“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” (Lord Acton)

We all like to think of ourselves as kind, honest, and benevolent. In our hearts, we are convinced that should we ever attain personal power, whether through building our own business, rising to the corporate executive office, becoming extraordinarily influential in our area of expertise, or in winning public office, we will continue to be honest and ethical, incorruptible to the end.

The action of wielding power varies greatly with the individual involved and the extent of power obtained. We are all familiar with the petty tyrant at work who rules a tiny business empire with greed and self-indulgence, bullying underlings without any sense of fairness or mercy. We have seen the research scientists who have forged a reputation over a lifetime fall into disgrace through subverting results to support their theories and their sponsors.

As the extent of power increases, we see the Enron and Lincoln Savings brand of tableaux unfold. Not only does that same greed and self-indulgence hold sway, but the concept of being above the law arises and accountability and trust are jettisoned from the boardroom. The more esoteric the lifestyle becomes, the greater the disconnect between the powerful and the rest of the world. Those who lack power are to be cheated, manipulated, and drained of their possessions – surely only just desserts for their failure to rise to the top.

In a world where hereditary monarchies are an anachronism, the most absolute power lies in the political sphere whether wielded by a military-backed dictator or by those who have been so repeatedly elected to office that they no longer see themselves as public representatives but as entitled oligarchs of a system they control.

The presumptuous ambition of one man, Julius Caesar, led to the destruction of a republic that had guided Rome to the heights of civilization. The empire he created held the seeds of its own destruction in its descent into the unrestrained autocracies of a string of less than illustrious rulers who wielded their absolute power with caprice and personal whim.

The framers of the Constitution had a vision of a government where no such unconstrained power could arise because of the checks and balances inherent in the system they devised. No one could be above the law because the rule of law was paramount. The advise and consent required from different branches of government ensured that a multitude of voices and philosophical ideas were involved in any major decision.

But those who drove the development of our constitutional law were giants in their own right. Washington’s refusal to accept the title of king, advocated by several of his supporters, signaled his rejection of too much power concentrated in one individual. His peers – Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, and many more – followed the same course: divide power to ensure that the needs of the many can be met through a myriad of representative voices.

Over the centuries, the checks and balances they built have kept the ship of state afloat. Occasionally listing to port or starboard, the sheer multiplicity of participants in the political process have been repetitively able to pull it back to an upright middle course. Certainly, there have been many dark periods of corruption and incompetence. We face such a darkness now: individuals in office for too long, with too much power within their grasping fingers; too many officials who have forgotten that they are public servants, developing a mindset of entitlement and the conviction that they know, better than anyone else, what is good for the public who, after all, elected them.

Only the rule of law, so carefully crafted more than 200 years ago, can keep them in check. The lawful prosecution of a congressman accepting millions of pounds in bribes, of a congressional leader who used election money as he saw fit rather than as the law required, and administration officials who destroyed a woman’s career and jeopardized the lives of covert operatives all over the world, restores balance in a world rife with corruption, greed, and overweening pride.

Ongoing investigations into the honesty of leaders in evoking the need for military intervention and the rising voice of dissent against financial favors for the rich and powerful at the cost of cutting services to the powerless poor, offer a glimmer of hope that the corruption will be curbed and the hubris of our leaders punctured and exposed.

The embattled defendants cry foul, claiming that the only transgression is the political ambition of their critics. They have moved so far beyond the pale of the common citizen that their own corruption and misdeeds seem entirely ordinary and acceptable to them.

Happily, unlike the impotent rubber-stamp Roman senators, we can face our would-be Caesars without threat of bodily harm and we can cast them out of their cozy nest with the most powerful weapon ever devised: the ballot box.

For pacifism one agrees tipologia of opinion, in ideological kind, founded on the conviction that the conflicts between various be communities(, etnie, etc.) or between various factions to the inside of the same community, they must be resolved without to resort to the military crash.

Therefore, the refusal, for most categorical, expressed from the supporters of the pacifism regards the war, that is that organized litigation between etnie or states or cultures, lead with the force, for economic reasons, acquisition of territory, obtaining of superiority or dominion, or other reasons, and that it comes fought from various individuals from those who decide it, and - for the great part - endured from still various persons. On all the other shapes of violence it would have to stop case for case, with the risk to generalize and therefore to banalize the concept. In so far as, it is well to avoid to carry out an any parallel between the interpersonal situations of war and conflicts, aspect, this, rather misleading within the arguments on the opportunities of the several strategies of conflict resolution. The only found likeness between a war conflict and an interpersonal one resides in the ascertainment that - as in international politics - the greater part of the interpersonal conflicts is not resolved at all with the violence, but in pacific ways (to pact to accept to consider the threats pacific means).

In other words, not only the pacifist thinks that the peace is a better option from the point of view moral: egliella he thinks that it he is also functional, that is - banally - that convene more, if the objective is to resolve a conflict.

An other element important to consider is the variety and the degree of effectiveness of the pacifist strategies of fight: it is not rare opinion that, to part celebre the example of Gandhi, not is important examples of efficient pacifism. In truth, the picture is very different, and touches circumstances and contexts many several for times and ways (some scattered examples:

During II the World war, to the next day of the German occupation of Norway, the schools opposed not violent resistance to the nazis. The Germans imposed they didactic charter in 1941: teaching struck, supports to you from parents, pupils and from the churches. More than thousands teaching they were it arrests and it sendes to you to you in the concentration camps, in the north of the country. Hundreds were tortured, but least they will yield. In the 1942 it arrests to it to you came rilasciati and that same autumn the schools reopened without the nazi programs.
In Denmark, always during nazism, when the racial laws were proclamate, all the people it was opposed. When the order was given to write “Jude” on the display windows of the Hebrew storees, all the traders - also the not Hebrew ones - wrote. When it was sets up the yellow star to the Hebrew, all the population, to begin from the king, made equally. To the end, Denmark can boast the percentage and the number of Hebrew deports to you in the lower concentration camps of II the world war.

During XIX the century, inHungary dominated fromAustria, the churches protestants endured a hard repression. To the processes against bishops and shepherds it arrests, the students made solidarity manifestations to you, in total Hush and dressed of black. The entire people made nonviolent resistance for independence of the country. They were boycotts the products to you Austrians; nobody paid the taxes. In 1866, the emperor Francisco Giuseppe introduced the military conscription for the war against the Prussia: nobody was introduced. In 1867, Hungary obtained independence.
Always in XIX the century, Norway obtained independence from Sweden with exclusively not violent means, above all for the fundamental mediation of subsequently the Prize Nobel Fridtjof Nansen.
The cited examples belong to situations substantially already hasty, that the not ago justice to the pacifism idea therefore as would go understanding, that it adds, to the attempt to resolve conflicts already starts to you, two main contexts:

Those in which not violent means (diplomacy, manifestations, deal and quant’ other to you) have avoided ‘ in via preventiva’ that a situation fell. This portion of events goes considered the greater force of the pacifism, even if less eclatante;
those in which the use of the war the example Israel - Palestine has been demonstrated incapable to resolve the conflict( are sin too much paradigmatico), putting more than other to knot the complex net of economic interests that wheel around the war industry.

The tension between supporters of the peace and supporters of the armed conflict today is replaced from a shape of apparently more tenuous contrast, but in truth much similar one. To prettamente dialectic level, the old figure of ‘ guerrafondaio’ is probably passing to the end of the Second World war, replaced from that thinnest one of the supporter of the badly necessary one, that is of who it thinks that determined situations they catch up a such state of deterioration from painfully being able to be resolved () only with an armed conflict. The contesa intellectual it today seems to carry out itself on this land.

Operation: Quiet Comfort launched the Sea to Shining Sea Competition to help send care packages for soldiers. The goal of the contest is to collect as many empty printer ink cartridges. The collected cartridges will then be sold and the money will go towards the cost of shipping care packages. These packages are for injured soldiers who are being treated in medical facilities overseas.

The invitation for the contest was posted online in April 13 and lasts until Dec. 31, 2008. It is a national contest that is open to current and non-members. All brands of empty ink cartridges can be sent such as Apple, Canon, Compaq, HP, Dell, Xerox, Apple, Brother, Xerox, Samsung, Sharp and Lexmark. Those who wish to join can do so either as an individual or as a part of the Operation: Quiet Comfort organization.

Those who wish to donate used cartridges can send it directly to the Funding Factory with the correct shipping label and the contributions are credited to the group. Once the cartridges are sent, the participants will receive a post card, which they can send to the organization so that the contribution will be tallied to their state. Participants can also send the cartridges to the Operation: Quiet Comfort offices directly so that the group will receive more funding from the Funding Factory.

All fifty states are grouped into 4 regions for the competition. Every contribution from each state will be credited to the total contributions of that state. While there is no actual prize or reward for the region which sends in the most contributions, the aim of the Sea to Shining Sea Competition is to raise a large number of cartridges to increase the funding for Operation: Quiet Comfort projects.

Operation: Quiet Comfort is a non-profit organization made up mostly of volunteers. It is classified as a tax-exempt charitable institution; meaning donations to the group are often tax-deductible. The aim of the group is to provide support and aid to American soldiers and military men that are stationed overseas particularly in Iraq. The groups mostly seek to fulfill the medical and health needs of wounded or recuperating soldiers.

The group specializes in creating care packages called “Go Bags”. These kits are meant to help soldiers when they are first transported to a medical facility and do not have access to their own personal belongings. The packages contain quilts, personal hygiene products as well as other items to help them pass the time or relax.

The contents of the “Go Bags” rely on the experience and knowledge of Pastoral Care Services. Most of the supplies shipped by the organization may be found with medic teams or at Troop Medical Clinics and U.S. Combat Support Hospitals.

Almost every weekday, for the last thirty some years, I have purchased three or four newspapers and read them at lunch time. I do this in order to relax and in some cases learn something. One of the ‘newspapers’ I buy is the Los Angeles Times and I am going to use that ‘newspaper’ as my example for this article. In my opinion the Los Angeles Times has always been a somewhat liberal paper. I never minded that as some of my views were also somewhat liberal. A while back, however, the paper was purchased by the Tribune Company and the paper went from taking a slightly liberal slant to taking a very liberal slant and it went from reporting the news to trying to influence the news. Now, the paper seems to have gone off the deep end and is trying to control the news and brainwash it’s readers.

As long as I can remember, newspapers have used their front page to report hard news, news that they considered to be of great importance to their readers. The Los Angeles Times and many other newspapers now seem to be using their front pages to influence their readers. Now, in addition to slanting their stories to the left or right, many newspapers are slipping op-ed pieces (I am all for op-ed pieces as long as they are printed in the op-ed section of the paper and listed as opinions or editorials. I like reading other people’s viewpoints. After all, I might learn something new.) into the news sections of the paper and even onto the front page.

Today, December 23, 2005, the paper ran, on the front page, above the fold, near the center, a piece headlined “GOP Hitting Limits of Agressive Tactics”. To be fair the paper did insert in smaller type, above the headline, the words “News Analysis” (I wonder how many readers know that ‘news analysis’ is just another way of saying editorial opinion. I also wonder how many people even read the words ‘News Analysis’.). This piece was written by a ‘Times Staff Writer’ who as far as I can tell, has never written a hard news item in his life. The only pieces, written by this writer, that I have ever read have been anti Republican, anti Bush and anti anyone and everyone who is not to the far left, opinion pieces. This piece slams the Republican Party and the Administration, praises the Democratic Party, gives a few partial statistics, lists several half truths and gives the writers opinion as to how the Republican Party is out to harm the environment, destroy the poor, overrun the Democratic Party and ruin this country. It does everything but report news, yet it is made to appear as a hard news piece. I would not mind this piece if it were published in the op-ed section of the paper (Everyone has the right to his or her opinion.) but, it offends me that it was published on the front page where news items belong.

Right (pardon the pun) below that piece is a piece headlined “U.N. Hit by a Bolt From the Right”. This piece about, John Bolton, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, seems to be innocuous, but if you read the whole piece you come away with the impression that Ambassador Bolton is a bullying right wing trouble maker who is ruining our relationships with our allies and with the U.N.. This piece is again an opinion or editorial. It is not hard news or even news. It would have been okay in the op-ed section, but it did not belong on the front page.

Neither of those pieces belonged on the front page. The only reason to have them there, is to attempt to influence the thinking of the paper’s readers.

The foregoing are just two examples of how the paper is trying to control public opinion. Whenever the paper publishes something good that has happened in Iraq or Afganistan the insert, into the piece, several bad things. Everytime they publish something good about a Republican, or even a moderate Democrat, they insert something negative. Negative pieces about Moderates and Conservatives are published on the front page or near the front and positive pieces are published near the back. Positive pieces about the left are published on the front page or near the front and negative pieces about the left are published near the back. In today’s paper they published a piece about the President defending our spy program. Where did they publish it? On the last page, page 32, of the national news section. They also published a piece about the President okaying troop cuts in Iraq. This piece was published on page 3 of the national news section, however, in the piece they also mention that there have been 2,150 U.S. deaths in Iraq, that a soldier was killed by a bomb and that the President “is under growing pressure to pare back U.S. troops in Iraq”. Again, the paper can’t print something positive without printing something negative, when it comes to the President.

By the way, who is putting pressure, on the President, to ‘pare back the troops in Iraq’? I know that I’m not. I don’t know enough about what is needed in Iraq to make that type of suggestion. As far as I can tell, most of the ‘pressure’ is coming from the far left, their spokespeople, the people that have bought into their ranting and the ‘talking heads’ that love to go on talk shows and show everyone how ‘in the loop’ they are, even though they usually turn out to know less than we do. Maybe we should pull back troops and then again maybe we should not. The only people that the President should be listening to are his Generals and certain people in the intelligence community, the Department Of Defense and the State Department. He should not be listening to his opponents (They have their own agenda.), reporters, publishers or the Hollywood Elite. They may think they know everything, but they don’t.

The phrase Middle East and the word peace are so contradictory that when put together they become an oxymoron. An oxymoron, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is “a rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined”. There are very few things in this world that are more contradictory than the words “Middle East peace.”

As long as there are Christians and Jews in this world, the fundamentalist Islamic Arabs will never allow peace. The Koran states, under 5:54, “O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them.”, under 8:39, “Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.”, under 9:123, “Believers: Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you.”, under 2:191, “Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out.”, Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it.”. As long as there are Muslims that believe in these orders, there can not and will not be ‘Middle East peace’.

Even if the fundmentalist Islamics managed to destroy every Christian and Jew in the world, there would still not be peace in the Middle East. Islam has several sects, ie: Shia, Sunni, Sufi, Kahrijite, Wahhabi, Nizari (also known as “Assassins”) and more. Many sects believe that followers of other sects are non believers because they follow the wrong sect. The only thing that keeps them from destroying each other is the old saying, ‘an enemy of my enemy is my friend’. As long as there are Christians and Jews to hate, they will, pretty much, leave each other alone.

Ever since the State Of Israel was recognized by the United Nations, the Arab countries have been trying to “push Israel into the sea”. Many Arab leaders have publicly stated that “they will not be satisfied untill Israel no longer exists”. Many Arab leaders openly support the Palestinian terrorists that use homicide bombers, car bombs and rockets to maim and kill innocent Jewish women and children. They even consider the killing of Westerners an added bonus. Since many fundamentalists believe that “unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell” and that “the idolators are unclean”, they believe that ‘unbelievers’ and ‘hypocrites’ are less than human and that their lives are worthless. The fundamentalists believe that it is their duty to punish the unbelievers wherever they find them.

I realize that not all Muslims are fundamentalists and that many Muslims would embrace peace. The problem is that the fundamentalists are so harsh and so ruthless that most peace seeking Muslims in the Arab world are afraid to cross them, afraid that they will be considered ‘friends’ of the unbelievers or ‘hypocrites’ and punished accordingly. Therefore, they keep quiet and the fundamentalists continue to rule the Arab world. The few Arabs that do attempt to stand up for true peace usually end up in prison or dead.

Some Arab countries are considered to have secular governments, ie: Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, and, as such, would presumably be free of fundamentalism interference. The fact is, none of these governments could stay in power without the assistance of, or at least the tacit approval of, the fundamentalists. Each of these countries is rife with fundamentalism, note all of the homicide bombers and terrorists that are exported from these countries. If the leaders of these countries did not have the approval of the fundamentalists, they would be assassinated and new leaders would be elected or installed. Saudi Arabia claims to be our friend and ally, yet many of their religious schools preach terrorism and a large number of terrorist leaders come from that country. Egypt has a signed peace accord with Israel, yet arms are smuggled in to the Palestinians every day from Egypt. Syria is the largest supporter of the Hezbollah group and is also one of the largest exporters of terrorists into Iraq.

The United States has been trying to “win the hearts and minds” of the Arab people for decades. We provide aid in the form of money, we gave Arafat huge sums of money in order to ‘help’ the Palestinians and he kept most of it for himself, we gave Hussein money to help feed his people and he used it to line his pockets and to pay the families of homicide bombers and we give billions of pounds in aid to Egypt and although they talk peace they still support terrorism. We pour money by the bucket full into Iraq and they elect an Islamic based government instead of a secular government. In addition, we pressure Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East, to give up land and security in the name of peace, even though we know that the Islamic fundamentalists will never make peace with Israel.

I may be wrong, but I don’t believe that the fundamentalists will ever allow the United States to “win the hearts and minds” of the Arab people. We can and probably should make them fear us. We can’t and won’t make them love us. The fundamentalists will never allow their people to love us any more than they will allow ‘Middle East peace’. It goes against their religious principles. They are fanatics and will fight to their last breath. As far as they are concerned if they die, fighting us, they will go to Paradise. If they live they can go on fighting the ‘unbelievers’ and ‘hypocrites’ thereby fulfilling Allah’s wishes.