PAKISTAN: ‘ ICMICA Pakistan Role of Youth in Peace Building ‘


#AceGuestNews – PAKISTAN – September 03 – Youth can play a crucial role in positively transforming conflict situations and building peaceful societies. In countries like Pakistan, where peace and stability seem a far-fetched idea for most, investing into young people to build their synergies and unity is the need of hour.

Human Lens ICMICA - 4116236661_36ef642c73_z
Moreover, the current turmoil calls for youth in Pakistan to become prepared to shoulder the responsibility to respond to the situation with understanding and ownership.

Peace is all about understanding each other’s perceptions and learning to find common grounds. This year “Role of Youth in Peace-building” a series of discussions took place across cities with the collaboration of Youth Development Foundation YDF and ICMICA Pakistan.

It comprised of panel experts that highlighted motivational skills for peace awareness, urged youth to accept followers of different faiths, think above school syllabus and understand the true message of every religion.

Last year, this activity was organized by the Youth Development Foundation YDF/ Interfaith Youth in Action where the youth participants hailing from different religions interacted and took part in a diversity tour across Lahore to visit a historic mosque, two churches and a gurdwara, the place of worship for Sikhs.

The discussions started off with a slideshow showing the grave consequences Pakistani people suffer on hands of religion based discrimination and sectarian violence.

Different panel experts spoke on various topics and youth participants were able to clarify many misconceptions about different faiths. Participants learned more on reasons why Pakistan is radicalized. A myriad of complexities including the distorted education, prejudice against religious minorities, hatred towards non Muslims in school textbooks are the main elements that create disharmony and conflict in society and derail peace in Pakistan.

But, the discussions’ main focus remained the ways through which  the nation’s youth mobilization could help in eradicating the national scale religious intolerance. The young participants of all religious communities were present and sensitized “to welcoming religious diversity”, and for rejecting violence.

These programs concluded with Q/A session, some of them quiet, other very heated on issues including religious discrimination and war on terror, and a candle lighting ceremony.

Our country is witnessing a rise in fanaticism, as never before and with no state control of their activities. But Pakistan is not an exception.The whole of South Asia is in the grip of right-wing ideas.

However, Pakistan’s case proves that a religious state cannot deal effectively with religious fanatics. Therefore, religion should be separated from the affairs of the state.

Overshadowed by an economic, social and humanitarian crisis in the wake of a bloody war against terrorism, Pakistan’s sole hope lies with the youth. It is time to let them pave a path towards a peaceful and prosperous Pakistan.

 Pakistan Zindabad. Long Live Pakistan
#ASEAN2014 

‘ Good Morning All Word Press Friends, Followers and Readers of Ace News Groups Posts ‘


#Ace Shauny Friends News Desk 2014  Launches Chat-Box For Sharing For All Word Press Blogger’s, Followers And Friends to Add Their Posts, News, Views and Opinions of the World ‘

Ace Shauny News Desk 2014

Following certain comments and disputes it has been decided that to enable all friends, followers and readers to post their news, views, opinions and comments.

l have now opened up Ace Friends News Desk fully so anyone sharing will be added automatically to our #Tweet News Desk.   

Anyone requiring to post a video, picture, provide a comment on their opinions, or anything other  than spam, can do so at the link, below.

Need help or guidance leave a  comment also any sites that are friends and followers sites will be advised and added to our new RSS Feeds Platform, to Share across our Social Media Sites.

#AceFriendsNewsDesk2014  

 

#AND2014

` Having Seen Decades of War and Violence Omer Karaberg Knows the Power of Words’


#AceGuestNews – May 10 – (RFERL) – Having seen decades of war and violence, Omer Karabeg knows the transformative power of words.    For 20 years, through his program “The Bridge,” he has sought to forge a dialogue among representatives of the former Yugoslavia’s different political, ethnic, and religious groups, whose views on his carefully chosen, contentious topics often could not be more at odds.

Karabeg’s guests run the gamut from hard-line politicians to political moderates to academics and cultural figures. While his pairings are often daring, he always insists on a civil discussion and mutual respect, qualities that are scarce in the region’s mainstream media.

Arbana Vidishiqi, RFE/RL’s Kosovo Bureau Chief, remembered how in 2002, with the wounds of the Kosovo war still raw, Karabeg gathered influential Kosovo Albanians and Serbs in a face-to-face round-table discussion in Pristina.

“That was so rare at that time, just after the war, to see those two sides talking,” said Vidishiqi. “What was especially interesting was to see these former [Albanian] guerilla fighters talking with Serbs even during the breaks.”   Over the course of two decades, “The Bridge” has broadcast more than 800 such dialogues involving more than 1,500 participants.

The 30-minute weekly program began as a radio show and is now also recorded as a Skype broadcast for on-line audiences. On many occasions, the show has broken barriers between figures across political and ethnic divides who have then continued their dialogue in follow-up meetings off the air. Excerpts and quotes from the dialogues are regularly reprinted in high-circulation national newspapers throughout the region.

Much has changed since the first broadcast of “The Bridge” in April 1994 which, at the height of the Yugoslav war, focused on how to start the process of reconciliation between the Serb minority and the Croatian majority in Croatia. At that time, much of the former Yugoslavia was separated not only by ideology, but by violence, blocked roads, and broken telephone lines.

But Karabeg says some divides persist. “The most difficult combination to have on the show is nationalists, of course,” he said. “Nationalists don’t like discussion, they like monologues. They usually don’t change their minds after the show, but at least they talk; at least it gives them something to think about later.”

Originally from Bosnia-Herzegovina Karabeg is a veteran journalist who, before joining RFE/RL in 1994 in the early days of the Balkan Service (then known as the South Slavic Service), was a popular prime-time national TV news anchor in Belgrade.

He left Belgrade after refusing to broadcast nationalist propaganda during the war, an act of defiance for which he was called a traitor on national TV by government officials.   Karabeg is the winner of the 2010 Erhard Busek South East Europe Media Award for Better Understanding in South East Europe.

He received the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia’s Jug Grizelj Award for promoting friendship and overcoming barriers between the people in the region. He has published selected dialogues from “The Bridge” in two books: “Bridge of Dialogue: Conversations Despite the War,” and “Dialogue on the Powder Keg, Serbian-Albanian Dialogue.”

While Karabeg has seen much progress in the region, he says the deepest rifts remain in Bosnia, where dialogue between politicians from the two main ethnic entities carved out in the Dayton Accords has broken down.   “Each side has its own media where the politicians can go on and say whatever they want with no one to challenge them when they lie,” he said.

He added that separatist rhetoric has intensified in Bosnia since the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis, and that the international community must stay engaged there to keep the dialogue going.

” As the saying goes,” Karabeg said, “It’s better to have 1,000 days of talking than to have war for even one day.”

Courtesy and by Emily Thompson of her News and Views – Radio Free Europe

#ANS2014 

Enhanced by Zemanta

` Remains of Those Killed in 911 Attack are Moved Amid Family Protests ‘


#AceGuestNews – NEW YORK –  The unidentified remains of those killed in the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre in New York City were moved into a repository at the bedrock level of Ground Zero on Saturday after a procession through Manhattan streets.

The 7,930 fragmentary remains in sealed containers were escorted by fire, police and Port Authority vehicles with flashing lights and no sirens from a Manhattan forensics lab to the repository at the site of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum.

The repository will be under the care of the city’s chief medical examiner, whose office will continue trying to match the fragments to the more than 1,000 victims of the attacks that have yet to have had any remains identified.

The repository is sealed off from exhibition areas by a wall and will only be accessible to the medical examiner’s staff and family members of the victims, who will be able to visit the space even when the museum is closed, the city has said.

Some family members of those killed in the attacks protested the move, saying it was wrong to store the remains at what is essentially a tourist site, adding that the underground repository could be subject to flooding.

They put black bands over their mouths in a silent protest as the procession rolled past.

“The human remains repository is most certainly a part of the museum,” Jim Riches, the chairman of the 9/11 Parents & Families of Firefighters and WTC Victims group, said in a statement.

Other family members have supported the move.

http://tinyurl.com/nx5mjgd
http://tinyurl.com/nx5mjgd

(Reporting by Jon Herskovitz; Editing by Jonathan Allen and Tom Heneghan)

Tweet Guest News and Views #ANS2014 

Enhanced by Zemanta

` House of Democratic Leaders Cannot Help but Criticise Investigation of Benghazi ‘


 

#AceGuestNews – BENGHAZI – May 10 – House Democratic leaders have been unstinting in their criticism of the select committee established this week to investigate the aftermath of the 2012 attack on an American compound in Benghazi, Libya. Now they are facing a touch choice about whether to join it, cautiously weighing which strategy would be riskier politically and whether their instinct to boycott the select committee might just give it more power in the end.

 Nancy Pelosi

Democratic leaders have called the new committee “a political ploy,” a “stunt,” a “sham,” a “waste of taxpayer dollars” and, in the words of White House spokesman Jay Carney, “a blatantly political and partisan effort.” This week, two arms of the party, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committeelaunched a coordinated messaging blitz to undermine the committee and cast Republicans as political opportunists who have established the select committee only because of their interest in raising money and exciting the GOP base before the 2014 midterm elections.

Should Democrats now take part in this thing they view as a non-serious exercise in pandering to the right? House Democrats met behind closed doors Friday morning to discuss their options, but emerged with no clear answer on how to proceed.

In the case of reopening an investigation into the events of Sept. 11, 2012, in Libya, Democrats are stuck in a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don’t scenario. That’s left the caucus torn on what to do.

There’s a vocal chorus of Democrats urging Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to boycott the committee altogether. Appointing members to the committee would lend credibility to the investigation, they fear, and it would force Democrats to risk being pawns in a Republican political game.

“If you’re going to have a hanging,” said Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn, one of the leading opponents to participating, “don’t ask me to bring the noose.”

Democrats point to the fact that four other bipartisan committees have already investigated the Benghazi attack and that one of those lines of inquiry — the Government Oversight Committee’s investigation — remains ongoing.

John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, George Walker Bush.
John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, George Walker Bush. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But if Democrats don’t appoint panel members — the resolution the House approved Thursday night would give them five slots on the committee — they will give up having any authority over the process and the messaging from each hearing. Not participating would grant Republicans monopoly control over the tone of the hearings and the information provided during the proceedings. Republicans would be the only lawmakers posing questions to the witnesses. Democrats would risk of having entire news cycles dominated by Republican-driven messaging.

“We need to be there to be sure that when Republicans abuse their power, point it out then and there that they’re abusing their power,” California Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman told National Journal.

Democrats, then, face a choice: Risk legitimizing a Republican-led hearing they think is a charade, or grant total control of the content and the message to Republicans. It’s a decision they’re not ready to make.

“We need to make a judgement about how dangerous they can be about their misrepresentation of the facts of the committee,” Pelosi told reporters Friday after her meeting with the caucus.

For now, Democratic leaders say they will withhold judgment until they’re satisfied with negotiations with Boehner over how the hearings will be conducted. Members of Pelosi’s staff have been in ongoing talks with Boehner’s over the role the Democratic members would play if they chose to join the hearing. At issue, Pelosi said Friday, is whether Democratic committee members will have a say when it comes to issuing subpoenas, calling witnesses and releasing documents to the public. Pelosi said she would base her decision on the outcome of talks with Boehner over the next several days.

This week’s round of talks did not bode well for a speedy resolution. Pelosi on Friday rejected a proposed “Memorandum of Understanding” from Boehner’s staff that outlined ground rules, calling them “fundamentally unfair” in a letter sent to Boehner. Pelosi’s letter indicated, however, that she would be open to further negotiations.

Republicans, meanwhile, aren’t waiting for Democrats to make a decision. On Friday, Boehner announced the names of the seven Republicans who had been appointed to the committee, which will be chaired by South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, a 16-year veteran prosecutor. The other members include Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo, Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam, Indiana Rep. Susan Brooks, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, Alabama Rep. Martha Roby and Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland.

“I  expect this committee to carry out an investigation worthy of the American lives lost in Benghazi,” Boehner said in a statement. “I also urge my Democratic colleagues to treat this tragedy with the proper respect and appoint members so that we can finally, on a bipartisan basis, get answers, provide accountability, and help deliver justice.”

Courtesy of and Guest Views Yahoo News  

Share and Tweet @AceNewsServices adding #ANS2014  

#ANS2014 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Welcome Everyone to `Ace News Services ‘ Please Comment or Post to be Approved ‘


#AceNewsServices says good evening from my UK home and to all my friends and readers of my news articles and posts, well just so you can write your news as it happens, and chat on the go.

Ace Friends News

` Follow my news and views and post in the box’

It is not just 140 characters and you can post a link to a video or promote your group, charity, idea or really anything.

Anyone wanting to post a video best way is copy and paste the short URL from the YouTube site and post.

Add your own tags and links and enjoy chatting to fellow bloggers.

I ask for you to observe that we do not use it as a spam area, should this happen it will be closed to everyone and l will email those people ,to be the only users.

Thank you Editor (Ace News Group) 

Share – Tweet – Comment – News and Views @AceNewsServices with #ANS2014   

Sites:
Ace News Services 2014 – http://wp.me/165ui
Ace History2Research News 2014 – http://wp.me/48Dp0
Ace British History News 2014 – http://wp.me/3QKto
Ace Sales & Services News 2014 – http://wp.me/2y0H0

#ANS2014

Ace Friends Share:

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

#AceNewsGroup says to all my reader and followers…


#AceNewsGroup says to all my reader and followers have just completed adding an Ace Guest News and Views box on Ace Finance News ‘ just add your news, views and videos by copying and pasting short URL from and post as easy as that. When you add your first post l will approve and after that just add whenever you like. Enjoy http://wp.me/zTwj

#AFN2014

`Press harassed in Crimea ‘


#AceGuestPost says ‘Free press’ in Russian eyes. Russia does not want free press and all they want is to spread only their point of you.

Press harassed in Crimea

It was a difficult night for journalists. AP had equipment stolen by armed men in Simferopol as they tried to set up a live satellite and there is footage of other cameramen being beaten by supporters of Russia.

Courtesy of Ace Guest Views

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

` Question has ` Rap ' lost its roots due to disrespect of `Black Icons' and is not in the Groove ? '


#AceMediaNews says that Jesse Washington wrote about Malcolm X and rap music having always fitted together like a needle in the groove, connected by struggle, strength and defiance.

But three recent episodes involving the use or misuse of Malcolm and other black icons have raised the question:

Has rap lost touch with black history?
Chart-topping rapstress Nikki Minaj provoked widespread outrage with an Instagram post featuring one of black history’s most poignant images:
OR
Malcolm X peering out the window of his home, rifle in hand, trying to defend his wife and children from fire-bombs while under surveillance by federal agents.

Superimposed on the photo: the title of Minaj’s new song, which denigrates certain black men and repeats the N-word 42 times.

BY JESSE WASHINGTON
AP NATIONAL WRITER

#ANS2014 says your thoughts – welcome?

#Belgium: ” Euthanasia Law Author Speaks Frankly in Interview & Video”


#AceGuestNews and Views says the ‘Death of a child is sometimes lesser evil’ – Kids’ euthanasialaw author’ 

February 14, 2014 10:30
Download video (214.29 MB)
euthanasia-for-children-3137098Belgium has adopted a law allowing terminally sick children to be euthanized. Now, these kids can have a say in whether they want to live or end their suffering. But are they able to make such irreversible decision? Should the society force those in pain to endure it further? Today we’ll be talking to one of the advocates of the law – a Belgian Senator Philippe Mahoux is on Sophie&Co.

Sophie Shevardnadze: And our guest is Belgian senator, and the supporter of the law, allowing euthanasia for minors, Philippe Mahoux, thank you very much for being with us at this program. So you are a doctor yourself, a surgeon – what have you seen that could possibly make you take up this issue in the first place?

Philippe MahouxPhilippe Mahoux: Listen… as a doctor, I think … we were confronted with situations of great distress, patients with incurable disease, mostly cancers, and it also applies to minors, children and teenagers. Before the 2002 law was adopted in Belgium, we could not respond to the requests for euthanasia. Since the law was passed, many pediatricians and oncologists, in particular those who deal with children, asked us repeatedly… begged in some cases, to amend the law to allow those children that are suffering to benefit from dignified death. This is why we started this discussion in the Belgian Parliament.

SS: But I’m just wondering if you had any personal experience yourself, how many cases have you personally come across, where children have asked doctors to help them die, and how many parents have agreed to that?

PM: Oh, you know, it is always difficult to be able to evaluate the number of cases… I will tell you something quite specific. If in your life, especially if you are a physician, you are called to take care even of one of these cases, only one of these people, whether an adult or a minor, you are confronted with this situation and you quickly realize the need to find solutions and solve this issue of unbearable pain in case of incurable diseases. And so, the number is not the most important element. What matters is that there are children, teenagers who suffer from incurable diseases and for whom it is necessary to find a humane solution.

SS: It’s pure coincidence, but I am a journalist, I’m 35, but I also happen to be a board member of Moscow hospice – so, people that I worked with very tightly, they are actually confronted with terminally ill kids every day; kids, who die every day. When I talked to them, about euthanasia, they tell me that they yet have to come across a child who wishes to die, because that hasn’t happened yet, in our case.

PM: Quite frankly, there are such cases. Very fortunately, it is not the same person who is facing this type of situation every time, very fortunately it is not the same families. But I can tell you that pediatricians tell us that this type of situation exists, that unbearable suffering exists. Then is the number of cases that arise an extremely important number? The answer is no, very fortunately, the answer is no! But there are cases and it is necessary to respond to them. This is the reality. And you know, in 2002, when the law permitting euthanasia for adults was passed, we have heard arguments saying that we did not care enough about the patients, saying that’s the reason we propose this type of solution.

As for me, I can say that we do this because we truly care. We are putting this amendment through parliament to allow a solution, which is both euthanasia and palliative care, available for both adults and children. The caregivers and doctors who continue to tell us that this choice is needed, they want to support people at the end, make sure pain is gone in the end.

SS: Have you had a situation where parents ask for their children to be killed through euthanasia?

PM: Not with parents, not with my immediate circle. But I want to remind you again, that I am a doctor, and as doctors we can be confronted with situations that are highly different. It isn’t because we find ourselves in a situation similar to the experience of someone emotionally close to us. It is not because we find ourselves in this kind of situation that we take initiative. We take this initiative because we want to fix the overall situation, and that is what is most important.

SS: But why I insist to find out your personal opinion and experiences is because this is a very personal, very emotional law, and it’s a law that for many crosses ethics or morals. I don’t know if you have any children, but if you had any children – would you allow them to decide on matters of life or death?

PM: I can answer you, in any case, that if, God forbid, I had a child who’d end up in this type of situation… I want to point out that by this type of situation I mean a child, a teenager whose suffering is related to an incurable disease, and who will die in the near future. If such a child asked me to put an end to his or her suffering, I would respond positively. And I believe that the entire population, in Belgium, when asked to answer a survey posing the same question, also replied in an overwhelmingly positive manner. I want to repeat that it isn’t the fact that we want to end the suffering of a child, a teenager which is outrageous. It’s the suffering itself that is outrageous. What is outrageous is that children are suffering, children are dying.

What is outrageous is that there are children who are suffering from cancer. What we are doing is precisely preventing this scandal, and thus preventing the suffering of these children and teenagers.

SS: But we are still talking in general terms. Take us through an average case which ends in someone being euthanized. What are they suffering from, how long does the decision take?

PM: I will give you an example. A child is suffering from a cancer which particularly affects children. I don’t want to give an exact diagnosis, but we know about these cancers affecting children: leukemia, or kidney cancers, for example. We provide them with chemotherapy; we provide them a second chemotherapy, a third one. There comes a time for such patients, including for example the sick, young people with brain tumors, there comes a time where we can no longer ease the suffering and there is no hope for a cure. We know that death will occur, and it’s coming soon. A number of these cases exist, where under these conditions, these children turn out to be more mature than many adults. Precisely because they are facing disease, precisely because these children are about to die.

SS: Then, since you say that there are not so many cases, why make it into a law? Why not just deal with it on a case-by-case basis? Because at the point where it becomes a law, you know very well that it leaves a lot of room for mistakes, and abuses, because not all doctors are so honest and not all doctors are so of their profession. In all countries, it is the same.

PM: Listen, quite frankly, quite frankly, I do not know who you are talking about. There is a law in Belgium that has existed for ten years. We made a law that makes it possible for a doctor to make the last humane gesture for a patient who is suffering. At the same time, we established an evaluation commission to which all euthanasia cases should be reported. For ten years, there has been a regular report made by this commission. Never has this commission found abuse. That is an important element. And then, you know, those who talk about abuse, I think that they have rarely faced this type of situation. We know what it is like, for a doctor, or for a caregiver, or for the families, to take into account the requests that are being made by patients and relatives in case of an incurable disease, to be able to hear them out and to respond to them positively…

When we know what it means, in terms of patient support, the gesture that is the gesture of euthanasia, I think that we finally realize that abuse cannot exist. Because the burden that is, I would say, the emotional, empathetic burden linked to this gesture, is extremely important. And I believe that those who speak of abuse actually are those who, for their reasons, are obviously opposed to euthanasia. I want to recall that the laws in Belgium, in Holland, in Luxembourg, these laws open an area of freedom, put in place guarantees to prevent abuse, but do not force anyone to make the gesture if they do not want to. I still believe, that when we talk about these patients, adults or children or teenagers, if these patients request euthanasia, it is a very humane gesture to carry out their request.

SS: So, then Mr. Mahoux, just to be precise, there is no age restriction in this law.

PM: There are restrictions that are not connected to age, but tied to the understanding that the child or the teenager may have of the situation. Therefore, we kept as a criteria the capacity for discernment, that is, we have to ask a psychologist, a psychiatrist who is not connected to the situation, to assess if the request that is made by this minor, I repeat, who is suffering from an incurable disease after treatments that have become unnecessary – if that request is made with full understanding. That is the rule. I repeat, we found that the maturity of the children who are suffering, the maturity of children facing disease, facing death, is greater than that of many adults, so…

SS: So it is really the psychologists that decide if the child is in a condition to make a life decision or not. Is that it?

PM: Exactly, that is how it is written in the law. It is a person from the outside, a psychologist, psychiatrist, who determines if the minor has an understanding of the situation, if the minor is making a request of which he or she is fully aware.

SS: So, this minor can be four years old as well as sixteen years old; do I understand that right?

PM: It is hard, obviously, to understand that a minor who is four years old is able to make a request of this nature being perfectly aware of what he is asking. It is not the role of the legislator in any case to determine how these things could be evaluated by specialists. We have effective assurance that these specialists are able to determine if the child has this capacity for understanding.

SS: But you, as a doctor, what do you think, at what age does a child develop the capacity to make such a serious decision?

PM: You do understand, that as a legislator, I have proposed that there be a report on the state of awareness of a child, because each case is unique. And so, if I had thought there was a right age for this, I would have suggested that we set it. You know, we consulted with a bunch of specialists, many of whom are both doctors and psychologists, and we have consulted lawyers. They all told us that we should not introduce an age provision but instead put in this criterion of awareness. They suggested this because they consider that each case is individual, so it is impossible to determine an age limit. So I can answer your question that the law kept the condition of awareness, the ability of discernment.

SS: You know, because there are still some people who are, nevertheless, opposed to this law, and they say that minors do not have the right to vote, do not have the right to drink, do not have the right to marry, so then if they are suffering from an incurable disease, does it really give them the competence to make an adult decision?

PM: Madame, you are asking me if I know if a child is aware and capable of understanding his or her situation. I would like to remind you that we are not in the child’s shoes, we are not suffering from an incurable disease which causes pain, for which multiple treatments were given that have led to nothing. We have to remember this. You know, it is easy to have a definite answer, to make a decision like that, in the place of someone else, when we are not in the same situation. We do not make decisions for those for whom we care. Those who are working closely with patients, those who know, they can actually, according to the law, decide in their heart and conscience to respond to a formal request positively. I think that’s the right way to do it. It is not the legislator who will normally be at the bedside of children or adults who are suffering. It is the medical personnel who will have to solve the problem but, at least, the law allows them to respond humanely to those requests. This is about the possibility for everyone to choose at some point not to accept this suffering and to say at a certain point ‘this is enough’ And consider that one can finally ask to die, so that the suffering stops. It is, in the end, a freedom, freedom that is related to human rights and humans, in general. For centuries we valued pain. People who were condemned to death, before they’d be executed for, let’s say, offensive opinions – they weren’t just executed, but put to death with pain and horrible suffering. And well, we, we follow a process that is exactly the opposite approach. I am a strong supporter of the abolition of the death penalty. In all the countries of the world, I am opposed everywhere and always to all forms of torture. I am opposed to the value of pain. I think that pain is pointless, except when it is an alarm signal, a signal of diagnosis. But for the rest, the approach fits into a battle of individual vs. collective, a discussion of humanity against precisely this vision of a society. A society that would condemn to death, which would execute, which values the pain. Our approach is the next stage, when we say that one can avoid the inevitability of this pain, when it is unbearable – well, it is the duty of humanity to do so and to allow one to do so.

SS: And what do you do with the option of palliative care, for example? Because everyone who works in “palliative care” will tell you that, you know, the only time that a child or an adult would ask you for euthanasia is if you have not provided a palliative net, otherwise they would never ask you to kill them.

PM: Well, I will tell you this: in 2002, when there was a vote on the law for the adults, I tabled legislation, two pieces of legislation. One of which involved the implementation of palliative care, and the other concerning the possibility of patients benefiting from euthanasia. And so my belief, shared by the majority of the population, and the majority of the caregivers in general, at least in our country, to consider the implementation of palliative care. But that is not because we have implemented palliative care that automatically, first, this palliative care, eliminates any request for euthanasia. One does not exclude the other. And then, there’s the freedom of everyone to consider that at a certain point, palliative care isn’t enough. I really want to clarify that. You know, as a doctor and caregiver, first, for all patients who come to consult, what is the primary approach?

The approach is to treat them. And to try to heal them. That is the primary approach. The second approach, if that is not possible, is to recognize, at some point, that this is not possible and that the disease is too strong. And if we cannot treat the disease, if the patient must die, we must enable them to die in the most dignified way possible. And to die in the most dignified way possible, it can be done either through palliative care or through a request for euthanasia. Even the best palliative care does not eliminate requests for euthanasia, in any case it is a responsibility, a choice which is left with each patient. That is what’s important, the freedom that the ethical laws allow in our society. A positive response based on each choice.

SS: Since we are speaking about ethics, have you already had a case where the doctor refuses to use euthanasia with a client?

PM: But of course. You know, there is no element of coercion in the laws we are voting on. We open a space of freedom that makes it possible to give a positive response to a request for euthanasia. But when we speak of freedom, we also speak of freedom of conscience for everyone. And so it is provided for in the law that if a doctor refuses, he obviously has the right to do so. It is the conscience which dictates if he will accept it or not. It is his conscience that will tell him that he agrees to support a patient to the end, or that he is unable to do it because of philosophical or religious imperatives. Of course there are refusals. In these cases, when a patient makes a request and the doctor refuses in full right (and some do) – it is important to continue the care. It means that when confronted with a patient’s request, if a doctor refuses, I think he has the obligation to actually pass on the request to someone else, because at some point, he ultimately refuses to support his patient. It is a rule that applies not only here. You know, in medicine, when we take on a patient, we have an obligation of responsibility and when we can no longer provide this support, we also have the obligation to see that this responsibility is covered by someone else.

SS: And you do not see an ethical problem, for example, in paying a doctor just to put an end to the life of someone, to kill someone? Is there not an ethical problem there?

PM: Well, listen, we do not pay someone to end the life of someone else. As if that act was isolated… It is never isolated. In fact, if you talk of payment, doctors are paid for giving care, supporting people in a humane manner… A doctor, a health care team is responsible for a patient. Each time a different individual, an individual who is suffering. And there at the end of the road, when there is no way out, that support is the essence of assuming responsibility for one’s patient. So what are you saying about payment? Of course, I think that anything done professionally deserves compensation. Who could think otherwise? But the doctors receive payment for taking responsibility for their patients’ wishes and they understand what that responsibility entails.

SS: Mr. Mahoux, thank you very much for this interesting interview.

Courtesy of: Sophie&Co 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

” One Man’s View of `Internet Surveillance’ and how it will Affect our Democracy”


#AceGuest News and Views says `Stallman: ‘We’ve got to limit Surveillance to keep Democracy’

Published time: February 06, 2014 19:18

Richard Stallman (screenshot from RT video)Richard Stallman (screenshot from RT video)
We need to change a lot of things about digital technology so that they’re not surveillance engines. The idea is that human rights should be respected in digital activities as in non-digital life, software freedom activist Richard Stallman told RT.

The world is witnessing a transition from non-digital life, in which people mostly have a lot of autonomy. However, people should also have human rights in their digital activities, the world-famous technologist and philosopher Richard Stallman said, interviewed by Oksana Boyko in RT’s Worlds Apart show. Stallman argues that though there are many exceptions in terms of human rights, they should be stopped in order to have effective democracy.

“It simply means returning to users of computing the autonomy that they have in non-digital life. What we see happening is a transition from non-digital life, in which people mostly have a lot of autonomy … There are countries that don’t respect human rights, but we call that an injustice. The point is that you should have human rights in your digital activities as well,” Stallman said.

“We need to change a lot of things about digital technology so that they’re not surveillance engines, but part of it is that we need to use software that the users control,” Stallman continued.

Richard Stallman tries not to use mobile phones in personal communication, he says, but that doesn’t mean he’s advocating some pre-digital innocence. We’ve got to limit surveillance to keep democracy, he believes.

AFP Photo / Paul J. RichardsAFP Photo / Paul J. Richards

 “When I say we should have portable phones with only free software in them, and that the system should be designed, under legal requirement, not to track anybody but court-ordered investigation subjects, that’s not saying go back to an innocent pre-digital world,” Richard Stallman told RT.

“There are others who say using digital technology means total surveillance, just surrender to it. But since that surrender means no democracy anymore, because whistleblowers who tell us what the state is doing will be caught, and they have to flee to places like Russia in order not to be caught, that means it’s too much of a sacrifice. We’ve got to keep our democracy, and that means we’ve got to limit surveillance,” he added.

Stallman is known for developing the concept that every computer program must be free for users to study and modify as they want.

“Even those of us who are not programmers and won’t personally exercise the control, if the users control the program, and since most of the users don’t want to be spied on, each of us can count on the other users to make sure the program isn’t spying on us,” Stallman told RT.

He admits that depending on others can’t guarantee perfect results, but compares it to non-free software, when users are dependent on the “tyrant”whose interest is to take advantage of them.

“With non-free software, the decisions about that program are all made by somebody whose interest is to exploit the users and you can pretty well expect the decisions to be bad for the users, whereas when you’re depending on other users, you’ve got a pretty good chance it’s going to be more or less good,”Richard Stallman said.

He added that the argument “Never try to get rid of a tyranny because you don’t know what’s going to happen, just accept the tyrant” is an utter fallacy, since this is particularly the thing that guarantees tyranny.

“So, this doesn’t mean that every contributor is an angel. It does mean, however, that none of the contributors faces the same kind of temptation to abuse power that a proprietary developer faces, because none of them has that kind of power,” Richard Stallman said.

The fact that various big companies like Google, Microsoft or Facebook were ready to cooperate with intelligence services is not surprising because they were money-driven, Stallman says. Nevertheless, it’s important to distinguish between governments spying on other governments, which is something that governments have done plenty of, and governments spying on all citizens.

“That [governments spying on governments] is just what governments do to each other. For me, that’s not the scandal. The scandal is not spying on other governments and their activities, it’s spying on all the citizens. And of course there are countries that work together to spy on the citizens of these countries,”he told RT.

“Thirty years ago we had phones, but they weren’t in general being monitored. There wasn’t a list of everybody’s phone calls, but now . And now the US government is collecting that all the time, and in Spain as well, with the help of the Spanish government. So, now we have to address that issue as well,”Stallman added.

#AceGuestViews

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

” Money Cannot Be Created or Destroyed “


#AceDebtNews says this was recently sent to my news desk and relates to as they call it “doozy of a working paper “ available to download as PDF if you are willing to pay, basically l thought the following extract from the Washing Posts Wonk Blog says what is really important on austerity, as these two eminently qualified people state their own opinions on austerity of this government!

Governor of the Bank of England Mark CarneyÒscar Jordà of the San Francisco Fed and Alan M. Taylor of the University of California-Davis have a doozy of a working paper out on the macroeconomic effects of austerity. The chart above has the money stat: According to their numbers, the U.K.’s experiment with austerity starting in 2010 led to a 3 percent reduction in growth. If true, that’s a big, big indictment of the Cameron government‘s policies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/09/british-austerity-was-even-worse-than-you-thought/

: This is a link to a Money Week Video – Their intention being to sign you up for their magazine – but if time it is well worth a watch – beware you cannot stop it or roll-back just leave and close tab!  This video long and drawn out as it is trying to put fear in us to invest wisely, with them of course and through their financial advisers advice even though they do not state this outright. Also going to the extent of adding a disclaimer to their video, to take independent advice! Also states from their point of view that this country is bankrupt and has been for a very long time!  http://pro.moneyweek.com/myk-eob-tpr123/EMYKP909/?a=5&o=128929&s=133565&u=75227&l=428374&r=MC&g=0&h=true

Spending Rises as Austerity BitesThen thirdly this simple report in the New Statesman that our Chancellor of the Exchequer argues it is nothing to do with his policies, as so many Chancellors have done before over the last 40 years! Then pray tell me whose fault is it ,we have debts totalling X and as a percentage of our GDP they are Y and that we will never repay them as they cost Z . My why not putting figures for XYZ is simple: figures lie and so do politicians! We do not need a statement of what we owe, but we need a solution of what we owe, does anyone have this solution, well of course not, or if they do, then pray tell us all, do it for nothing and admit the truth!

Well read it all if you like and then leave your comments or share:

The Chancellor‘s claim that “the pace of fiscal consolidation has not changed” is not supported by any of the available data.

The Chancellor does not deny that growth has been much weaker than forecast, although it’s worth repeating the scale of this under-performance. In June 2010, the Office of Budget Responsibility predicted that by now the economy would be about 7 per cent larger, driven by a sharp rise in business investment and exports, while the deficit would have fallen by two-thirds. What has actually happened? In fact, GDP has grown at less than a third of that rate, business investment has fallen, and the path of deficit reduction bears no resemblance at all to the original projections (which is, as I’ll elaborate below, a good thing).    

But, the Chancellor argues, this under-performance has nothing to do with fiscal policy:

More at: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/what-osborne-wont-admit-growth-has-increased-because-slower-cuts

My Personal View: 

So as with all my articles l will give you my very simple understanding of all that has to be done in 5 very simple lines, l call this my `Five Steps to Becoming Debt Free’ l realise only a few will read it or even understand it, but most of all will never ever agree to it, WHY – simply wanton-greed and this will prevail until people either have nothing, or until they realise that wanting more will lead them into a pit of despair they will never ever get out of …….

Well here are my simple and easy tips:

1. Everyone does not owe anyone anything!

2. They do not want anything!

3. They make do and mend!

4. They only buy what they need!

5. They except the fact to live their life with less not more!

So l leave you with these questions!

If l had never borrowed more than l could afford, would l now be in debt?

If l had never borrowed for things l did not need, would l now be in debt?

So if l had lived my life to satisfy my need , and not my want, would l now be in debt? 

If you answer NO to any of these three question, then stop borrowing and lending more, and learn to manage what you have already borrowed!!!

Ace Related News :

Money Cannot Be Created or Destroyed

Related articles

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

#Geneva2 : ” Syria & Peace are Misnomer’ s Provided to Make Us Believe in Miracle’s”


#AceGuestNews and `Views’ says `Syria and the Geneva 2 Charade’

Courtesy of: Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT and TomDispatch, and a frequent contributor to websites and radio shows ranging from the US to East Asia.In the summertime, people flock to Montreux, Switzerland, to follow the jazz festival. This week, though, the ‘performance’ is by a positively un-swinging lot, part of the (in theory) very serious Geneva 2 conference on Syria.

What is Geneva 2 for? It has nothing to do with ‘peace’. It won’t yield an international deal to end the Syrian tragedy. The horrible war facts on the ground will remain facts, and horrible; many perpetrators won’t be gathering in Montreux. Syrian civil society has not even been invited.

And then the whole charade degenerated into pitiful parody even before it started.

This past Sunday, it seemed that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had decided to spring out of his trademark vegetable slumber, inviting Iran to Geneva 2. The invitation lasted less than 24 hours; after the requisite ‘pressure’ by Washington – instigated by those sterling democrats of the House of Saud – it was duly rescinded.

Thus we had Ban Ki-moon parroting the US State Department, according to which Tehran had not agreed to the principles of the Geneva 1 communiqué, which called for a sustained cessation of armed violence. Iranian diplomats strongly begged to differ, stressing how Tehran understands that the basis of the talks is the full implementation of the previous, June 2012 conference, even if Iran was not part of it.

Ban Ki-moon also invited the Holy See, as well as Australia, Luxembourg, Mexico and the Republic of Korea, among others, to Montreux; as if these actors had any clue about what’s going on in Syria.

But the apex of the farce is that Iran cannot go, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar – who continue to weaponize every Syrian ‘rebel’ in sight, from young adrenaline seekers to Western-supported Takfiris and beheaders – can. And will.

Members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) shoot at advancing government troops in the al-Jadeida neighbourhood, in the Old City of Aleppo, on August 21, 2012. (AFP Photo)

Members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) shoot at advancing government troops in the al-Jadeida neighbourhood, in the Old City of Aleppo, on August 21, 2012. (AFP Photo)

Meet ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Al-Qaeda

Time to break it down. Washington ruled that Iran cannot be in Montreux because it supports Assad. It’s as simple as that.

Washington dictating to the UN is the norm. Washington dictating to the Syrian exiled ‘opposition’ is also the norm. Everyone is a puppet in this lethal comedy.

As for Western spin doctors, they are dizzier than flies over corpses. As part of the new Western myth that the Saudi Arabia-sponsored Islamic Front – formed last September against the US-backed Supreme Military Council – are nothing but ‘good Al-Qaeda’, now we have top ‘rebels’ routinely acknowledging to Western corporate media they are, well, Al-Qaeda.

Tens of thousands of foreign jihadis using Al-Qaeda’s network of safe houses in Turkey – well, that’s not such a big deal. As the narrative goes, ‘our new friends’ in the Islamic Front are just ‘conservative Salafi Muslims’. What if they are fond of the odd torture binge and will think nothing of slaying the odd Shiite or Christian? Not such a big deal.

As for the ‘bad’ Al-Qaeda gang – from Al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – they are on a roll. After all, they are the ones with fighting experience/leverage on the ground. And when push comes to shove, they just run yet another ring around clueless Western necks.

Take Ahrar al-Sham. They now lead the Islamic Front – and talk to the Americans. And guess what; they’re going to Montreux! The icing on this Takfiri cake is that, ultimately, their “interests” are being defended by no less than US Secretary of State John Kerry. Washington promoting al-Qaeda? Well, we’ve seen that movie before.

Should I stay or should I go?

Washington is selling the fiction it is ‘leading’ Geneva 2 to ‘reconstruct’ Syria. This is utter nonsense.

Theoretically – and even that is still extremely debatable – the Obama administration’s core interest in Southwest Asia is to negotiate a very complex deal with Iran, which will take most of 2014.

Ultimately, this whole charade is between Washington and Tehran. The US Navy won’t make Assad ‘go’anytime soon – or ever; so everything, in theory, remains on the table.

A Syrian army tank is seen in the Christian town of Maalula on September 11, 2013. (AFP Photo)

A Syrian army tank is seen in the Christian town of Maalula on September 11, 2013. (AFP Photo)

And everyone else, the UN, the Holy See, the House of Saud, are just onlookers, even as several players, from the EU to India, China and Japan, can think of nothing but finally normalizing everything with Iran.

The Syrian government, for its part, will be in Montreux; it had agreed to the conference long ago. Yet President Assad laid down; he won’t ‘leave’, as US President Barack Obama demanded. He won’t let the foreign-sponsored ‘opposition’ take over. And he may even contest the next presidential elections.

Assad went for the jugular when he said Geneva 2 should be about his own ‘War on Terror’. Terror, incidentally, widely supported by the West.

So under this perspective, even Washington needs Assad not to go. The bottom line is that the only players who really want Assad to go are the House of Saud and the House of Thani in Qatar. Many in the West have now realized Assad must stay to fight ‘the terrorists’.

The notoriously shady US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford – who always pops up when the US is destabilizing something – this time called an urgent meeting in Istanbul, supported by Turkey and Qatar, and pulled a ‘go to Montreux because I said so’ shtick.

He just needed to follow the money. Those who won’t travel – a lot of Syrian National Coalition (SNC) hangers-on – will find themselves short of cash.

So listen to the sound of ‘patriotism’ talking. The SNC, which was always rabidly against any talks with Assad, suddenly said they’ll go, even though one-third of their shady members boycotted the Istanbul meeting.

What’s even more farcical is what Ford may have told the SNC stalwarts – still subject to much debate across the Middle East. If Ford really said that Bandar Bush’s strategy has been a total failure (in fact turning Syria into an Al-Qaeda hub) then this points to the Obama administration, for all practical purposes, sharing the same objective as Assad’s: fighting ‘terror’.

Still, Geneva 2 won’t ‘solve’ anything. Iran and Russia will keep supporting Damascus. The desert wasteland from Syria to Iraq will keep being occupied by Bandar Bush-supported and Gulf-supported hardcore sectarian jihadis.

The war will keep spreading deeper into Lebanon. The government in Damascus won’t collapse. The refugee crisis will soar. And the West will keep striking a pose of being concerned with ‘terror’.

All that non-jazz in Montreux will come to nothing. And then some bureaucrat will call for a Geneva 3.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of :

Ace News Group  

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tribute to Shaun Gibson: “One Man’s Feelings of `Being Human’ Just for a `Moment’ in Time”


#AceGuestPost and his View of `Feeling Human’ just for a moment, please read

tumblr_m926b1WIbY1qbrzd4o1_500

When we as people suffer from any illness, mind issue, depression, pain, anything that makes us feel less than Human and suffer unimaginable despair. Some suffer 24/7 and if it is unfair on these people, screaming and crying all day unable to do limited things. Can you imagine? Then there are people who are in pain all day but are able to take a shower (Just) Make their Dinner (Just) suffer darkness, thoughts of utter despair, I can imagine. Some may work with pain but are in pain all day, struggle to work, struggle to go for lunch, living a life where nobody seems to notice them. I can’t imagine

There are many ways we can be when we are ill in body or mind long-term and I believe we who suffer can help by doing one thing and that is “Doing something Human every day” That could be advice to a friend, helping someone with a problem, speaking to someone who lives alone and giving them comfort, speaking to someone in pain, helping a PC user fix a problem (I did this tonight for a friend) and in that moment I felt human

How do we define ” Doing something Human every day” in a way that does not come across patronising or smarmy or big-headed. For me it is the smallest things we can do that are the most helpful. I see it every day and I  try to do it every day, and I guess  for  a “moment” I feel human

Some days for me taking my Daughters to nursery school and going to the shop as well as take the dog out is amazing, the satisfaction I feel after being able to do this, knowing I will suffer badly with pain the next day, is brilliant. The next day I suffer, but I think “Look what I did yesterday” You see it’s the small things. Sometimes we try too hard to do the big things and suffer for it, keep it small, realistic and worthwhile

We live in a pain that makes us feel as if it is not fair and also hurts the people who love us and care for us, I am talking about the people we live with. I know mostly everyone with pain of any kind, body or mind can have an impact on their home, some realise it and some don’t. I think the more we realise it, talk about it like adults the better it can get. Again, the little things

We may live a cruel life some of us and feel inhuman, but I think we owe it to ourselves to feel human like anyone else. You suffer? Give it a try, do one good thing for another and see how you feel

To help another is to help yourself. Try it, what you got to lose? It could be as simple as liking something horrible online to saying hi to someone you know is alone

Be Human, it is your right

More love, Less Hate

Shaun

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

#NSA : Security is a `Step by Step Process’ Step One in Place `Now’ We `Need’ Step Two” Mr Obama”


#AceGuestNews says this is an excellent post courtesy of “Cato Institute” and their `Liberty for All’ spot.
Good First Steps, But Real Surveillance Reform Will Require More

JANUARY 17, 2014 1:35PM

nsa eye1
`NSA Has Their Eye On You’

The president’s speech on surveillance today proposed some welcome first steps toward appropriately limiting an expanding surveillance state — notably, an end to the NSA’s bulk phone metadata program in its current form, and a recognition that judges, not NSA analysts, must determine whose records will be scrutinized.

The details are important, however. Obama’s speech left open the possibility that bulk collection might continue with some third-party — which would in effect be an arm of government — as a custodian. If records are left with phone carriers, on the other hand, it’s important to resist any new legal mandate that would require longer or more extensive retention of private data than ordinary business purposes require.

It was disappointing, however, to see that many of the recommendations offered by Obama’s own Surveillance Review Group were either neglected or specifically rejected. While the unconstitutional permanent gag orders attached to National Security Letters will be time-limited, they will continue to be issued by FBI agents, not judges, for sensitive financial and communications records.

Nor did the president address NSA’s myopic efforts to degrade the security of the Internet by compromising the encryption systems relied on by millions of innocent users. And it is also important to realize that changing one controversial program does not alter the broader section 215 authority, which can still be used to collect other types of records in bulk—and for all we know, may already be used for that purpose.

Most fundamentally, Congress must now act to cement these reforms in legislation — and to extend them —to ensure safeguards implemented by one president cannot be secretly undone by another.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

#Obama : “Playing the `Race Card’ Makes the President `Unpopular’ or is it `Something’ Else”


#AceGuestNews says Obama Says Race May be why he is unpopular

Posted by shaun gibson on January 23, 2014

Obama-Race-Card

Remember this blog here I did? `News and Views

Where I said I had researched Obama did not like white people? Well it seems the race cards are flying around just now. AGAIN for those who don’t pay attention I am from Scotland I tell news, I have no leaning towards Red or Blue, left or right, I just tell it as it is, without disrespecting people and I tell it with PROOF MANY REFUSE to want to read. At the bottom here I will leave some Links. It sure seems to me that Race can ONLY be discussed when Mr Obama mentions it, anyone else does, they are white racists. And I notice this ALL the way over here in Scotland where we have the internet and TV, running water and EVEN Electricity!

Reply from one person on a forum I spend a little time on and from where I stand I believe it is a fair answer to what Obama is saying:

Mr.President, most people don’t care for you due to your policies and lack of leadership
Many young adults think #Obamacare is a sham and have little to no confidence in you as a leader

Despite your Godly view of yourself, not every one focuses on your skin colour
You Sir seem to love to play the race card however

Besides, in case you forgot, which you seem to a lot lately, you are bi-racial
You know, half white and half black
You just seem to acknowledge the ‘black’ half

So, while you evidently can’t handle criticism Mr.Obama, it’s because of you as a person, not because you’re black

Remember, ALL presidents are criticized
You are nothing special, so don’t act like you are

Obama:

President Barack Obama said that racial tensions may have softened his popularity among white voters within the last two years, according to a story posted on the New Yorker magazine’s website today.

“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president,” Obama said in the article by David Remnick, appearing in the magazine’s Jan. 27 edition.

“Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president,” Obama said in his most direct comments on how race has affected his political standing since he’s been in office.

Obama’s second term has been marked by controversies including a partial government shutdown in October, revelations that the National Security Agency has gathered personal mobile phone data and the troubled rollout of health-insurance expansion.

Obama’s approval rating among all voters is 39 percent and his disapproval rating is 53 percent, according to a Gallup Poll conducted Jan. 14-16. In the 2012 presidential election, Republican candidate Mitt Romney won 59 percent of the white vote, compared with Obama’s 39 percent, according to exit polling by a consortium of major news outlets. Obama won 43 percent of the white vote in 2008 against 55 percent for opponent John McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona.

#Obamacare Blamed

“Poll after poll makes it very clear that #Obamacare and other job-killing policies are the reason” for the president’s decline in popularity, Republican National Committee spokesman Sean Spicer said in a phone interview today.

Obama offered reflections on a variety of subjects in the New Yorker story, including his view about the dangers of playing professional football, which has been the subject of media scrutiny over players’ head injuries.

“I would not let my son play pro football,” the article quotes Obama, the father of two daughters, as saying. When asked by Remnick how those dangers squared with his enjoyment of the game as a spectator, Obama said professional players are aware of the inherent risk in playing a full-contact sport.

Like Smokers

“They know what they’re buying into,” Obama said. “It is no longer a secret. It’s sort of the feeling I have about smokers, you know?”

Obama acknowledged that reports of U.S. surveillance programs, including allegations that the government tapped German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone, had created a “breach of trust,” Remnick reported.

Obama said he also assumes others are trying to spy on him, and for this reason he doesn’t have a phone, according to The New Yorker.

He said, “there are European governments that we know spy on us, and there is a little bit of Claude Rains in ‘Casablanca’ — shocked that gambling is going on,” the magazine quoted him as saying, referring to the actor who played the police captain in the 1942 movie.

Ace Related News: 

http://www.thestate.com/2014/01/13/3204492/anti-obama-mood-hurts-dems-in.html

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/republicans-hoping-obama-s-unpopularity-yields-upset-in-west-virginia-governor-s-race-20110929

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2014/01/20/obama-perhaps-racism-has-something-to-do-with-my-low-approval-ratings-n1781546

This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Mikaeel Kular: ” Mother Rosdeep Charged Charged with Son’s Murder”


#AceGuestNews says Mikaeel Kular: Mother Rosdeep charged with son’s murder

Rosdeep Kular murdered her own son. charged with son’s murder

JUST TRAGIC.. Reason I blog this again is I was told to remove “MURDER” from the last title.

The mother of three-year-old Mikaeel Kular has appeared in court charged with his murder.

Rosdeep Kular, 33, appeared in private at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, charged under her married name of Adekoya.

She is also accused of attempting to defeat the ends of justice. She made no plea or declaration and was remanded in custody.

Mikaeel was reported missing from his home in Edinburgh last Thursday, prompting a major search.

His body was found 20 miles away in Kirkcaldy, Fife, late on Friday.

The private hearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court lasted only a few minutes and no media or members of the public were present.

There was a heavy police presence as a van left Edinburgh Sheriff Court after Rosdeep Kular’s appearance

The case was continued for further examination, with another court appearance expected on 28 January.

Forensic officers have continued their investigations at the site where Mikaeel’s body was discovered.

His body was removed from woodland behind a property in the town’s Dunvegan Avenue at the weekend. A house in the street was searched, along with an area of woodland to the rear and side of the property.

Ms Kular and her five children had previously lived at the address. A neighbour told the BBC that Mikaeel and his twin sister were born while the family was living there.

Mikaeel was reported missing from his home in Ferry Gait Crescent, Edinburgh, at about 07:15 on Thursday morning.

More than 200 volunteers from the community joined the emergency services in a huge search operation for the young boy.

Hundreds of people gathered at Muirhouse St Andrew’s Church in Edinburgh on Saturday evening for a service in Mikaeel’s memory.

Many also left flowers and soft toys and lit candles outside his home in Edinburgh.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

#AceGuestPost: “A Musical Tribute to Mikaeel Kular-In God’s Hands Now”


#AceNewsServices says a musical tribute to Mikaeel Kular – In God’s hands now

Mikaeel Kular's family x

Mikaeel Kular’s family x

Thank you, nearly 2,000 shares of this video on Facebook

When a child of 3-year-old goes missing we all fear the worst, all over the world. This doesn’t happen in Scotland, we don’t have to deal with this. Today we do. But we do together and as one. Same as any community would. I couldn’t go search but my son did. All I could do was sit and type. Now we know the Mother killed her own, what should have been her precious child “Praying4TheDay” Anger comes and we ask God to take Mikaeel and to make sure he is ok. We ask why but we will ever know why Rosdeep Kular did what she did. She will go to Cornton Vale women’s prison till the trial.

In the meantime our thought turn to Mikaeel. His pain is over, he won’t be in pain again, he is in a better place. But I thought all day about doing something but couldn’t as I couldn’t walk. I was one of a few people who put a reward out for  information, and I would again. We wanted a headline like “Kid found in Uncles house alive” We never.

For Mikaeel

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

#AceGuestViews : “Obama I don’t think `Marijuana’ Is More `Dangerous’ than Alcohol”


#AceGuestPost and his “News and Views” on the subject of “Obama and Marijuana” 

In a profile published on The New Yorker’s website, the President admits he smoked marijuana when he was younger and is pretty sure many other politicians did, too, but that some demographics are more harshly punished for the offence. He says if it is legalized, it could lead to a slippery slope, with supporters possibly wanting to legalize recreational use other drugs, such as meth or cocaine.
President Obama (Who is to meet the Pope in March this year) thinks marijuana is no more dangerous than booze — and even less harmful “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer.”

English: US President Barack Obama and British...
English: US President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron trade bottles of beer to settle a bet they made on the U.S. vs. England World Cup Soccer game (which ended in a tie), during a bilateral meeting at the G20 Summit in Toronto, Canada, Saturday, June 26, 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“As has been well-documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol,” Obama said to New Yorker editor David Remnick in a lengthy profile published Sunday

President Obama thinks marijuana is no more dangerous than booze — and even less harmful “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer.”

“Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot and poor kids do,” he told Remnick. “And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor, and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.”

I have always wondered why Alcohol is sociably acceptable while Hash/Cannabis/Marijuana is not. I have NEVER seen or heard of someone do ANY bad stoned. But I can tell 1oo stories of drunk people doing wrong, even dying. The world is BACKWARDS on this issue, for me it’s as clear as day. LEGALIZE the Herb, CRIMINALIZE Alcohol!

 

Enhanced by Zemanta