"Sir, what are we to do about all this crime?," asked Captain John Downey, Melbourne's Chief of Police, to the Australian Minister of Security, Percy Sumner.

Captain Downey, tall, forty years old, square shoulders, close-cropped hair, and brown eyes, was speaking to the Minister in his huge office overlooking Melbourne Harbor in Australia. Minister Sumner was fifty years old, a short, heavy-set man, with a red, round face, brown hair, round eyes, and a small mouth.

One wall of the office had a huge map of Melbourne, with yellow, red, and blue pins stuck on the locations of recent crimes. The yellow was for burglary, red for rape, blue for murder. Alongside this map was a chart showing crime rates for each of the three crime categories. The chart showed a definite pattern — crime rates had been increasing in Melbourne over the last five years.

Downey said, "I don't know what to do anymore, sir. No matter how many police we put on the streets, no matter how much we increase prison sentences, the crime rates keep going up. I don't understand it, sir. I don't know how to stop it."

Minister Sumner tightened his little mouth. He said, "It's all those guns out there on the streets, Captain Downey, that's the problem. We've forced every gun owner in Melbourne to register every gun and rifle they own. We've planted our agents at gun shows. We've started suing the gun manufacturers. It's those damn guns. If so many Aussies didn't own guns, the crime rate would fall. I've been discussing this issue seriously with the Prime Minister, Captain. We have agreed that the only solution is gun confiscation. Confiscate every gun in Melbourne and the crime will stop. No guns, no crime, right Downey? That sounds like common sense, doesn't it?"

"Yes sir," Captain Downey said eagerly, "that's what I've been suggesting to you for the last year. Another reason we want to confiscate the guns is because when we make drug raids without warrants, sometimes our men get shot as intruders. Some home owners actually have the gall to try to defend their homes against our boys, who are just doing their duty. I don't want any home owner with a gun in his house. We should also make it a crime for a home owner to use a gun to defend himself in his home against a burglar. If we let him have that right, you never know when he might use that same gun against one of our men who break down his door on a drug raid."

"The same goes for the women. We can't allow them to carry a gun, either in their home or on the streets. If they think a mugger is threatening them or might rape them, they should contact the police. We'll be there within an hour. What if the woman owned a gun and didn't know how to use it? You know how stupid women are with guns, Minister. We can't trust them with a gun. And women are so careless, they'll leave the gun lying around the house where children can find them. It's worth confiscating everyone's guns, just so one child doesn't die from a gun accident."

Minister Sumner nodded his round head vigorously in agreement. He said, "Good ideas, Downey, I'll suggest them to the Prime Minister. I think we'll be able to get the confiscation laws passed in about a month. Thank you for your time, sir. I'll talk to you again in about four months. By that time, our wall charts should start showing a big decrease in crime. Good day, sir."

"Good day, Minister. Thank you for your help in this matter. We'll put a dent in the crime, wait and see." With that, Captain Downey confidently walked out of the Minister's office.

FOUR MONTHS LATER:

In the same office. Outside the window, the late afternoon sky was dark and cloudy, and the two men were having another heated conversation.

"Look at the charts, Captain Downey. By God, look at them!," said Minister Sumner. "The graphs are going straight up, there going off the wall! What in blazes is going on? Our crime rate is triple what it was four months ago. Didn't you confiscate all the guns in Melbourne, Captain? What the hell is going on?"

"Yes, sir, we did confiscate all the guns," replied Captain Downey, pacing nervously in front of the Minister's desk. "I just don't understand it. We put out the confiscation order the day after we spoke at our last meeting. It was in all the newspapers. We think most law-abiding Melbourne citizens complied. Our local police stations report that over thirty thousand registered guns were handed in."

"Thirty thousand, did you say?," asked the Minister. "I thought our gun-registration rolls showed ninety thousand register guns in Melbourne. Why only thirty thousand handed in? What is going on? Didn't you indicate on your confiscation orders and newspapers ads that anyone not handing in their guns would be subject to prosecution and five years in prison?"

"Yes we did, sir," stammered Captain Downey. "But all of a sudden, every owner we contacted said they had lost their gun, so couldn't hand it in. What are we going to do sir, get search warrants to search the homes of sixty thousand gun owners? If they're hiding their guns, we probably won't even find them."

"Not only that, sir, as usual the criminals are not paying attention to our confiscation laws. They get their guns illegally, like they always have. We've caught a few house burglars and interrogated them, sir. They have been going on a rampage. They used to hit a few houses a week. Now they are hitting a dozen a week, sir. We were puzzled. We asked them why? They just looked at our interrogators with contempt, like our men were idiots. What do you think they said, sir?"

"What?," asked Minister Sumner?

"They thanked me, sir."

"Thanked you, Captain? What the devil do you mean? Why did they thank you?"

"Because, sir, they thanked me for the new gun confiscation laws, and the laws forbidding home-owners from owning or using a gun for self-defense. They thanked me for making their job so much easier and safer. They said they now just knock on the mark's door, pretend to be the gas man, barge into the house with their guns drawn, and loot the house. They said they're not afraid of getting shot anymore by the home owner. Some of them had the effrontery to tell me to thank you personally, sir," Captain Downey said with outrage.

"They did, did they?," Minister Sumner said, getting red in the face. "We'll see about that. I'm going to suggest to the Prime Minister some new gun-control laws. I want him to give us the power to make random searches without warrants in every house and apartment in Melbourne. I want him to increase the prison terms for gun possession to thirty years without chance of parole. I want him to forbid all gun clubs and guns shows — that's probably where the burglars and murderers get their guns. I'll also ask him for the power to confiscate anyone's car, home, or bank account who is caught with a gun. That will solve the problem, by God."

"But sir," Captain Downey protested meekly, "we're already getting hundreds of complaints about the increasing, heavy-handed tactics of our gun squads. There's been some nasty newspaper articles mentioning our Constitution, 'rights of the people,' and all that crap."

"The hell with that," Captain. "What do we care about so-called 'rights?' We have a crime spree. It's an emergency. Our efforts must not be thwarted by silly notions about rights and Constitutions. Guns are killing people every day. That's all that matters."

Captain Downey said, "Yes, sir. I hope you're right. I surely do. I am just a little afraid of civil unrest, sir, that's all."

"To hell with civil unrest, Captain, said Minister Sumner. "That's what our riot police and prisons are for. We know best how to solve this problem, and we won't let a bunch of agitators stop us. I will ask the Prime Minister to put my new suggestions into place immediately. You'll see quick results."

"Yes, sir. I hope you're right, sir. Please let me know when the new laws are in place, sir, so my men can start enforcing them."

"Very good, Captain. I will do so. I will then meet with you in another four months. Good day, Captain."

"Good day, Minister."

Of course, four months later, in that same office, the charts where now going ballistic. Crime rates were soaring. Australia had gained the international distinction of having the second highest crime rate in the world (after England, who also has strict gun control and confiscation laws).

In an attempt to understand the situation in Afghanistan better, I interviewed Afghan journalist Daud Khan. The online interview session took place on 27th September, 2006.

Q)The United States and other nations have given millions in aid to Afghanistan. But reports say the people have not benefited from aid because a large sum of money is being wasted by corrupt officials. Do you, as a person living in the country; have felt the benefit of reconstruction?

A) No doubt, huge sums have been poured in into Afghanistan in terms of foreign aid since the ouster of Taliban and formation of the Karzai-led government in 2001. However, a major chunk of the money either goes into the pockets of corrupt officials (both NGOs and the Afghan government) or being given in salaries and other expenditures like office keeping, expensive cars, employment of consultants etc.

Furthermore, the Afghan government complains that they were not given full right over the amount to be spent on reconstruction projects.

Till February 2006 (London Donors Conference), the Afghan government could spend only 22 percent of the pledged amounts while the rest were being spent through NGOs. After the London Conference, the Afghan government was allowed to spend 40 percent of the amount while the NGOs will spend 60 percent.

Corruption in almost all governmental departments and NGOs (both local and foreign) is rampant. The Afghan government has no proper mechanism to keep a check and audit the funds.

Senior officials like ministers, provincial governors, police chiefs etc are appointed on basis of their ethnic background and the power they enjoy on the basis of their private armies.

The reconstruction projects are not equally carried out in the whole country. In the north and western parts, tremendous amounts are being spent on reconstruction projects, while the south was ignored. The southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan are inhabited by Pashtuns, who forms more than 50 per cent of the total population.

Furthermore, life in Kabul is altogether different from life in the provinces. Even in Kabul, roads are still in dilapidated condition, electricity is a rare commodities, little health facilities, no schools and teachers etc. Non-availability of those facilities plus the ever-increasing sense of insecurity due to the rising insurgency have spread frustration among the people.

Q) Women of Afghanistan suffered a lot during the Taliban regime. They were not allowed to work, have an education or come out in public. Has it changed? If not do you think the problem of discrimination against women is something deep rooted in the society which cannot be resolved by a mere change of government?

A) Women are at least free as for as the government policy is concerned. However, they are being threatened by the remnants of Taliban and other hardliner forces in the provinces.

Girls schools are being burnt in the night in provinces and teachers are warned through night letter, not to attend schools. Only four days back, letters were distributed in Kapisa province, situated some 40 kilometers north of the central capital Kabul, warning women to stay at homes instead of attending offices. They were issued death threats. Provincial officials told this scribe, majority of women employees of NGOs and government did not attend their offices after the threats.

Furthermore, Afghan society is basically a tribal and male-dominated society, where male members of family dominate. They consider women as a symbol of their honor and coming out in public is against traditions in majority parts of the country. Being an Islamic society as well, women are required to wear veils.

Q) How do the people view American invasion? What is the public image of America? Liberator or a conqueror?
A) Honestly speaking, there are different views about the US invasion and their presence among people of Afghanistan. But majority of Afghans don't like their presence.

Reason:

In the beginning, (2001, the year when Taliban were ousted), majority of people welcomed the US and foreign forces as liberators. But with the passage of time, frustration among Afghans, especially due to widespread unemployment, non-availability of basic facilities of life like health, education, schooling, pure drinking water, roads etc and widespread lawlessness, increased. Now the situation is that even those people, who celebrated the ouster of Taliban, want them back because they have at least ensured security in the country.

Widespread corruption in government departments and non-redress of people's complaints is the other reason. The thirds reason is that former commanders and warlords are still at the helm of affairs in the country despite the passage of five years of US forces in Afghanistan. In some parts, the commanders and warlords are still enjoying clout and forcing people to pay them taxes.

Q) What do you have to say about the role of Pakistan in Afghanistan?

A) Despite being the closest neighbors and Islamic countries, relations between the two countries were never stayed without doubts and suspicions. The root cause is Afghanistan's claim over a part of territory which is now part of Pakistan. That is the Pashtun region of NWFP in Pakistan.

The people of Pakistan have no doubt rendered great sacrifices for their Afghan brethren after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The government of Pakistan extended all possible support to the mujaheddin to liberate Afghanistan. Besides, Pakistan housed more than three million Afghan refugees and they are still living there.

However, the era of Taliban and Pakistan's support to the hardliner regime left deep scars on relations of the two countries. Afghanistan believes Pakistan and its secret agencies are behind the recent surge in insurgency in Afghanistan. Pakistan denies and allegations and says the Afghan government was responsible for creating instability in Pakistan's border areas in connivance with India, Pakistan's arch rival. Pakistan denies support to Taliban and says it was itself victim of Taliban's and al-Qaeda terrorism.

Q) In your personal view, what do you see in the future for Afghanistan?

A) The future of Afghanistan is bleak unless the Afghan government and the international community recognize some facts:

That Pashtuns, the largest ethnic community, must be given their due share in all the governmental slots and the reconstruction projects.

The former mujaheddin era prime minister and chief of the largest part of Afghanistan (Hezb-i-Islami) Gulbuddin Hekmatyar must be allowed to return to the country and join the government.

The Taliban must be called for negotiations.

All warlords and commanders must be disarmed.

A sincere war on poppies must be carried out.

Those are the major steps which are mostly related to security. And when peace is achieved, other problems like corruption, provision of basic facilities etc would be automatically achieved.

This interview also appears on American Chronicle, Associated Content and Gather.

Been thinking of the impact of India's economic growth on Tourism? We too!

The developing world has immensely contributed to the economic boost that India is currently enjoying and it's tourism sector has not been left out of the share of profits either- a major achievement for the image of brand India build up by a successful financial system in place in our country.

Some economists credit this fiscal feature of success of Indian financial system to the income generated by the tourism segment, movements across the cross-section of rising business opportunities, agricultural and educational sectors opening up as well as novel and attractive packaging of brand-building for India that have in turn, benefited the travel industry as well. Besides this, strategic planning of excursion packages, eco-tourism, sports events that bring the spot-light on India and greater patronage by greater number of MNC's heading to our shores as well as diversifications of the Indian open industries norm have contributed to the growth of Indian economy and thereby, Indian tourism.

The WTO (World Tourism Organization) reports that as many as 698 million people traveled to a foreign country in 2000, spending over US$ 478 billion while on tour; if India too had a share in these results, then surely the impact of Indian economy as a contributor to rising world economy and its impact on tourism cannot be ignored. More of free spending of disposable incomes, greater markets opening up and better scope for industrialization and earning opportunities have led the way for India's economy to successfully launch the enhanced tourism sector.

What has contributed to the economic growth of India and the tourism sector at large are factors of industrialization, education, higher number of qualified professionals, opening up of foreign markets, liberal trade policies and better advertising and strategic marketing.

The above factors have been collectively responsible for boosting our country's economic reserves and the impact of India's economic growth on tourism is increasingly being felt in specialty sectors like spiritual tourism, spa tourism, student/senior citizen or family vacation plan segments in tourism as well as (surprise, surprise!) adventure tourism! Better amenities and modernization of roads, infrastructure in hotels, local lodging options, accreditation of genuine travel operators and guides etc., training being imparted by government and private sector individuals interested in developing specific regions for tourism promotion and encouraging global gains for India have all been strategized well. These policies put in place after significant contribution from field experts like market watchers, tourism ministry and education and foreign affairs ministry support systems are governed by the needs of tourists visiting India for a certain cultural flavor, yet, not be deprived of comforts, hygiene, security and conveniences that are world-class.

Understanding and fulfilling needs of global tourists for quality vacationing: the kick-off for creditable performance and strong impact of India's economic growth on Tourism

Indian tourism receipts combined with better passenger transport systems and customized food and lodging preferences taken into consideration by exclusive tour operators has meant a niche segment of the country's top travel agencies generating considerable income for their industry. No wonder, as things stand, tourism has become the number one export earner, ahead of automotive products, chemicals, petroleum and food for India and this would not have been possible without the combining of governmental, community and private industry powers through diversification in the economy. This diversification of economy is a sign of health for India as a developing nation fast emerging as a major player in the tourism sector, which has got a shot in the arm thanks to better management at local and urban levels. The only issue of concern is that should India or any of its major tourism generating regions become dependent for its economic survival upon one industry, it can put major stress upon this sector and its people, who may be compelled to perform well consistently. One solution for easing the burden of India's welcome economic growth off the shoulders of the locals is for our developing country to explore other resources, apart from embracing specialized tourism pockets, as a way to boost the economy.

Why do parking lots scare many of us when it comes to violent crime? It starts with the fact that similarly to hotel hallways, they often seem to be void of people, especially at night. Combined with the other truth that many high-rise garage parking lots are designed with security-unfriendly areas such as walls, pillars and elevation changes (where people may be lurking) and we begin to see the reason why our common sense makes us apprehensive. Even large open parking lots like the ones attached to shopping malls can offer a thief or violent predator great visibility to watch for security patrols, escape routes and potential victims.

Types of Crime

The most common parking lot crime is vandalism or theft. The most common violent crimes are purse snatching, robbery, carjacking and abductions.

The design, lack of people, and the horror stories we've all heard about all combine with our natural instincts to bring forth apprehension around certain lots and garages. This is a good thing. Without normal apprehension we'd be walking off cliffs, walking into traffic, and in short, doing some real stupid, dangerous things. Of course, I'm simplifying a bit about the positives of our natural common sense; however, our natural instincts are real and useful. You do not need to feel foolish if you find yourself nervous in circumstances where common sense dictates apprehension. The key for you is to not become over apprehensive. Calm, awareness of dangerous possibilities is needed.

Tips

There are certain things we can do to lesson our chances of being victims of violent crime in and around lots. Here are some important tips:

Park in well-lighted areas—well lit means you can see 100 feet at night

Go out of your way and spend the extra time to park in well-traveled, busier areas

If you are alone, come and go with groups of people who may be walking your way

Lock your vehicle doors when you leave your car

If available, and you feel uncomfortable, ask for a security officer to walk you to your car

Do not walk with your mind consumed by thoughts such as what you need to buy or other tasks you may have to attend to later. Be aware about what is going on around you now. Are there suspicious people in the area or near your car? Is there a van parked next to your vehicle that wasn't there before? Be aware of present dangers and act accordingly
Get in your car as quickly as possible. Most abduction's occur when people are getting into or loading up their vehicles

Immediately, lock your doors. This should become second nature, like putting your seat belt on whenever you get into your car
If available, and you can afford it, use valet parking.

You can also choose to carry self-defense weapons such as Pepper-Spray or other legal items for your safety and security. If you chose this option, remember to become truly knowledgeable in their use and have it close and ready at hand.

Calm, realistic awareness is the beginning step you need. In addition to your awareness, stay mindful of the tips mentioned and you'll be much better off going to and from your parking lot destinations.

In our founding documents it states that the United States of America is a nation built by the people and for the people. Unfortunately most of the laws in our society and civilization have been reshaped by lawyers and sometimes in a self-serving way. One cynical person in our online think tank stated; "America; By the People, For the Lawyers!"

Of course immediately one of the lawyers in the group labeled him a cynical person, which he immediately admitted freely. But he said; "just because I'm a cynic does not mean I am not correct." So the question is what do you think? This is an article of pure opinion as you can tell.

Are we still a nation built by the people and for the people or are we a modified hybred; being built by the lawyers and for lawyers. If lawyers make our laws and we have to hire a lawyer to tell us what those laws are and then hire another lawyer if those laws are inadvertently or accidentally broken then who are we truly serving; ourselves "The People" or the lawyers to whom we have to pay money to for advice on how to live or run our businesses.

The cynic in the group suggested that in his business, which is a successful construction firm, he had to call his lawyer every time he wanted to use the company restroom to make sure it was okay? Indeed, it has not got that bad yet, but it surely could at the present rate in my humble opinion.

I certainly hope this article is of interest and that is has propelled thought. The goal is simple; to help you in your quest to be the best in 2007. I thank you for reading my many articles on diverse subjects, which interest you.

It is time for America, the greatest nation ever created in the history of mankind to upgrade the civilization we created. This will be a huge undertaking due to the massive size now with some 300 million people. In fact no one could say it will be easy, as nothing in life ever is. No one said that fixing the problems would be simple, but the concept of how it should work is simple.

Having Founded and run a franchising company for most of my life, I certainly saw the complexity of running a large organization and unfortunately the larger it got the more layers of manure, most of which was not by our own choosing but rather due to the over regulation government and over-lawyering that was so entrenched in such a self-serving way. [opinion-CYA].

Indeed if that blob of bureaucracy was reduced we would immediately see more efficiency in free markets and a much more economically viable Nation with fewer hard to deal with pendulum swings of the business cycles. [opinion-CYA]. A CEO running Washington DC or a group of CEO types makes sense, except that they are human and have innate human characteristics which are issues that can hurt the whole if they run amuck and what they say about absolute power is a comment well taken as well. [opinion-CYA].

One cannot deny the coming crisis of Social Security or under funded or collapsed pension funds. Yes, this is an issue. Yet with the in-fighting we see nothing is happening and long-term investment in the stock market is not necessarily the answer due to the GDP and aging issues. (example; Japan).

Even increased birth rates, immigration and such cannot handle the crisis coming to hold the system up, plus the increase life expectancy. But multiple careers, longer, healthier life spans will do wonders to prevent folks dying in the street and give folks a chance to learn and grown and then do much better in their second go around and perhaps put them in a better place to do what is best for all concerned as they do it, having learned from 40 years of their past. [opinion-CYA].

If the United States does not adequately address these issues and upgrade the system there will be hell to pay and economic collapse. [opinion-CYA]. I certainly hope this article is of interest and that is has propelled thought. The goal is simple; to help you in your quest to be the best in 2007. I thank you for reading my many articles on diverse subjects, which interest you.

A governing body without a vision is

like a sail boat without sails

Sailing from the English coast to the French coast is always a pleasant experience, as long as the weather is good, the Channel traffic is under control and the vessel you use counts with all the necessary comforts.

Going down to the sea in ships invokes all kind of romantic sagas, historical events and even drama and tragedy. It is the kind of activity that stimulates the professor who seems to spend a good part of the time sitting in the control station in the astern of the boat where he has proper protection against the wind and can punch the keys of his laptop at will.

Years ago I was convinced that the subject of his writings had to do with the sea; I expected poetic reminiscences of boats, mariners and sirens and in stead I discovered long essays on subjects like new mathematical approaches to finite sequences or simple stories about the origins of lobster bisque in the Normandy Coast.

Having a Gin and Tonic in mid morning is not something that I would recommend, unless you happen to be on a boat with the Professor. Somehow, the impact of the gin and the tonic, plus the slice of lemon plus the wind caressing the riggings of the boat and the Professor's curiosity about all topics, justifies the subtle protection of the drink against the breezes of the channel.

"Professor, what do you think of our present situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and the Israel, Palestine question?"

"For a seasoned journalist, your question suffers from many obvious flaws. Please allow me. First, it is not one situation as you say. A situation in the proper sense implies some form of stability which, incidentally is missing in all three cases you mention. We face several major involvements, would be the correct way of describing our current activity in the Middle East and Asia"

"OK Professor, but come to the point"

"No problema. In all three involvements, our Administration has shown a blatant disregard for form and style. Foreign policy, as practiced and understood by this Administration has been nothing but a show of force, disguised around simple rhetoric, resounding phrases and unbearable arrogance. It is a sad improvisation where its most important element, diplomacy, is missing. It leads to disaster. And, my friend, history is there to back up my assertion"

"I guess most of our friends would agree and even some of our enemies. How about a grand design such as the establishment of freedom and democracy in those parts of the world that need it most?"

"Listen, there is no political philosophy that can be nurtured within closed minds and without a practical approach, meaning the need to maintain an open dialogue within ourselves and with the rest of the world.. And diplomacy and political leadership, as is well known involves interaction, compromise, discussion and hopefully the search for practical conclusions"

We freshened up the drinks, meaning more fresh gin, fresh tonic and fresh ice cubes and after the regulation toast to whatever, the Professor continued:

"It takes a master plan, a vision, a dream, an objective and even an illusion. But it must permeate the minds of the people to be valid and to be legitimate. By saying that you have the greatest army in the world and that you are full of brave and courageous young men can be as empty a pronouncement as a forced birthday greeting"

"Probably so Professor. But why?"

"I don't wish to waste this wonderful day expounding complex theories and appealing to obscure principles and accepted premises. Let me just say that our Administration has lacked from the beginning the key ingredient needed to make the United States not only the superpower that it is but the great superpower it should be"

"And, what is it?"

"One word: vision. Allow me a shallow comparison. Look at your helmsman. He is intent on maintaining this sail boat on course, and he is doing whatever is necessary, even if you don't lend a hand and sit here with me drinking this horrendous Gin and Tonic at ten in the morning. He has a vision. And he is getting us there"

"What is the vision?"

"To get to port safely and to keep us from consuming all the gin on board!"

We ought think no longer according to systems of left and right, of state-controlled equality vs. corporate fascism. In the most educated societies our recorded histories have ever seen, there is much more grey between the black and white of good and evil, the grey being the substance upon which we all exist. One can be a communist and have no concern about blasting the air with toxins and mass-chemical oriented agriculture, their concern being for worker's rights. One can be a fascist and still wish for clear skies and uncarcinogenic food, their concern being for the welfare of the corporate class. One can be a liberal with personal passions on either side of the spectrum and maintain discipline in debate and tolerance of dissent, their concern being for freedom of opinion. One can be willing to stand up for and defend what they see as massive atrocities against their own people and NOT be a terrorist. In short, there is much more at play and much more to consider than a simple choice between political biases based on the the abuse of language. It is possible to be opposed to the practice of a government, of anyone for that matter, without being tossed aside into the arena of the ideological opposition.

I think that the time is over when to stand against the United States is to be communist, or even terrorist. Their march of freedom was over a long time ago. Since the end of the second world war (and indeed even before so) the United States have been on an imperialist rampage, involved in the overthrow or attempted overthrow of governments all over the world in countries such as (though certainly not limited to) Iraq, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Chile, Haiti, Vietnam, and Palestine. Great Britain, France and Canada are no different. The same goes for Russia and China. In being opposed to capitalist imperialism I am not necessarily complicit in communist tyranny either. If we are going to live in a society of rules, of law and order, one cannot make arbitrary war upon others for personal gain.

But it is so much more than that. Are we to battle ideologies based upon philosophical uncertainties, or look at reality to decide what actually matters?

Human rights. Environmental protections. Sustainability. The duty of the citizen and the moral obligations to help the needy. Is it better to have a democracy where the elected leader spends a trillion dollars in war than under a hereditary monarchy where the presiding king or queen provides needed aid to starving peoples? Is the right of self-determination for one more valuable than the right to life for another? Is the right to exploit the populace for personal gain more valuable than the ability to maintain a lasting social cohesion? Is it better to act in the name of the country or in the name of the species? What difference does it honestly make what type of governments we have so long as they are taking care of what really matters?

I claim no lasting political bias. It would be foolish to adhere to a partisan political sphere, that is, an organizational ideology, when the real world is in constant change. Ideology is what people rely on when they stand for something other than the obvious good for the people.

As the local Kibera Slum, Nairobi, Kenya's largest slum is re-vitalized as part of a herculean effort and creates its own wind and small business environment it will be time to push for strong economic development. Once economic plan is initiated it must be maintained.

The goal is to have income and money coming into the area to remain in circulation in the slum. How will money come in? Monies will come in from those who have jobs outside the slum in factories, as cooks, maids and civil workers. Also since slum tourism is high, reporters will wish to report on the progress of the upgraded slums and the controversies surrounding the bulldozing. Dignitaries, philanthropists and government officials will wish to parade around, visit and take credit for the incredible recovery to economic viability.

In addition to the local small enterprises and businesses which are near the town-centers that are created, there will also need to be "mobile businesses" such as cleaners, sales carts and other incidental types of businesses. As more money is flowing in the area the 800,000 population will continue to support them. Mobile Cart businesses will be very simplistic and each cart provides yet one more job.

These carts can be built for as water cleaning carts, food storage carts, dry good carts and the cost to build them will be anywhere from $65.00 to $450.00 where the higher costs will be for carts with pressure washers and water tanks. These carts can be equipped with RFID Active tags for tracking so that an entrepreneur who wishes to rent them out by the day as independent contractor units can do so safely. This will be an integral part of the small business economic long-term development plan. Their base location could be a Cargo Container with the goods inside.

The small business enterprise plans are available thru the Online Think Tank. I certainly hope this article is of interest and that is has propelled thought. The goal is simple; to help you in your quest to be the best in 2007. I thank you for reading my many articles on diverse subjects, which interest you.

It took the Soviets 10 years and the loss of 15,000 troops before they admitted they admitted defeat in Afghanistan. For the West, it will not take so long for the slow bleed to become a hemorrhage. It will be only a matter of one or two years, at the most before, Afghanistan falls and the country collapses again into fragmentation and internal civil war. It may indeed come sooner.

The Soviets were prepared to fight to the death in Afghanistan because they knew the edge of their empire was crumbling and a domino effect on its other republics would follow. The Soviet bureaucracy was fighting for its life. In Cold War terms it would have been the equivalent of the US loosing Mexico to communism. The US and NATO forces don't have anything like the same motivation, determination and commitment to fight to the end in Afghanistan.

The nature of catastrophy and abysmal defeat in Iraq fundamentally undermines the psychological foundations of any successful defence of the Kabul regime. The failure of new "surge" will embolden the Taliban and undermine confidence in the West among the Afghan people and among the warlord Mujahedin, who dominate its government. Collapse in Iraq will intensify the sense of hopelessness and pointlessness among Western forces and hasten demoralization and defeat.

They are low on adequate resources and relegated in importance. The former British Commander of NATO forces admitted that last year they came close to losing Kandahar, the second city. It is not ruled out that much of the south and east could fall into Taliban hands this year, paving the way for the fall of Kabul, the year after.

The Taliban are ferocious fighters, with a messianic fervour to fight to the death. They bring with them the experience of veterans of the brutal Soviet war and the civil war which followed. Now regrouped, rearmed, their forces are prepared both for unfavourable open combat of almost suicidal proportions. Furthermore they are opportunistically changing tactics, both in order to create maximum urban destabilization and to win local support in the countryside. Boasting of more than 1,000 suicide volunteer bombers, they have also renounced their former policy against heroin cultivation, thus allowing them to win support among the rural population and gain support from local tribes, warlords and criminal gangs, who have been alienated by NATO policies of poppy field destruction.

Although disliked and despised in many quarters, the Taliban could not advance without the support or acquiescence of parts of the population, especially in the south. In particular, the Taliban is drawing on backing from the Pashtun tribes from whom they originate. The southern and eastern areas have been totally out of government control since 2001. Moreover, not only have they not benefited at all from the Allied occupation, but it is increasingly clear that with a few small centres of exception, all of the country outside Kabul has seen little improvement in its circumstances. The conditions for unrest are ripe and the Taliban is filling the vacuum.

The Break-Up of Afghanistan?

However, the Taliban is unlikely to win much support outside of the powerful Pashtun tribes. Although they make up a majority of the nation, they are concentrated in the south and east. Among the other key minorities, such as Tajiks and Uzbeks, who control the north they have no chance of making new inroads. They will fight the Taliban and fight hard, but their loyalty to the NATO and US forces is tenuous to say the least.

The Northern Alliance originally liberated Kabul from the Taliban without Allied ground support. The Northern Alliance are fierce fighters, veterans of the war of liberation against the Soviets and the Afghanistan civil war. Mobilized they count for a much stronger adversary than the NATO and US forces. It is possible that, while they won't fight for the current government or coalition forces, they will certainly resist any new Taliban rule. They may decide to withdraw to their areas in the north and west of the country.

This would leave the Allied forces with few social reserves, excepting a frightened and unstable urban population in Kabul, much like what happened to the Soviets. Squeezed by facing fierce fighting in Helmund and other provinces, and, at the same time, harried by a complementary tactic of Al Qaeda-style urban terrorism in Kabul, sooner or later, a "Saigon-style" evacuation of US and Allied forces could be on the cards. The net result could be the break-up and partition of Afghanistan into a northern and western area and a southern and eastern area, which would include the two key cities of Kandahar and, the capital Kabul.

Pastunistan?

The Taliban themselves, however may decide not to take on the Northern Alliance and fighting may concentrate on creating a border between the two areas, about which the two sides may reach an agreement regardless of US and Allied plans or preferences. The Taliban may claim the name Afghanistan or might opt for "Pashtunistan" – a long-standing, though intermittent demand of the Pashtuns, within Afghanistan and especially along the ungovernable border regions inside Pakistan. It could not be ruled out that the Taliban could be aiming to lead a break away of the Pakistani Pashtuns to form a 30 million strong greater Pashtun state, encompassing some 18 million Pakistani Pashtuns and 12 Afghan Pashtuns.

Although the Pashtuns are more closely linked to tribal and clan loyalty, there exists a strong latent embryo of a Pashtun national consciousness and the idea of an independent Pashtunistan state has been raised regularly in the past with regard to the disputed territories common to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The area was cut in two by the "Durand Line", a totally artificial border between created by British Imperialism in the 19th century. It has been a question bedevilling relations between the Afghanistan and Pakistan throughout their history, and with India before Partition. It has been an untreated, festering wound which has lead to sporadic wars and border clashes between the two countries and occasional upsurges in movements for Pashtun independence.

In fact, is this what lies behind the current policy of appeasement President Musharraf of Pakistan towards the Pashtun tribes in along the Frontiers and his armistice with North Waziristan last year? Is he attempting to avoid further alienating Pashtun tribes there and head–off a potential separatist movement in Pakistan, which could develop from the Taliban's offensive across the border in Afghanistan?

Trying to subdue the frontier lands has proven costly and unpopular for Musharraf. In effect, he faces exactly the same problems as the US and Allies in Afghanistan or Iraq. Indeed, fighting Pashtun tribes has cost him double the number of troops as the US has lost in Iraq. Evidently, he could not win and has settled instead for an attempted political solution.

When he agreed the policy of appeasement and virtual self-rule for North Waziristan last year, President Musharraf stated clearly that he is acting first and foremost to protect the interests of Pakistan. While there was outrageous in Kabul, his deal with the Pashtuns is essentially an effort to firewall his country against civil war and disintegration. In his own words, what he fears most is, the « Talibanistation » of the whole Pashtun people, which he warns could inflame the already fierce fundamentalist and other separatist movement across his entire country. He does not want to open the door for any backdraft from the Afghan war to engulf Pakistan.

Musharraf faces the nationalist struggle in Kashmir, an insurgency in Balochistan, unrest in the Sindh, and growing terrorist bombings in the main cities. There is also a large Shiite population and clashes between Sunnis and Shias are regular. Moreover, fundamentalist support in his own Armed Forces and Intelligence Services is extremely strong. So much so that analyst consider it likely that the Army and Secret Service is protecting, not only top Taliban leaders, but Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda central leadership thought to be entrenched in the same Pakistani borderlands.

For the same reasons, he has not captured or killed Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership. Returning from the frontier provinces with Bin Laden's severed head would be a trophy that would cost him his own head in Pakistan. At best he takes the occasional risk of giving a nod and a wink to a US incursion, but even then at the peril of the chagrin of the people and his own military and secret service.

The Break-Up of Pakistan?

Musharraf probably hopes that by giving de facto autonomy to the Taliban and Pashtun leaders now with a virtual free hand for cross border operations into Afghanistan, he will undercut any future upsurge in support for a break-away independent Pashtunistan state or a "Peoples' War" of the Pashtun populace as a whole, as he himself described it.

However events may prove him sorely wrong. Indeed, his policy could completely backfire upon him. As the war intensifies, he has no guarantees that the current autonomy may yet burgeon into a separatist movement. Appetite comes with eating, as they say. Moreover, should the Taliban fail to re-conquer al of Afghanistan, as looks likely, but captures at least half of the country, then a Taliban Pashtun caliphate could be established which would act as a magnet to separatist Pashtuns in Pakistan. Then, the likely break up of Afghanistan along ethnic lines, could, indeed, lead the way to the break up of Pakistan, as well.

Strong centrifugal forces have always bedevilled the stability and unity of Pakistan, and, in the context of the new world situation, the country could be faced with civil wars and popular fundamentalist uprisings, probably including a military-fundamentalist coup d'état.

Fundamentalism is deeply rooted in Pakistan society. The fact that in the year following 9/11, the most popular name given to male children born that year was "Osama" (not a Pakistani name) is a small indication of the mood. Given the weakening base of the traditional, secular opposition parties, conditions would be ripe for a coup d'état by the fundamentalist wing of the Army and ISI, leaning on the radicalised masses to take power. Some form of radical, military Islamic regime, where legal powers would shift to Islamic courts and forms of shira law would be likely. Although, even then, this might not take place outside of a protracted crisis of upheaval and civil war conditions, mixing fundamentalist movements with nationalist uprisings and sectarian violence between the Sunni and minority Shia populations.

The nightmare that is now Iraq would take on gothic proportions across the continent. The prophesy of an arc of civil war over Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq would spread to south Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine, through Afghanistan into Iraq and up to the Mediterranean coast.

Undoubtedly, this would also spill over into India both with regards to the Muslim community and Kashmir. Border clashes, terrorist attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency would break out. A new war, and possibly nuclear war, between Pakistan and India could not be ruled out.

Atomic Al Qaeda

Should Pakistan break down completely, a Taliban-style government with strong Al Qaeda influence is a real possibility. Such deep chaos would, of course, open a "Pandora's box" for the region and the world. With the possibility of unstable clerical and military fundamentalist elements being in control of the Pakistan nuclear arsenal, not only their use against India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as the acquisition of nuclear and other deadly weapons secrets by Al Qaeda.

Invading Pakistan would not be an option for America. Therefore a nuclear war would now again become a real strategic possibility. This would bring a shift in the tectonic plates of global relations. It could usher in a new Cold War with China and Russia pitted against the US.

What is at stake in "the half-forgotten war" in Afghanistan is far greater than that in Iraq. But America's capacities for controlling the situation are extremely restricted. Might it be, in the end, they are also forced to accept President Musharraf's unspoken slogan of "Better another Taliban Afghanistan, than a Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan!"

In the UK, the Home Secretary (the chap in charge of crime and security for the UK population) has announced plans to increase the risks of active sex offenders by ensuring that their online details including usernames and email addresses are published on the sex offender's register when caught. This is a positive step, although we all know that emails can be forged or changed and usernames are fluid. But it does, however, represent steps towards trying to make online life safer, especially for children. And this is something we need - right?

But that in itself may be misguided. In a recent survey, the vast majority of parents reported anxiety or concern with regard to their children using the internet yet statistics show that it is very rare, even in these days, for boys or girls to be groomed on the internet. In Britain alone, there were only approximately 40 cases investigated last year and far less convictions. Contrast that with real world statistics.

In the "real" world, sexual abuse involving contact is reported by at least 14 % of youngsters proving, or at least suggesting, that grooming and sexual contact in the real world is a far greater concern. It is those children who live in fear in the home, not in cyberspace, that the statistics pray for. While online activities need to be policed and it is commendable that the metropolitan police, in particular, have taken steps towards combating this horror, would it not be better and more productive to target resources towards the real offline world first?

It has often been said that the nearest thing that we have in 21st Century American Society to the gladiatorial contests of yore is professional sport. I disagree. Much more satisfying to the American bloodlust and craving for the suffering of others (perhaps as a salve for our own dissatisfying lives), is the prospect of public humiliation, soul-baring and desperate apologies. This phenomenon essentially falls into two categories:

The first is most obviously (though by no means solely) exemplified by the advent of what is generally (but inaccurately) referred to as "reality television." In this milieu, people, either for money or fame, or both, subject themselves to abject embarrassment and abuse. Personally, I avoid this material like the Plague, because I find it both self-indulgent and masochistic at the same time. In the first place, I watch television generally as an antidote to reality and for the purpose of being entertained by comedy, drama, fantasy, etc. Secondly, there is absolutely nothing "real" about "reality TV." It is every bit as elaborately staged as the public burnings, beheadings, crucifixions, feeding of people to lions, fights to the death, and all the spectacles of the ancient arenas it is intended to emulate, except that those unfortunate victims of long ago did not volunteer, but were pressed into "entertainment" service. So far as I know, not a one of them sought, nor was offered a record or book deal. If given a choice, I must confess and frankly acknowledge (with a very high degree of shame), that I would sooner have seen the real thing.

The second of America's favorite blood sports, and the one that is truly the subject of this article, is the phenomena which begins at Stage One with people (usually public figures in either the political or entertainment fields) saying something (or being videotaped or overheard having said something) outright racist, antisemetic, otherwise bigoted or just plain "insensitive." We then proceed to Stage Two, which begins with public excoriation on every talk show and in every publication, followed by a once uniquely American (but catching on elsewhere) purification rite: serial public apologies by the offender. This latter course is, we know, motivated not by true regret, for the most part, but by the recognition that repentance, or the appearance thereof, may (and I emphasize the word "may") salvage the career of the improvident speaker.

Speaking for myself, I have had quite enough of this modern Passion Play. It is a sad fact, for example, that I myself am carefully choosing my own words in this piece because, as is the case with most of us, I feel myself intimidated by what I perceive to be the tyranny of political correctness. It occurs to me that we have become a society so sensitive such that we threaten to suck all the life out of our daily discourse, public dialogue and entertainment. I readily acknowledge that my own tribe, the American Jewish Community, is quite high up on the list of oversensitive groups, actively seeking to ferret out antisemites around every corner. With the so-called "President" of Iran publicly calling for nukes and the annihilation of the Jewish State, extreme Muslim diatribe rivaling and, in some instances exceeding Nazi hyperbole and a former American President using the loaded term apartheid to describe Israeli policy, one would think we could find more important uses for our time than obsessing over Mel Gibson's interpretation of the Christian Gospels and drunken rants, and whether Steven Spielberg (whose contribution to the common weal of U.S. Jewry and International Holocaust consciousness is nothing short of heroic) portrayed Israel in a flattering enough light in his semi-fictionalized Munich film.

Some things, we know, are out of bounds: Michael Richards public use of the N-Word in an otherwise unfunny comedy routine, has properly earned him a shunning. That is as it should be. He will probably never be able to apologize enough to get past it, in the opinion of this writer. But we should leave it at that. The public spectacle of endless apologizing, groveling and appeals to the forgiving nature of the aggrieved community, coupled with promises of rehab and dialogue is, as it was in Mel Gibson's case, nothing short, frankly, of sickening. I also believe, moreover, that the double standard which winks at the use of that awful and incendiary term in the Black Community is difficult to justify. Fortunately, more and more African American leaders are taking that precise position.

A number of years ago, Jimmy the Greek was drummed out of NFL broadcasting for his public ruminations about the source of athletic prowess among Blacks. Trent Lott, in a colossally stupid moment, waxed nostalgic about Strom Thurmond's segregationist campaign of long ago, even going so far as to express regret for its failure, and, as a consequence, lost his position as Senate Majority Leader. This is the legitimate price tag, in public life, of thoughtless tongue-wagging which may be a symptom of real prejudice. Absurdly, however, a few years ago, a Federal Government official, in a budget-related memorandum used a perfectly legitimate English word, the definition of which is, in essence, miserly. But the facial similarity of that standard English word (which, yes, folks, I am actually afraid to use in this article) to the N-Word made this memo the subject of loud national debate, actually resulting in—you guessed it—an apology. That the offending word had nothing, whatsoever, in common with the N-Word etymologically was, of course, irrelevant.

On the other hand, Joe Biden's recent remarks about Barack Obama will probably only wound his presidential aspirations (which were almost certainly non-existent in any event) and not be the death of his political career. I have heard African American spokespersons on television referring to these remarks as "insensitive," and not "racist." Rosie O'Donnell recently brought a few days (but no more) of wrath upon herself by an unflattering and clichéd imitation of Chinese dialogue on The View. Robert Byrd remains (to put it mildly) a force to be reckoned with and an elder statesman in the Senate, notwithstanding his one-time card-carrying membership in the Ku Klux Klan. Somehow, Paris Hilton's liberal use (preserved for posterity on You Tube) of the N-Word at a New Year's Eve party seems to have flown beneath the radar screen. The reactions to these episodes, statements and conduct may or may not have been proportional to the offense, but it occurs to me that there is a double standard and something of a free pass in this area given to the left. After all, is anyone still on Ted Danson's case for his appearance in blackface some years ago? One can only imagine the firestorm that such associations remarks and conduct might have engendered had they come from a George Bush, a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity.

The point, however, is the ridiculousness of the "apology tour." If you do not like the remarks of a public figure, don't patronize him or her. If he or she is in politics, don't vote for that candidate. If in the entertainment industry, don't patronize the TV shows, films or recordings. Encourage your friends and like-minded people to do the same. That is the deserved and proper response to outrageous and unacceptable remarks and conduct. We pride ourselves in being a society with freedom of speech. Yet that freedom seems to apply only with respect to criticizing the Government, racists (real and perceived), homophobes (real and perceived), Christians and promoters of so-called "family values." Verbal attacks on the left and minority groups of any kind, which our Constitution supposedly protects every bit as vigorously, are subjected to retribution which, de facto, gives the lie to the theory of free speech. The new "F-word" does not have four letters; rather, it is a derogatory term for homosexuals. That does not mean that it is acceptable to use that word if it gives offense; it is, however, legally protected. It is, perhaps, worthy of note that in bygone days, the term was used by youngsters (perhaps unaware of its real meaning) to suggest nothing more than, say, lack of ability in baseball. Part of the problem, I think, is that the rules of political correctness present an ever-moving target. Once upon a time, Black people wanted to be called Negroes. Then, the consensus in that community was that "Black" was the preferred term. Then it was "Afro-Americans," and then "Black" again, followed by "African Americans" and/or "people of color" (but NEVER the very similar sounding "colored people" which—unless one is explaining the acronym NAACP—is unacceptable because it has an old and derogatory connotation). While people, of course, have a right to ask to be called whatever they want, they should probably understand that not everyone is going to keep up with the term du jour.

Political correctness also carries with it other phenomena besides the "banning" of certain words, considered epithets. With them come other double standards. In the 1930's and 1940's, there existed a series of Hollywood mystery films featuring a Chinese detective named Charlie Chan. Aside from the (from today's perspective) ridiculously stereotypical portrayal of this character in terms of dress, mannerisms, accent and speech, Chan was portrayed by a Caucasian actor. On radio, Amos & Andy (which would certainly be insulting not only to Blacks, but to any thinking person today, and rightly so), had the two title characters played by Caucasian actors, as well. A few years ago, I saw the musical version of Titanic on Broadway. One of the actresses playing a first class passenger in that show was Black. This seemed strange and inauthentic to me for a play set in 1912, until my daughter, who was with me, pointed out that acting is acting, and that, for example, many great black singers had been portraying Italians, Russians, and Germans in the Opera House for years. Many had played, with great distinction, in Shakespeare productions. She was, of course, absolutely correct and I felt foolish about my initial reaction. But would it now be acceptable for a Caucasian actor to play Othello the Moor? If so, should he be made up to look darker, or would that be as insulting as appearing in blackface on the stage? Wasn't there a firestorm of controversy over whether only an Asian actress could play the lead in Miss Saigon on Broadway? Double standard? You bet! So what the heck are the rules? And who are the faceless, nameless arbiters of political correctness, anyway? I want to see a list!

We have groups of people who actually want to ban, from school curricula, Huckleberry Finn which, by any objective standard, is one of the pillars of American Fiction. The reason for removing this work from view is, of course, its frequent use of the N-Word. Never mind the time or place, or the historical context. Should the Merchant of Venice come off the shelves too, because of its stereotyping of Jews? What about Oliver Twist, which features a miser, thief and leader of a gang of youthful pickpockets named Fagin who is obviously a Jew. It goes without saying that Mein Kampf carries little currency (to understate the case grossly) with me, but I would never want to see it taken out of public circulation. If you want to have some understanding of the phenomenon that was Adolf Hitler, his appeal to the German volk and his twisted need to do what he did, read his book! Res ipsa locquatur. (The thing speaks for itself). Nor should anyone, in my opinion, think to take away the defamatory Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Jewish Community is, in large measure, defined by thousands of years of libels and persecution, culminating in the horror of the Holocaust, as the Irish-American weltanschauung is a product of centuries of oppression and a horrible potato famine, and as the Black experience in America is informed by the experience of slavery, Jim Crow, minstrel shows and a million other forms of racism. Take it off the shelves? Ban it from schools? Never! All of these things represent WHO WE ARE.

None of us, by the way, has a monopoly on suffering and injustice. Jews don't own the word "holocaust," for example. While Hitler's genocidal war on the Jews has no historical parallel, in this writer's view, it is eminently fair to use the word "holocaust" to describe the crimes perpetrated by the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, and those taking place this very day in Darfur. It is undeniable that Stalin and Mao were each responsible for as many or more deaths than Hitler and in similarly gruesome and evil ways. Blacks have borne the entire yoke of slavery in America, but slavery has been widely practiced around the world since the dawn of human history, claiming victims of many races and nationalities and, unbelievably, it has still not been completely eradicated.

Ironically, many of the same proponents of these political correctness ideologies tell us that it is time to have an honest, open dialogue in this Country about race and prejudice. How, if I may dare ask, shall we do so in an environment in which we are afraid to look our ugly history in the face and are, each succeeding day, ever more terrified of using the words? Shall we, indeed, have a dialogue without words?

No, I think we really don't want to have such a dialogue, because it is likely to be unpleasant and not pretty, to say the least. And we would all be constantly and alternately making and demanding apologies from one another. Many have called for "America" to apologize for slavery. But what is "America?" Most of today's Americans did not have ancestors in this Country during the days of slavery. And of those who did, only a minority of those owned slaves, or supported the institution. As for my own forebears, who, at the outset of the American Civil War, were to be found in Lithuania and Russia, they were probably too busy dodging pogroms and marauding Cossacks to be deriving any sadistic pleasure from oppressing people 6000 miles to the west.

If we are going to pursue political correctness and the consequent public flogging for non-compliance, to its logical degree, we might consider adding a new Cable TV Channel called the All-Apology Channel. 24 hours a day of nothing but All Apologies, All the Time. What a magnificent public spectacle for those who would once have delighted at the prospect of public pillorying in the village square.

For the rest of us, however, let us consider the following: The chronically intolerant and the racists, sexists, homophobes and bigots in our midst would just as soon eviscerate their targets in any manner possible, including, perhaps, by doing them real harm as has, God knows, happened often enough in history. The response, I believe, to these individuals should be to shun, boycott and expose them and where necessary, to find means to destroy them.

On the other hand, for those whose slip of the tongue or youthful indiscretion indicates bad judgment or momentary stupidity and not real bigotry…and let's face it, folks, in our hearts we really do know the difference, let's just get on with our lives and focus on the real bad guys. There is certainly no shortage of them.

If we really want to speak seriously about race and prejudice in America, we need to stop hiding behind this phenomenon of disinfecting and deodorizing the language and whitewashing (strange, how that term is still "allowed") the past. And, in the meantime, for the sake of our own sanity and the freedoms we cherish, let's ALL try to lighten up a bit!

Inevitably there will come a time when you have to move. Transferring to a new unit or attending a school can be a difficult experience, with a great deal of valid concern as unknowns mount. Fear is a difficult opponent to slay, but knowledge helps. As you learn the actual facts, the fears become more specific, and easier to deal with. If you don’t know what the conditions are like where you are going, or what to expect, you can face paralysis from the overwhelming possibilities. If you could simply talk to someone already there and find out that there is housing available but you are better off staying off post in reasonably priced apartments due to scheduled renovations which would force you to move again anyway, then you can plan around these facts.

When going to a school or new unit, if you could reach someone already there and ask what the cadre is like, or how strictly the standards are enforced, you can get used to the idea and perhaps even adjust your plans for how to behave or what else to do while you are on site.

It may even be that you can find or create friends before you arrive. Being able to create a friend or at least a friendly acquaintance before you arrive can go a long way towards defusing the dread of a new situation.

This isn’t merely for soldiers; spouses and children will also face the same dread of the unknown and can use connections over social networking sites to find people and information from the new location. This might mean learning what entertainment is available or more practical considerations like the options for laundry service and sewing, but each thing you can learn before the crisis is one less thing that will zing around inside your head while you are frantically dealing with the myriad of issues involved in a change of station.

The unknown is one of the toughest foes to face. Not knowing enough about a new situation to do anything is a recipe for panic. The worst part of this is when you let yourself spin helplessly around without enough knowledge to do anything. Not only can this lead to panic, but also panic is contagious. Once started it can feed on itself as others begin to panic and it is extremely difficult to regain control of the situation. The best way to deal with panic is to find something you can actually do about a situation, and do it. Even if it turns out not to be the best possible option, it isn’t unusual to learn enough to find the better plans once you start.

The military teaches us that before an operation, we conduct a reconnaissance. This is merely a recon operation conducted by a somewhat less orthodox means.