Highlighted Article
Haiti's Real Tragedy

Much has been written on the crisis and devastation in Haiti. Too little focus has been given to the real tragedy - the lack of function of a Haitian authority. Severe earthquakes and other momentous calamities have destroyed areas of third world nations. Nevertheless, unless the western press has properly failed to report the aftermath of those catastrophes, reports have never shown the severe lack of authority for providing medicines, food and shelter for the stricken population, as the world witnessed in the aftermath of Haiti's earthquake.

Detractors often criticize the United States for hypocrisy, preaching, a 'holier than thou' attitude, and interference in the functions of sovereign nations. Just as there has been excessive but necessary coverage to the Haitian earthquake, there has been excessive but necessary coverage to U.S. role in many world tragedies. Unfortunately, U.S. relations with Haiti follow each of the described criticisms. The U.S. governments played a role in the Haitian government passivity that traumatized the Haitian people after the severe earthquake.

Comments
United States Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaks with authority but without clarity and with counterproductive exaggeration.

During the PBS Lehrer Report, Jan. 4, 2010, Secretary Clinton offered:

There is a threat to stability in Yemen.
Which threatens area stability.
And global stability.

Evidently, the Secretary is not aware that Yemen has been unstable for decades. Its instability has slightly affected Saudi Arabia, but does it affect the stability of the entire area or global stability? The U.S., principally due to the training of terrorists in Yemen, has a special interest in assisting the Yemen government to stabilize and subdue the terrorists. However, by enlarging and exaggerating the extent of the instability, Secretary Hillary Clinton leaves the impression that the U.S. intends to play a leading role in bringing stability to Yemen. This impression reminds others of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the U.S. also used the phrase of "global threat" to invade those nations.

The Secretary of State's remarks provoked the Yemen government to distance itself from the U.S. rather than cooperate, lest other Arab nations accuse Yemen of permitting U.S. forces into the nation to combat the insurgents and terrorists. Other Middle East nations, including those hostile to the United States, questioned U.S. motives and reacted in a negative manner. instead of receiving cooperation in its efforts to subdue Yemen insurgents, the U.S. alienates those it needs for cooperation. The exaggeration was counterproductive.

On January 21, 2010 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at the Washington DC Newseum. The Washington Post summarized her remarks:

"Countries or individuals that engage in cyber attacks should face consequences and international condemnation."

"For companies, this issue is about more than claiming the moral high ground; it comes down to the trust between firms and their customers."

"Countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century."

The Secretary additionally "urged global condemnation of countries which build electronic barriers to parts of the internet or filter search engines."

Questions:

(1) What were the purposes of Secretary Clinton's remarks? Did she expect China to agree to change its stance? Just the opposite occurred. China reacted sarcastically. The U.S. can only hope the new world power doesn't take revenge by dumping its U.S. Treasury bonds, investments that have rescued the U.S. economy.

(2) Isn't it China's business how it approaches the Internet. Why should the U.S., who is not harmed by a foreign nation's policy, become disoriented that some persons in a nation don't receive the complete impact of the Internet?

(3) Does Hillary Clinton believe that an invigorated China, which has the greatest growth rates, is now the world's leading exporter, which has escaped the world recession, which showed in the preparation and conduction of the Olympics its innovations and technological prowess , "risk walling itself off from the progress of the next century." Seems that is more the U.S. direction.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might know politics, but does she know diplomacy? U.S. policies have too often been counterproductive and detrimental to U.S. interests. Sorrowfully, the new administration does not indicate any change in its inglorious endeavors.

Observations
Isn't it Amazing....

In 1994 the Clinton administration succeeded in replacing the Haiti government with Jean Bertrand Aristide. Fifteen years later, Aristide has been exiled, Haiti remains the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere and has, as shown during the earthquake, no functioning government.

The Bush administration placed high priority on bringing democracy to The Middle East. Nevertheless, major U.S. partners, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan , and the Gulf States, have hardly changed their autocratic operations and don't exhibit a trend towards democracy.

The financial organizations who caused the economic crisis aren't be held responsible for their errors. Just the opposite - many of them are receiving public funds.

The western world economy shifted almost overnight from massive loans and easy credit for many to almost no credit available for any.

Socialist leaders in Brazil, Chile, and partly in Argentina have maintained prosperity for their nations during difficult times while free enterprise leaders still face possible economic catastrophe

"Super patriots" is the group usually willing to sacrifice democratic ideals for expediency.

'Free enterprisers' welcome government loans for themselves but question deficits that assist others.

Mexico has been the principal entrance for drugs to the United States. Yet, the elder Bush attacked Noriega in Panama, without proving Noriega participated in the drug trade. After arresting Noriega, no drop in the drug trade was ever noticed.

The U.S., which often proclaims that collective guilt is irresponsible, still maintains a fifty plus years of embargo against Cuba. No change in Cuba attitude, leadership or policies have been noted. Severe suffering of the Cuban people, due to the embargo, has been noted.

A principal argument that the U.S. has with the Taliban and Iran is their implementation of Sharia law, extreme in Afghanistan, much less pronounced in the Islamic State of Iran. However, the U.S. has no argument with friend Saudi Arabia, who governs with the Wahhabi branch of Islam, which is the poster for Sharia law.

PSALM 15

Old Testament

REUTERS

The not well known slender-billed curlew seen in Morocco in 1995