster of valuable time, its ball peen steeliness pounding into us the failures that we truly are. But what an enlightened group we have become, and let us pat ourselves on the back as congratulations are due, as the self-help nation is within its goal of declaring victory on its war on guilt, puncturing its effectiveness and regulating it to some type of psychosis. Perhaps there might be a reason for guilt for it to be a primordial emotion, as is it possible that the survival of our species requires this most irritating and pervasive type of thought. Does complete victory deign us capable of justifying anything?

The fault is our own, in each and every one of us. Ask yourself what you know of history? Middle eastern history might be of value at this point, but what pray tell do you know of any of the underlying political issues of the day? Have you researched them, or are you listening to the ever-shortening descriptions provided by someone else you may know, or perhaps the 15 second sound bite doled out by our media? What do you know of the education system we currently use? What do you know of stem cell research? Are any of the short synopses you’ve heard something that you would be satisfied with if you or your loved one’s life depended upon it? What is string theory? For that matter, what is quantum physics? It has been around for 75 years, and is it really too complicated, or are you really so lazy you just couldn’t spare the time? When was the last time you picked up a book, a real book, not a piece of tripe? I know you suffer from the guilt, I do and I read fifty or odd tomes a year, we all suffer, and should.

Guilt is defined as the punishment one can receive when guilty of a moral wrong. Our punishment is as aforementioned and fully justified for the innate failure within each of us not to take the time to be overly educated and informed, to never reach for what we do not know, to not search and forever fulfill the emptiness of our knowledge. Guilt has judged us and is providing the punishment as we speak.