There is this new trend that has evolved within recent times that I find most intriguing. It is the way that many new age celebrities have reached out to in support of charities and other noble causes. In short, a few have come to the realization that their fame and fortune could not have occurred unless fellow human being from within what is today called the global village encourage it. As such they feel an obligation to do something noble in return. Anti wars, genocide, famine, human rights, the environment, refugees, nothing has escaped the attention of the Nuevo Rich. In case you are not aware, it is not only movie stars, and entertainers, but also successful businessmen, ex politicians the list goes on and on.

      What is so marvelous is the fact that the behavior has now trickle down to college students prepared to devote time off from college to help desperate struggling kids across dangerous lands. I read recently of two Caucasian girls that went all the way to Kenya on a vacation and decided to teach the kids to run, and also provided shoes for them. Very noble indeed I believe. They have since graduated, and have formed an organization that is dedicated to the cause. Some folks are very innovative in the way that they incorporate entrepreneurship and charitable causes. Take John Woods for example,  he started building libraries in an effort to encourage reading across Asia after he got a bit tired from serving his corporate master Microsoft. He has since expanded. Another gentleman Steven Rosenthal found an innovative way to combine vacation and volunteering by encouraging people to donate time and money as well as air fares and money for accommodations in different global hotspots. Some ask for time, others money, a few request items of clothing or grains of rice, an animal, the possibilities are limitless.

        Contrary to some narrow thinking charitable efforts can be quite profitable for some high profile as well as low end advocates.  Can anyone remember a song of Bob Gildoff Ethiopia Live aid fame today? He is now Sir Gildoff, and has since organized sequels. Aging rock crooners like Bono of U2 have as much power as the President of the World Bank, and is helping to shape domestic and foreign policies of many backward and mismanaged governments in the Dark Continent. The only way you cannot know about Bill Gates Foundation and Bill Clinton is if you were living in Mars for the past fifty years. It is still your fault as you should be looking down on earth and knows what is going on. Sorry Professor Wangari Maathai, nice of you to win the Nobel Peace prize for your tree planting efforts. All has gone to waste as your savage Kenyan brothers has destroyed years of peace and tranquility in your beautiful country. Perhaps there is room in Africa for another woman President following Liberia’s efforts.

    To future enthusiast, please take note and beware. Although your intentions are in most cases noble, things have a way of not going according to plan. My admonition is to do your homework carefully. Need I say Madonna and her Malawi adoption debacle? Angela Joli’s escapades are legendary. I am happy to see that she is settling down. No plans to get married as she keeps popping the babies but nevertheless, but that’s her right and she can afford to. Then there is Mia Farrow who started these adoption business years ago before it became vogue. She however did not realize that she had married a borderline pedophile in Woody. Let’s hope she has since begun talking to her adopted daughter Soon – Yi , for the sake of the grandchildren.

     Now do not be too perturb by the efforts my last three talented media darlings listed as they can handle themselves and survive any problems they encounter. They have also done what I said was necessary before making this a career- do your homework and pick your spots. It is my final subject that you might want to have some sympathy for. Sharon Stone, the beautiful one hit wonder. We all know her. Remember the lesbian erotic thriller that forced Kirk Douglas son Michael to behave like a bumbling teenager as she attempted to seduce him in her white mini skirt devoid of underwear, and later attacked some ice with an ice pick that was possibly used to do irreparable harm to an unknown victim. I dare you to name a scene for another movie she made since that one some two decades ago. 

      She had the gall to go up against the Chinese government as the gentleman Richard Gere has done for years. In a light hearted moment while at a recent Film festival she was asked about her take on the very tragic earthquake disaster in China. Let’s say that she was a bit insensitive. She said that it was ‘Karma’ for what they have done to Tibetans. Now ,every one knows that China is no place to mess with, especially if you are a fifty year old female model that is making a few bucks modeling clothes across Europe that is dependent on China’s vast market and cheap labor. The Chinese were swift in their denunciations, and her agency was quicker in firing her. She has since apologized to the very sensitive, emerging capitalist and democratic world power. Let us just say that the Chinese has an image to protect and an Olympic to stage in the summer. The lessons should not be lost on others so inclined new age activist and Ngo proponents I hope. I still believe that the world is however a much better place, and is very grateful for any humanitarian and charitable efforts by those with some semblance of power and influence. Good judgments are however necessary, or else efforts aimed at doing positive things, might just be counterproductive. In short, pick your spots and do thorough homework.

We succeed in enterprises which demand the positive qualities we possess, but we excel in those which can also make use of our defects.
Alexis de Tocqueville

     In the middle of the 19^th century a famous French political thinker, historian and sociologist by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville visited and wrote extensively about America. As he witnessed the foibles of market revolution, and western expansions during the experiments of the Jacksonian democracy, [1]it helped shaped his thinking of the young country. On the matter of the much prosecuted Indians he said, “The Indian knew how to live without wants, to suffer without complaint, and to die singing.” On the slaves and equality, “Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.” It was on the subject of war that he was the most astute. He said “There are two things which will always be very difficult for a democratic nation: to start a war and to end it.” He also said that “All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.”[2] He also said that “No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.” I could almost sense the paradox that faced the social scientist. He clearly admired the fighting, pioneering spirit of Americans especially as they strived to live up to the principles of democracy as they saw it.

      The prominent political figure of the period was President Andrew Jackson. He was a veteran of the American Revolution, a national hero, and former prisoner of war. He never shied away from any form of war. [3] So this was one of America’s few military leaders that eventually became President after Washington. We shall now fast forward to present day America.   Care to try and figure out how this eminent sociologist would look at the country? Few of today’s thinkers really care. Let us try together. Would it say that the US is a more democratic nation? I believe so. Has the race issue being resolved? What race problem? We are a nation of immigrants that some consider a ‘melting pot.’ I prefer ‘toss salad.’ Most immigrants are prepared to buy into the noble dream of possible wealth, prosperity and power through hard work. Just look at the California governor.       

       What about it’s quest to spread that democratic practice aboard? It has done a pretty commendable job and has sacrificed many of its vibrant men and women in the cause. There just might still be some work to be done however. Has it lead much in the post Cold- war world has it squandered some opportunities? It depends on who is asked the question. The country is now bogged down into two costly wars that some of its leaders and citizens are debating the merits and are concerned if its interest is being fully served. They are lamenting the facts that the war might well be a protracted war that have caused fatigue among and have stretched the mettle and moral of troops and in the process doing more to harm its democratic image abroad. A study by The Lancet   showed 601,000 excess deaths from violence in Iraq. [4]As for the US its somewhere in the region of 4000 according to some records.[5]

    Alexis de Tocqueville said that protracted wars have caused “much harm and lost of human lives and goodwill.”   He also said that the “two things democratic people will always find difficult – to begin a war and to end it.” Yes some will say, but that was a long time ago. We have not had a war on our nation like that since the Boston invasion. Very well, we’ll include Pearl Harbor. What was meant was mainland America. This enemy is global and can obtain all types of dangerous technologically advance weapons that it can unleash indiscriminately and destroy many. These weapons can be obtained from a few rouge states that might not have a real fondness for this democratic way of life that we adhere to. Again the question will be asked, but what is the logic? Why would a country risk the anger and strong retaliation of a superpower together with a united world to enable such a thing? That clearly is not in their interest correct? Do others share this type of thinking, and are there friends that share this concern, fear and enemy. They certainly do, and we are all threatened. The words of Tocqueville again came to mind, “In politics shared hatreds are almost always the basis of friendships.”

   The part to democracy from all appearances can be a very tricky proposition one can see. Yes if the evidence must be considered, much work is yet to be done both at home and abroad.

        Is the expression ‘self hating’ or ‘racist’   justified for someone that speaks out negatively about his own race to an extent that another race or ethnic origin could not?

     It is not surprising at time the levels of attentions that sports figures achieve in United States. After all, we do have young men who the last time I checked could not pass an SAT exam, yet have   made more money per year than the past ten US Presidents combined during their terms of office. Needless to say, their lives garner even more attention when they are blacks for several reasons that we’ll leave unsaid for the moment. Baseball, football, athletics, even tennis and golf has gotten their share of attention over time, but it is basketball that can be the real big player. So you have a commissioner that dictates how they should dress, when they can join the sport, and if any make the monumental mistake of taking sneakers, take a ride to practice or obtain any form of charity from an organization while developing basketballs skills as a kid, then its good bye NBA and the American dream.

     My attention was caught by an article recently on Fox Sports by bombastic Kansas City Star Sports columnist Jason Whitlock. He is one of the writers that can and have been known to call out black sports personalities, entertainers and leaders for their many social failures and foibles. There are a few critics from within that community that feels he is only popular to mainstream dominant America, simply because he says the things that they would like to but cannot for fear of being labeled a racist. His most famous comment was about these personalities in his words that “Bo jangles for dollars.” What this means is that they simply entertain and do silly routines- sometimes at the expense of their own community-for the money. Of course in most instances this falls on black lower cast Rappers and similar miscreants that would not hesitate to useand exploit their community. So you get the picture where a Mr. Whitlock is coming from, and those are mainly is words.

The general theme of his article was that present high ratings in the NBA are occurring primarily because the present players are less inclined to cover themselves in tattoos. Not that the tattoos made a difference, but the characters of the players. Yes the quality of play has improved and many exciting players were excelling, but from his observation, a correlation exist between a drop from the league of gangster like ,thuggish, prison oriented characters  with a penchant for hideous tattoos and a spike in local ratings . Once more, it is common knowledge that in many cases, this will refer to black young men that emerged from lower middle to working class backgrounds in many cases raised by a single mom or grandparent. He said, “It's a television show. Pleasant smiles, non-threatening people sell products better than menacing, tattooed brutes.”[1]He also chided them for having low self confidence and hiding their insecurities via tons of ink. Of course he did not fail to single out a few of the prominent proponents while at the same time highlighting some of the noteworthy present stars- many of whom also have tattoos but were completely ignored  for this purpose.

     I believe that many people understood where he was coming from and that he meant absolutely no harm or derogatory feeling to these stars that he still depended on for a living as far as interviews or comments etc. I also believe that it explains why Don Imus of “Nappy headed hoe”fame , got his job back in radio after he was fired by shaken CBS media giant. It is possible for Imus to have some personal unpopular views about some blacks, women athletes, or any race .in this case he was obviously doing a type of radio that entailed some form of shock and entertainment. Don Imus is a well respected radio personality with ability to blend humor and at the same time discuss serious and topical social and political issues of the day with a wide cross section of the population and probably meant no harm to black women with cane rows, high GPA’s and tattoos from Rutgers University.

     I had a wonderful Jewish Political Science Professor at one time. In today’s popular jargon he might be considered as radical and liberal. He had very strong views on what constitute terrorism, and role of American power elites. Ok, he had a Phd from London School of economics and so that may possible explain … He loved the people of Cuba, admired what was occurring in Venezuela under Chavez , loved America but was critical of some of its policies ,loved Israel obviously , but likewise was critical of some of her actions especially with regards to Palestinians. Nevertheless, he was a very popular and competent teacher. It was not only due to the fact that he was prepared to say what others only could  think about but  was afraid to say .He  was lively, knowledgeable , made you think as well as ask questions of those in authority. My point is that no other Professor tenured or otherwise would dare to question the policies of Israel and America as he did, and live to tell the tale. 

     These two examples go to the heart of my question, and ask are some groups allowed a   bit more wiggle room to criticize their own? Should they be deemed racist and self haters, or adored for having the courage to speak up in the hope of elevating that group? In my own embryonic empirical studies people are more tolerant if one of their own do the chastising It is something worth studying as the issues  such as this would rear its head again and again as  the relatively young Republic still seeks to find its way . It was French Sociologist, historian and political thinker that said, “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.” He was referring to 19^th century America then, or is he?

Every political leader at some point in their career should have some semblance of concern about their legacy. What am I going to be remembered for by historical pundits, should always be the concern of any prudent and self respecting leader. In the United States more than perhaps any other nation, this has become a matter of great concern because of the symbolic and real responsibility of being the leader of the most powerful  nation on earth- as a result of the demise of the USSR. It is not necessarily the case that such leaders should have a thoroughly outstanding track record as an administrator, or to hold high positive figures in the opinion polls. Let me throw a few domestic and international names out to you and see if you can comprehend what I am alluding to. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklyn D. Roosevelt , Ronald Reagan Nelson Mandela, F  De Klerk , Mikhail Gorbachev, and  Yitzhak Rabin.

 In 2006 I wrote specifically in a thesis paper about five of these individual leaders that will be immortalize in our memories primarily due to momentous , at times unpopular ,yet important, historical actions on their part. In it I described them as follows: “There are leaders who throughout history understand these subtle changes in international relations and affairs and capitalize on them where necessary. In the late 1980’s arch-conservativeRonald Reagan understood it in his relations with Mikhail Gorbachev   and his “evil empire.” Nelson Mandela and De Klerk recognized the value of change and the need for mutual respect and compromise. [1] Richard Nixon’s name is immortalized in history more for his historic visit to China and efforts at détente than perhaps the Watergate scandal today. Nixon’s cordial diplomatic efforts and gestures of respect and civility towards China help warm relationships between both countries. [2]

In contrast the present US leader threatened to wage a preventive war against North Korea …[3]”

Many of the things that we take for granted today would have been impossible had any of these 5 leaders I singled out not stepped up to the plate and first commence a dialogue with a perceived enemy. Whether the cause for the move was from a position of strength or narrow political interest is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that they were unafraid to make the bold move, communicate and extend a hand in an effort for peace negotiations. China today is fast emerging as a global power because of Nixon.  South Africa with all its present problems is viewed as a model by many social scientists due to the giant steps of both leaders then during the peak of the dreaded dehumanizing and barbaric Apartheid system. The Cold War’s impact are still felt across the globe, but citizens from  Europe and the USA  can sleep a bit more in peace because of former  enemies that ended 40 years of wasted energy , resources and lives during the nuclear arms race.

It is why as nations across the globe attempt to battle the deadly scourge of domestic and global terrorism, the input of the leader of the free world carries much weight. When the history books are been put together , how would it view developments in countries such as  Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea , Iran and others parts of the world where pockets of terrorism are still being practiced ? Who can take the credit if any, for any shift in behavior?  Is talking a sign of weakness? Where are the terrorist that once permeated all of Europe at one time?  Were they eradicated primarily due to the use of the big sticks only or some with the use of political carrots and subtle incentives? Was it the ending of the Cold War or are Europeans dedicated to keeping their continent peaceful, as they via the EU for economic dominance. Many Europeans are secretly taking credit for Libya’s 2003 360 changes . At the same time this is no secret that they abhor the thoughs of another dreadful war with Iran as many reluctantly went along screaming in support of one with Iraq. As such they encourage similar successful Libyan like communication with the Iranian mullahs.  

The debate as to merits of such thinking with forever rage on as oppose to the fear instilled as a result of the demise of recalcitrant and distant cousin. It is a worthwhile model that can be considered as a way forward[4] A SOS to Mr. Blair the Middle East Peace Envoy for  lessons  from his  country’s 400 years of terror struggles  with the  Ireland . Where are the IRA today and why one can ask? I am an optimist, are you? Perhaps there is something in the tea at Oxford that contributes to different perceptions of legacies from those at Yale or Harvard. Yes I’ll ask former first child Chelsea Clinton - an unbiased   and neutral voice of reason in the Clinton dynasty. Let me see, Stanford, does not count .That leaves CondiRice, who is content to fight that old war with Russia’s Putin even after he retired from politics and his busy showing his chiseled body while fishing. Better yet, the young Blair son bypassed his father Alma Marta to study at Yale instead of the prestigious Oxford. What a confusing lot, but again I digress. Say yes to peace, and no to dialogue. Sounds like a catchy slogan that should be patanted immidiately.  Ahhhh legacies! Fishing, golfing, hunting, traversing the southern ranch, Whitehouse weddings, loyalty, these are what matters.

Eighty years ago Alabama counties passed a law that allowed their Sheriffs to feed prisoners with a mere $1.75 a day allowance. Today the same is in operation .These Sheriffs are then permitted to augment their salaries with the residue. According to one writer a systematic practice of “Depression-style frugality and reliance on such things as day-old bread, cut-rate vegetables and cheap inmate labor explains why a profit can be earned by feeding men and women what amounts to less than the price of a Coke and a bag of Fritos for an entire day. One sheriff was quoted as saying that “these people eat better here than they eat on the street, and they eat three times a day.”[1] In case you did not recognize, Alabama is one of the fifty states In the USA. Then perhaps you are one of the millions of citizens that believe that prisoners are getting what they deserve and any form of inhumane treatment is good for miscreants. Just to refresh your memory, Article 5 of the declaration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[2]

   A wonderful and generous and caring American woman was instrumental in getting this declaration passed while serving as a US delegate and Human Rights Commissioner. She was Eleanor Roosevelt .Without here there might be no UN as we know it today , no Israel, No new deal , justice for blacks via the civil rights movement , nor the vibrant feminist movement . She was a first lady for 12 years during her famous husband reign, but was referred to as “First Lady of the World” by President Truman, in tribute to her human rights accomplishments. Most importantly, she was honored by Gallup’s list of widely Admired People as one of the most admired persons of the 20th century. Her actions I am sure also brought much goodwill for America as a country, as it was seen as a champion, defender, and model for peoples across the globe that were threatened by racial, economic and religious divides. Where other powers failed in their moral obligations to defend the proclaimed universal principles –first enshrined in the UDHR, the United States was seen as a beacon of hope for justice, fairness and equality for all.

     Fast forward to today, and we noticed many more states similar to Alabama where the ‘Prison Industrial Complex’ has reared its ugly head. For every 100 in the American population, one is incarcerated. This nation has less than five percent of the world’s population, but almost one fourth of the world’s prisoners. [3] According to data by the International Center for Prison Studies at King’s College London., the United States has 2.3 million criminals behind bars. This is in essence more than any other nation.[4]The question that I wish to consider now is how are these prisoners treated while away from the eyes of the prying public, families, lawyers and hidden digital camera? We tend to be aggrieved at the actions of a few rouge soldiers in Abu Ghraib. Many of us were prepared to offer some semblance of latitude for our hard working soldiers as they stress struggled to protect the nation from the devious eyes and might of foreign terrorist elements. Are we prepared to be so understanding when it occurs at home, especially if it’s towards a close friend or relative? I am doubtful. How about the disparity in justice that is levied along racial lines?

          The following are findings of Human Rights Watch on the state of prisons and Prisoners in the USA today: In American prisons today, wanton staff brutality and degrading treatment of inmates occur across the country with distressing frequency. A federal judge in 1999 concluded that Texas prisons were pervaded by a “culture of sadistic and malicious violence.” In 1995, a federal judge found a stunning pattern of staff assaults, abusive use of electronic stun devices guns, beatings, and brutality at Pelican Bay Prison in California, and concluded the violence “appears to be open, acknowledged, tolerated and sometimes expressly approved” by high ranking corrections officials. In recent years, U.S. prison inmates have been beaten with fists and batons, stomped on, kicked, shot, stunned with electronic devices, doused with chemical sprays, choked, and slammed face first onto concrete floors by the officers whose job it is to guard them. Inmates have ended up with broken jaws, smashed ribs, perforated eardrums, missing teeth, burn scars—not to mention psychological scars and emotional pain. Some have died. Both men and women prisoners—but especially women—face staff rape and sexual abuse. Correctional officers will bribe, coerce, or violently force inmates into granting sexual favors, including oral sex or intercourse. Prison staff have laughed at and ignored the pleas of male prisoners seeking protection from rape by other inmates.  When Florida inmate Frank Valdez died in 1999, every rib in his body was broken, his corpse bore the imprint of boot marks, and his testicles were badly swollen; guards admitted having struggled with him, but denied they had used excessive force. They claimed most of his injuries had been “self-inflicted.” In Maricopa County, Arizona, a sheriff who dresses male jail inmates in pink underwear introduced live “jail cam” broadcasts on the internet in 2000. Three cameras covered the holding and searching cells of the jail, including shots of strip searches, inmates bound in “restraint chairs,” and even, for a while, unobstructed views of women using the toilet. The broadcasts ended up being copied onto web porn sites.                                                            
 
   Even detained children and youth are not immune from staff brutality and abuse. They too are kicked, beaten, punched, choked, and sexually preyed upon by adult staff. The Maryland State Police recently filed criminal assault charges against staff at a youth facility in Maryland because of an incident in which one guard restrained a youth while the three others kicked him and punched him in the face. In January 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice reported on terrible conditions at Arizona’s juvenile detentions centers, including sexual abuse of the children by staff members (and fellow inmates) that occurs “with disturbing frequency” and a level of physical abuse that is ”equally disturbing.” [5]

         These are frightening but true statistics. They  are not meant to cast blame on any one , but merely to shock the sensibilities and conscience of good people to do something so as to alleviate the plight of suffering and often times unfortunate. As we observe the media in its daily attempts to address the issue of human rights, let us develop a more skeptical eye and ask ourselves why more attention is not placed on this anomaly as reflected by the prison industrial complex. As we witness the different attitudes to justice is it is reflected by race and white color as opposed to blue color crimes. When next you see a though talking Governor, Senator , Congressman or high -end celebrity desperately try to get some preferential treatment via a slick well paid lawyer, ask yourself if that treatment is accorded to a lower, middleclass ,or immigrant person with limited resources at their disposal. Remember we all have a moral responsibility to speak out, in an effort to eradicate all form of human right abuses. The world watches on , that much you can count on.

      It was due to this book that I pounced upon a very useful expression that I then stored away for a later period. It was call ‘incencious amplification.’ In short, it means having advisers who don’t disagree with you. It can generally be linked to “A condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation” A more common description might be that of group-think that was so aptly described byIrvin Janis in his 1972 book, Victims of Groupthink: A Psychology Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. In it he gave some insights about the shenanigans that might have occurred in the power chambers when contemplating actions on the Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs fiasco and much discussed Vietnam debacles.  Groups experiencing -groupthink do not consider all alternatives and they desire unanimity at the expense of quality decisions.”[1]

      Not many American President’s have the honor of taking their country to war. Since the end of the Cold- War and all three Presidents and Commander in Chiefs was able to do so. The list includes George  H Bush, Bill Clinton, and now George .W Bush. It is a big decision that requires much planning and assessments. In the end it is always a solitary decision. Different Presidents bring diverse level of expertise to the office. Irrespective, all need sound unbiased and well thought advice. O’Neill also said in the book that President Bush “was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people” during Cabinet meetings.  Suskind said O’Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath. What the author is alluding to is a leader that knows exactly what he wants to do and simply surround himself with the people that can enable him. Truman and the atomic bomb, as opposed to JFK and the Bay of Pigs or  FDR belated decision to go to war with Germany.

   There are those who are lulled into believing that this is not too smart a President. Many others with an acute sense of the powerful might very well know otherwise. He might not necessarily be concerned with the minute details of an issue but nevertheless can get whatever he sets his mind on to the same extent as any one of his more intelligent predecessors. The trick has always been to surround oneself with committed team players, give them a task and never take no for an answer. Perhaps its one of those areas of focus at Harvard 101 MBA school thinking.

As a member of the business world O Neal preferred decisions that are made after careful analysis of the facts while equal weight are made of the pros and cons of action. He therefore might have found George Bush senior more to his liking.  Take notice of the case in the decision to put Desert Storm in place in 1990 after Saddam’s Kuwaitis invasion. The decision to stop short of invading Iraq itself was also a calculating one for obvious reasons. O’Neill looked negatively at what he perceived as yes men or women and leaders that make a decision and find supporters irrespective of consequences.

Hitler foolhardy act of trying to conquer Russia against all the overwhelming odds ,  Napoleon’s overambitious acts in  his early European adventures, Saddam  destructive maneuvers in the Middle East against  Iran, Kuwait , and the entire international community  led by the US ,  the ailing Leonid Brezhnev’s decision to invade Afghanistan  in 1979, and Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic,   are prime examples of acts devoid of serious  thoughts  as to  consequences.  It is for history to judge what is right in these situations based on the outcomes. In the case of Iraq, the script is still been written.  I do have a small quote that I used to assess the merits of past actions. I was able to gather same from a former high school teacher. I t stated that “something is good if it works.”

This is simply a way of striving to find a voice for the powerless.

   In 1945 after the 1^st atomic bomb was dropped on Japan, men of conscience came together and pledged to prevent a repetition of this type of catastrophe.  On 26^th June 1945, the Charter of the United Nations was signed in San Francisco. They pledged then to prevent succeeding generations from experiencing future wars. It was described then as “the scrooge of war.” They also promised  to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations of mutually acceptable   treaties and other forms of international laws will be respected. Those events in 1945 caused severe in both devastations on the ground in both cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. 200,000 Japanese lives were lost, 98% of Hiroshima buildings destroyed and half the city of Nagasaki was instantly destroyed.[1] 

     The fall out of the war did not end there however, but led to a nuclear race, the Cold -war, and much of the devastation that we are experiencing across the globe today especially within the countries located in the global south. This last point cannot be over emphasize in that it is developed countries in the global north that are now forced to deal with impact of the many besetting problems that have emanated . Genocide, terrorism, human rights abuses, wars, poverty, displaced immigration, and refugee problems abound and can be directly connected to 1945. From Asia to the Middle East, Africa to Latin America a vicious cycle can be seen of internal and cross border conflicts are the norms many with ethnic overtones. Towards “the end of history,” the former protagonist of USA the USSR got closer together with Europe in closer alliances. The rest of the world was left to rally on their own with a lack of leadership evident.

   Serious appraisals must now be made today to see how much the ideals of the United Nations are being adhered to. Let me reiterate- “to encourage the   practice of tolerance, and  living together in peace with one another as neighbors, to unite and maintain peace and security, to ensure that arm forces not be used except in the promotion of common interest for the promotion of economic and social advancement of all peoples.”

   It is my hope to explore this area in debt to ascertain where the problem lies. When 800, 000 human beings are slaughtered in Rwanda, millions more in Congo, and Sudan and no efforts are made to rectify the problem. Terrorist and tyrants are allowed to run rampant across Asia and the Middle East while the world continues business as usual. Repeated acts of human rights abuses are taking place daily in Latin America reminiscent to that which took place during the cold war. Most importantly are the neglect and human rights abuses that are constantly taking place daily within developed countries especially on immigrants, and other maligned ethnic minorities within the borders of Permanent Security Council member states.

    It is not much of a coincident that former Eastern block countries are now the budding capitalist with the tactic and overt encouragement of EU and their Cross- Atlantic friends USA. Europe remains peaceful with the exception of the hiccup that took place in former Yugoslavia.

    The time for action is now. Global peace, security and economic prosperity for all must soon become the norm and no longer a mere ideal. War cannot continue to be an option to solve problems I believe. Anyone care to disagree?