Note about the US pressure on Assad in Syria

Comment of Washington about necessity for Assad to go is something rather irrelevant and unhelpful, and not because Syria wouldn't be better without Assad (maybe), but because the moral authority of the US over the region where it deliberately had fostered, cherished and weaponized dictators (and continue to do so in Bahrein, Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc, despite the situation there is not so different from Syria) is virtually ZERO! They, Washington, just now trying not to fall behind the actual events and all their comments directed not at actual help to Syrians but to saving their own face, though I don't see what there is left to be saved... http://dr-world.blogspot.com/2011/03/some-extra-about-moral-political-crisis.html
1st stage of enlightenment: I understood that USA never ever in its recent history has been interested in spreading democracy round the world. 2nd stage of enlightenment: I understood that US has always actively been interested in the opposite - containment of democratic development in other parts of the world. What Syria changes? Why not to talk about Bahrein, Azerbaidjan, Uzbekistan, the 'pet' Yement etc etc etc? My foot, the USA talking about Assad bad guy - fancy that! And lecture Europe on how to abstain from... buying oil from Syria!! All comics and satirical writers can retire, they are not needed any more!

A note about India disparity and corruption problems

The problem is still the same: India like many other countries tried to build its state and country after the very obsolete and semi-democratic capitalistic model of the USA, which belongs to 19th century and gives the Americans themselves a hell of a lot of problems nowadays. But India (and other young democracies, for example in Eastern Europe) would better follow the example of much more advanced and modern democracies like Finland, Sweden etc. Then if India had done so she would have had a chance to avoid all the 'bouquet' of problems which the USA had to go through in the past, and have a true democracy, not a class-based semi-democracy, that has come to a very serious moral, ideological and economic crisis.
The same goes for Egypt: if (and that's a big if) it's revolution should be successful in the foreseeable future, by no means should Egypt step on the same 'mine' and try to mimic American model. Nothing could be more terrible than this. Learn from Scandinavia, or, at least, from Germany and South Korea.

About the probability of success of Egypt's revolution

I really doubt that so far a real revolution has taken place in Egypt - no hard proof of that, alas. There occurred the toppling of Mubarak's regime by the military, who used popular support and the moment. I don't understand at all where all this infatuation with and enthusiasm for the military many Egyptian people feel comes from, since the military have never ever been a great fan of democracy, almost by definition - like a wolf playing the role of a custodian of a flock of ship.  Conscious revolutionaries would never ever have let the military get into power, let alone stay there as a 'temporary' guarantor of democracy. Military as a guarantor of democracy! Ha ha- the shortest funny story I've ever heard of. The military has been built and created for absolutely different purposes - to KILL PEOPLE or to manage them WITH FORCE - military force at that, and defend the ruling regime (itself included if this ruling regime is headed by the military) by force.
Anyway, let's hope that this situation has a short-term potential of development into something bigger than a trivial banal military dictatorship.
Then first thing to do is to throw the military out of power and out of office ahead of their screams and, subsequently put very tight limits on their powers in the Constitution FOR GOOD. The same goes for the intelligence and other special services. Both - the army and special  services must not  only be limited but also made utterly transparent: no 'state secrecy' any more in the form it's been known, any info which is to be made a secret must be unrestrictedly accessible for Parliament committees and some other independent controlling bodies, preferable public and publicly controlled directly too. Parliament committees must have not only an unrestricted access to any info and activity of those with weapons in their hands, but also supreme rights to monitor and control the activity, conduct special investigations and make public reports thereon.
Second, politically, there needs to be formed PEOPLE'S temporary governing body with great powers and only this could promise a good start now and some fundamental change. This organ must be composed only and only of socially significant figures who have NEVER EVER had anything to do with either former government and parliament, nor with any powerful government agency. Who have never been in politics at all. The history of every member of such people's counsel must be accessible to everyone in infinite details from the cradle to the first kiss, including the every single movement to the toilet. Then at least two elections to parliament must be planned at once by this body, organized and fulfilled. Every candidate must be cleaned for 120%, any detail of his biography must be accessible publicly. Only and only then there could be some tangible hope that this so called revolution could turn into some concrete fruits and bring some irreversible democratic change. Court proceedings and huge criminal prosecutions of the champions of the old regime must continue non-stop PUBLICLY. Lustration must be done on a national scale, and be of an unprecedented proportions, scope and clarity. EVERY SINGLE EGYPTIAN who directly or indirectly was involved in or connected with the former political system must be known to everyone.

A few comments on Norway apocalypse

To protect a country from such scale bombing and shooting two VERY SIMPLE things must be done: BAN gun possession & ammonium nitrate (this type of fertilizer) free sale. I understand this simple measure, that means any professional understood and understands this simple thing even better. Any specialized Government agency - its specialized anti-terrorist and explosion professionals - have known this for all their life. What can prevent anybody in Norway from bombing Norway? NOTHING, cos anybody can go to the garden shop by ammonium nitrate and make as much explosive as he wants. Any specialist knows it. All those governments including Norwegian one have talked for many years about their cooperative measures and info exchanges in their self-less fight against terrorism, and none of them have answered the simple question: 'What has been done to prevent ANYBODY who wants to blow up the country from easily doing so with ammonium nitrate?' NOTHING have been done DESPITE that there's not a shade of doubt that any man in the relevant agencies at least a bit closely connected professionally with this sphere. understood and understands the simple possibility of making explosives and explosions at will at any place at any time for anyone. WHY?? And who is to blame? They know that it is possible and no obstacles were on the way for anyone to commit an explosion, but NO-THING has been done. The only answer - they, government, from the very first DIDN'T WANT to close this possibility, though they could do so in a matter of a day. The same goes for small arms selling, possession and carrying. Is it so difficult to predict that with the current weapons laws anyone can organize in Norway '911' at will? Didn't the Government understand it?? Of course it did. That's their cooperative fight against terrorism for you. That's the protection they give you for your money. That's the importance of 'anti-terrorist wars' they wage in other countries at the expense of your, dear Norwegians, LIVES and money. Get it, taste it and eat it whole!
Now of course atrocious politicians will try do the everything in their power to turn a psychological and safety protection problem into a political one, try cynically to derive maximum dividends from this tragedy giving an impression of their importance and indispensability, giving the problem as much political color as  possible, although the only political objective consequence of this is that Police and Government of Norway should be criminally prosecuted for doing ZERO in terms of REAL provision of safety.
Can a man out of boredom start a war against a whole country, just to get into the history books? Easily, cos technically possible - Norway, and because there are ALWAYS a small percent of men never valuing the human life as such. So many all sorts of shoot-outs have been in the USA and Europe, but the scale was smaller because the lack of planning.
Can a man out of boredom start a war against a whole country, just to get into the history books? Easily, cos technically possible - Norway. There will be lots of political insinuations, but it looks like the problem and motives are closer to the grim prophecy of the movie 'Natural Born Killers' by Oliver Stone.
But a question must arise for Norwegians: why do they hold & pay their police & army? Wage war in Iraq & Afg? To patrol Oslo after a carnage with serious faces and frowned brows keeping up the pretense of having control and caring for safety of the people? No attack on democracy in Norway: such things happen because of lack of democracy: lack of people's control over the efficiency of Govt agencies, incl army police and intelligence.
Fact #1: no police on the island
Fact #2: police arrived only... wait for it... 40 min (!!) after the call to the island! They fight in Afghanistan, Iraq and God knows where else as they as to bring the good and SECURITY to some distant corners of the world and nations, but when it comes to protection of NORWEGIANS they come in 40 min, give an allowance for a terrorist to go the shop and restore the supply of ammunition if it wasn't sufficient to kill all people on the island. My foot! Even in slow Australia ambulance by helicopter reaches any site of the continent in less than 40 min, including the most inhabited wild areas of the bush. They fight with terrorism... If anyone at all fights with terrorism, its guys like Julian Assange and Bradly, keeping in mind who are the main terrorists - people in power, who like talk about democracy, but who are very little controlled by too poor semi-democracy and who do everything in their power to keep in place the gaping holes and the doors open for everyone who wants to blow the nation. Why no democracy in operation? Because Norwegians don't have any control over the governmental agencies and cannot influence their effectiveness.

Why did the West start a war against Gaddafi but not against Syria?

Needless to say how reluctant the West was to utter a single word against Yemen bloody government or against Bahrain etc for a lot of 'special interests' and 'special relationships'. There's also little doubt that relatively 'inimical' Syria traditionally used by the USA in its rhetoric as 'a medium strength bad guy' has been and still is all in all to the liking of the same USA and the West in general so long as it is not a democracy (one of the main priorities of the foreign policy of the West being to keep the privilege of democracy from the Middle East as long as possible) and is not a military or economic threat (no difference for that matter from Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan etc etc). So this is too a self-explanatory question why the West has held out hope to the last that the Syrian government at last will be successful in suppressing its people and regaining the full state control (so that the traces of all the killings could be cleared and relegated to the category of 'suspected but not proved).
But as I see, there are still a lot of misunderstanding and delusion among the public about the belated but inexorable decision of the USA and other Western countries to get rid of - actually just KILL Gaddafi - a butcher and terrorist much worse and better proven than the recently killed Bin Laden, Gaddafi who up until recently had been to the liking of the West SO MUCH that had been not only completely legitimized and legalized by the latter, but embraced, kissed, wooed in all manner of ways and invited to all sort of parties personally by |Western leaders as a guest of honor.
Why did the West in general and the US in particular finally (however reluctantly and belatedly) take a decision to get rid of Gaddafi? The answer, I believe, is very simple. They - Western governments - just didn't have any other way-out of this situation (though, they DESPERATELY searched for one - no doubts about this). Otherwise, if they didn't, there would arise a ridiculously and most obviously and unprecedentedly 'perverse' and unhidden situation where after the Gaddafi crushed the rebellion the West would just continue oil business with him as unusual, despite the fact that the huge 'genocidal' killings and tortures by Gaddafi of its own people would be a 120% proven fact - just something like continuing the blossoming trade and investment relations with Hitler after the Holocaust had become a PROVEN fact. It would destroy to the ground and for evermore all this, however already flimsy, house of cards of the Western 'high moral democratic grounds', the myth about its promoting and supporting democratic values around the globe beyond the borders of its nations (of cause not all western democratic countries belong to 'the West' in this context, but an overwhelming majority of them; I don't want to blame e.g. Sweden which neither was involved in the sweet oil friendship with Gaddafi nor even bought a barrel of oil from Libya ). Of cause, there would be an ethically acceptable middle way - just leaving Libya alone with huge sanctions, denying its leaders from entry for good, freezing their accounts for good etc, and... of course (!) STOPPING BUYING OIL from Gaddafi and freezing all the oil investment projects there... But this quite legitimate way would be UNACCEPTABLE for the... of course.. these magic words trumping any morals, ethics and values, and justifying anything on Earth (if there's no direct PROOF of the crimes on a scale of Holocaust with thousands of skulls found and revealed publicly)  - 'SPECIAL INTERESTS'! - a key word combination which even Nobel prize laureate Obama is absolutely not shy about using as an argument for everything going against democracy in the rest of the world. Those special 'wallet interests' which for the USA and many of their Western allies in the end measure any democratic values and those very 'high moral grounds' in the units of oil barrels....

A letter to a friend: don't have illusions, there are no good governments

There's no such thing as a government that cares about its people - 'good government'. Also don't have any illusions about the governments of the so called developed democracies, or, as I call them, 'semi-democracies'. As such, generally, they don't care a damn about people's lives - they have never done in the past, they never do, and they never will as long as they exist in their present form. Even more to the point, for example, the Communist China government have the same will to improve the lives of the people unlike the American or British or French governments, or to be more honest the TOTAL ABSENCE thereof. In fact the paradox is that there are some reasons to suspect that actually Chinese government even do care a bit for the Chinese people, but the main distinction between the US and China governments is the limits of the involvement and the actual power with the existing political and legal systems. As to the state agencies (like the police or army or whatever), they care more about people's needs in the US than in China - again because of the place they occupy within the system, precisely because in China there's all those agencies have the priority to protect the Government and control the people. But the main difference is the system. If you put the American government in place of the Chinese one you not only don't see any positive change, but actually you might well become a witness of a serious deterioration by comparison. Just give the American government the same levers of control as those in the hands of their counterparts in China, and you see the great metamorphoses almost at once... Don't have any illusions about it. The American people some time in the past just twisted arms of their authorities and forced them to introduce such laws and procedures that guarantied a point of no return for any form of radical dictatorship or totalitarian political control. If the Chinese people will be able to  do the same, they too will be become at least a 'semi-democracy' like the US, which preserves much more freedoms and some kind of political competition and rotation of power, albeit hugely far from ideal. I don't have any doubt as to what kind of posts such figures as Sarkozy or Bush would try to gain, if, suppose, with the help of a time machine they had been transported into the period of the Third Reich in the 1930s. The same goes for Tony Blair. Absolutely no doubts on this one. The same goes for their governments. Don't have any delusions about the nature of the modern governments in the nation-states. There are very substantial differences between legal and cultural models of the contemporary states - YES, but the difference between their governments is almost ZERO, cos the governments are kind of relics in their nature.
There's no such thing as a good government. There's only better controlled governments, worse controlled governments and practically UNCONTROLLED governments - all with the same motives and very similar interests which don't have anything to do with the population's well-being as well as with the ethics or moral. They are intrinsically immoral, and so far there's nothing for it. Take it or leave it. Yes you can say with some degree of certainty that KGB government of Russia does occupy a special place among all others in terms of cruelty and blood-thirst, but it more relates just to the fact of their being KGB, which initially and historically has never been a government as such. But even so, this difference is much less than it could appear at first sight.

A note about the Americans love affair with their guns

This is my short reply to one blogger's question:
Do you think that it's not guns that increase murders, it's nations that are full of people demanding guns?
My answer:
Both are true.
Guns which are practically in an unrestricted circulation nation-wide of course rise the killing rate and not only that - suicide rate too. At the same time Americans have a very high percentage of people who don't value life enough in practice (the conservative historical legacy of the US). But guns in turn help to keep the very cult of guns and teach Americans from the cradle that guns are part of their culture and an integral attribute of their fight with 'bad guys'. America - we must recognize it and the faster the better for the US - is in this sense much more violent and blood thirsty in this respect than Switzerland and many other European countries for that matter. The death penalty is another very singular distinction in the mass mentality of the US from Europe (the idea of killing as a punishment is very live in the US)
But, guns increase murder rate too, and there's no reasonable doubt that the criminal killing rate in the same Switzerland would fall even lower if the free guns circulation was stopped. They were not invented to protect lives, the fire arms were invented to kill.
The very ban, or, at least serious modification of the rules which would give an individual the right to posses a real gun, would not only reduce directly the killing rate, but also would start a major review of the centuries old romantic love affair of America with their guns, would start some sole searching, and, maybe, today's children in the US will grow into some 'less American' and 'more European' adults in this respect:) One must start somewhere first with word then with deed.