About Me

My photo
SEEKONK, MASSACHUSETTS, United States

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY- AVOIDING REALITY. PT 1.

(*IN THIS ARTICLE I USE THE WORD "TREATY" TO DESCRIBE
THE RESULTS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS.  HOWEVER, TERMS SUCH
AS "DEAL" OR "AGREEMENT" COULD REPLACE "TREATY" WITH
NO LOSS IN MEANING OR UNDERSTANDING.

Diplomacy Word Cloud Concept — Stock Photo #44349765

As the Debate over the Nuclear Treaty with Iran is still being Discussed in Congress, and the Media, we find that one thing Remains True:

SOME POLITICIANS STILL AVOID ANY REAL DEBATE THAT MIGHT RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY.

WHY?  IT WOULD INVOLVE INSIGHT AND THE ABILITY TO THINK BEYOND SIMPLISTIC SOLUTIONS THAT WILL ADDRESS THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION, INSTEAD OF REPEATING MEANINGLESS RHETORIC THAT PLEASES YOUR SUPPORTERS.

So, let us Step Back, Ignore everything that has been said, and look Beyond Bombastic One-Liners to see where the TRUTH MAY LIE.

First Question- WHAT IS A TREATY?

A TREATY IS BASICALLY A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PARTIES;

THAT ARE USUALLY DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS OR NATIONS, WHO ARE RECOGNIZED AS THE LEGITIMATE SOURCES OF AUTHORITY FOR A GIVEN GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OR POPULATION, THAT HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE AND ENFORCE ANY POLICIES, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.

A TREATY IS JUST LIKE A SIGNED BUSINESS DEAL. THE GOALS AND PARTIES TO IT MAY BE DIFFERENT, BUT THE PRINCIPLES ARE THE SAME.

What can we Safely Infer if Two or More Parties are Entering into Diplomatic Talks,
with the Outcome Eventually being a SIGNED TREATY FOR ALL PARTIES?

#1-  EACH PARTICIPANT IN THE NEGOTIATIONS HAS SOMETHING THE OTHER WANTS.-  No One Enters into These Negotiations Insisting that the Opposing Side Give Up Something, but will get nothing in return. Turning it around, No Side enters such Talks with the Idea of Giving Into Certain Demands, and Anticipating No Concessions From the Opposition. 

That would be Unrealistic and Foolish.

#2-  WHILE THERE MAY BE MANY POINTS OF CONFLICT OR DISAGREEMENT, ALL PARTICIPANTS HAVE ONE OR TWO MAIN GOALS THEY WANT THE TREATY TO ACHIEVE.-  These are Usually So Prominent that They are Generally Apparent at the Outset of the Talks, and are in some cases THE ONLY REASON(S) THAT BROUGHT THE OPPOSING SIDES TO THE NEGOTIATION TABLE.

LOOK FOR PART 2.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. HEALTH CARE. PT 1.


Diabetes, Blood Sugar, Diabetic

HEALTH CARE-  PT 1.

I am not going to begin this regular feature by providing a definition that will no doubt bore most readers. In the future, I will define such words, but I would rather open up with a practical article. 
The theme, " When does personal belief conflict with the best interests of society as a whole." 

The subject- Health Care.
Providing Health Insurance to every person residing in the U.S and its' territories, is not an economic question. 
If the federal government creates a program to provide minimal guaranteed medical coverage, 
funding must be there to support those who cannot afford traditional private plans. 
This is the Heart of the matter, and the dilemmas we must face are;
  • Do we, as a society, have an obligation to provide minimal affordable medical care to all.
  • That many people will, through taxation, provide a service that will be of direct benefit to others and not them personally.
  • That in the question of the right or wrong of a given situation, choosing a moral stand is;
              1) The responsibility of the individual who is a member of society.
              2) The obligation of the governing body in society, which is a collection
              of individuals.

To illustrate what I mean, here is an example.  Let us say an individual decides all questions of morality will be answered from a Doctrine based upon the teachings of a given faith.  Now such decisions have two distinct implications;

  • Is the individual going to decide the morality of any given situation solely by religious instruction and nothing else? If not, they have invalidated their own moral code, for it is not universally applied. It contradicts any assertion that the doctrine of their faith, regarding morality, is to be accepted absolutely.
  • Does the individual wish to establish this system of morality for all of society, and punish any deviations.
 If society is populated by a majority of such citizens, what will be the outcome?
See pt.2 in a future issue.

Monday, April 2, 2018

FEATURE ARTICLES- CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING- FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES. PT 1.

                                                                                                                       

Landscape, Sand, Drought, Tree, Sky, Sun 


IT IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT THE REAL REASON THAT THESE TOPICS CAUSE SO MUCH CONTROVERSY IS TWO-FOLD:

 -  MANY PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD,
THIS INCLUDES BOTH POLITICIANS AND VOTERS.

The Scientific Method, and what makes it a Valuable Tool, is sometimes not presented in a way that sets it apart from those Opinions that are Derived from MINDSETS That Are Essentially Useless, when discussing Phenomena that Occurs in Nature.

SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

First and Foremost, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS NOT A SET OF BELIEFS, WITH A DOCTRINE THAT PASSES JUDGMENT ON A CATEGORY OR SUBJECT, LABELING THEM AS EITHER SCIENTIFIC OR UNSCIENTIFIC.

Like the RULES OF LOGIC AND MATHEMATICS, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A PROCESS, THAT LEADS TO ANSWERS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT EITHER DEFINITIVELY EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED, OR OFFERS HYPOTHESES THAT POINT OR DIRECT US TO THE MOST PROBABLE SOLUTIONS.

We do not use the Scientific Method to Evaluate Subjects, that by Definition, do not rely on LOGIC OR EVIDENCE-BASED MATERIAL TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTHFUL, SUCH AS RELIGIOUS FAITH OR OTHER SUPERNATURAL  SYSTEMS OF BELIEF.

-  DISCUSSING OR DEBATING THE PROBLEM OFTEN MISSES THE POINT.

When you DISCUSS OR DEBATE ANY SUBJECT, THERE ARE CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT MUST BE MET, OR THE RESULT WILL BE ESSENTIALLY USELESS.

SEE PART 2.  

BLAST FROM THE PAST: PRESIDENT OBAMAS IMMIGRATION SPEECH- WHAT DOES HE ACTUALLY SAY? PT 1.

INTRODUCTION:  AS THE U.S. CONTINUES TO GRAPPLE WITH DONALD TRUMPS "POLICIES," I THOUGHT A TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE WOULD SHOW US HOW THEN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM. 


(First Published on 11/25/2014.)

Obama, Barack Obama, President, Man


Let's try a Novel Approach. Ignoring what the Political Pundits on Television and the Radio Have to say, and actually READ THE TRANSCRIPT FROM PRESIDENT OBAMAS IMMIGRATION SPEECH.


It is available online.  So, if you are interested, why not Download it, before passing Judgment.

The following Posts on this Topic, are my Thoughts and Opinions taken directly from the Transcript.

Let's get started.

He opens by praising the Two- Hundred Year+ History of the U.S. welcoming Immigrants from around the World, and the Advantages it has given the Country over other Nations.

However, he goes on to say:

"...Today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it.  Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules.  Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them less."

From this passage we can take the following;

-  The President is acknowledging the State of the Immigration System, AND THE NEED FOR IT TO BE FIXED.

-  That the way the system is currently operated victimizes;  Legal Immigrants who follow the Law, and Honest Business Owners who offer good wages and benefits, who see competitors using undocumented workers to save money.

The President goes on to say;

"All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America."

-  In other words, the Advantages and Responsibilities go hand and hand.  With one comes the other.

LOOK FOR PART 2.