Contains selective news articles I select

Archive for January, 2012

Ron Paul as an Anti-communist Cold Warrior

by Christian Gomez
Monday, 22 August 2011

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul is most distinguishable, on the debate stage alongside fellow GOP contenders, for his opposition to the U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya. The Texas Congressman advocates the withdraw of U.S. troops from not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also elsewhere in the world, such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

Rep. Paul has also distinguished himself from other candidates in his consistent statements and beliefs. Unlike most other candidates, he has not flip-flopped — saying now what he has been saying for decades.

Once considered as one of 12 potential leaders of the conservative movement after the age of Reagan, according to the March 1983 issue of Conservative Digest magazine, Ron Paul is now regarded as the Godfather of the Tea Party movement. Still, despite his popularity on the right, and among libertarians, independents, as well as disenfranchised Democrats, Paul is attacked by many due to his foreign policy stance.

The attacks come not from the Left, but rather from fellow Republicans. The insinuation is that he is weak on defense because he supposedly supports Iran’s quest to build a nuclear weapon. Congressman Alan West (R-Fla.) recently came out against Paul, saying:

Let me be very honest. When I was listening to the debate Thursday night and a certain candidate for president stood there and said he didn’t see any problem with Iran getting a nuclear device because everybody else has one — I have to tell you, that’s not the kind of guy you need to be sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Websites from to create an image that Paul is “Al Qaeda’s Favorite Member of Congress” or that he is the pro-Russia/Communist candidate. When he is not being ignored by the media his detractors take potshots at him, attempting to create a distorted image of Paul as a supporter of totalitarianism and Communism.

More recently a small series of articles have been posted online insinuating that Ron Paul is being backed by Russia and that his election is what Russia and the communists want. Those reading such articles might well come to the same conclusions if they have not dug deeper into Paul’s record.

First elected to Congress in 1976, serving a partial term until 1977, and again from 1979 to 1985, Ron Paul represented the then-22nd Congressional District of Texas. At the time, the United States was faced by the Cold War threat of Communism and the Soviet Union — a totalitarian state that represented the complete opposite of Paul’s libertarian beliefs. Paul was no friend of communism or the USSR — and his record during his tenure in office at the time vindicates his credentials as an anti-communist.

Before Ron Paul’s days as a Cold Warrior are examined, it is first necessary to define and distinguish the ideology of communism versus the ideology of liberty, as advocated by Paul.

What is Communism?
Communism is an inherently collectivist ideology which centers on the breakdown of capitalism and the breakup of society into two main collective classes of people — described as the working class and the capitalist class (i.e. the proletariat and bourgeoisie).

Ignoring human nature’s desire to better oneself and aspire for a better standard and wage of living, communism calls for the creation of a “classless” or “equal” society by which the natural human condition is suppressed by the state as it controls the total means of production (i.e. farms and factories). The state ownership of the means of production is also commonly referred to as socialism.

Although some communists claim their aim is the eventual “withering away of the state,” as Karl Marx wrote in his Communist Manifesto (1848), its application first requires that the state be used as the primary tool to control all aspects of human interaction (i.e., life and economics) in order to remove any remnants of “social injustice” or inequality — essentially eradicating those things that distinguish individuals from one another and make people unique. This is to be done by force, resulting in a compulsory state of apparent equality.

Once total or absolute equality, or “social justice,” is achieved, the state can then begin to deconstruct itself and cease to be, theoretically leaving behind a society of equal people living In a “people’s paradise” or “utopia.”

The major fallacy of this belief is that it relies on the state changing human nature, which in reality and in historical application can only be attempted by coercion, repression, and tyranny.

Tyrants, once in absolute power, never cede away their power (this too is human nature). In communism’s state of “transition” from capitalism to anarchy, when the state accumulates total power, there still exist two classes — the masses and the ruling elites (i.e. the ruling Communist Party Politburo). No mechanism exists to check or coerce the equality of this new ruling oligarchy. This is why, no matter how well intentioned the agitators of communist revolution maybe (and in most cases, the “well-intentioned” communists are in the lower ranks, dominated by an elite clique of malintentioned conspirators), their system of government has always led to, continues to lead to, and will always lead to total tyranny by the state – i.e. statism. Hence, actually communism is statism – the total control by the state.

Ron Paul’s Ideology
Communism is the antithesis of individual liberty, the latter of which Ron Paul has championed his entire career in public office. In his book The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008), he elaborates his belief on personal freedom:

Freedom means not only that our economic activity ought to be free and voluntary, but that government should stay out of personal affairs as well. In fact, freedom means that we understand liberty as an indivisible whole. Economic freedom and personal liberty are not divisible.

Whereas modern “liberals” advocate government intervention in the market, modern “conservatives” advocate government intervention in social matters, and communists advocate government intervention in or control of both. Ron Paul, on the other hand, advocates that there be no government intervention in either the economy or personal affairs.

Paul is by no means an anarchist; he is rather a constitutionalist — believing in the basic rule of law where government exists primarily to protect one’s rights, which are inherent and derived from our Creator. He believes that we are entitled only to that which we are born with — our life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness.

Government’s role is not to grant rights or to collect from one to disperse to another, but rather to protect one’s God-given rights to his or her own personhood and property. Government does this by creating laws that protect one’s life and private property from other violators.

These laws are administrated by elected federal and state representatives (i.e., a republic) and enforced by local law enforcement, closest to the people, and also a national military to protect the land from foreign aggression. This is why Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, which delegates specific powers to the Congress, pertains mostly to military or national defense affairs.

Governments are not instructed to protect people from themselves but rather from others that would violate their individual personhood or property. This is the ideology of Ron Paul. By the very nature of these Lockean beliefs, Paul is an ideological anti-statist, anti-collectivist, and henceforth anti-communist candidate, rare qualities among GOP presidential candidates.

Ron Paul on Communism
In regard to communism, Ron Paul stated the following in his book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (2011):

Communism was based on the belief that only the party established the truth, and it was not rigid; it changed according to political priorities. Without a belief that truth exists apart from what government says it is, peace, prosperity, and progress are impossible.

Considering these anti-collectivist/ anti-communist tendencies and considering also that Ron Paul served in Congress from 1976-77 and 1979 to 1985, it is worth exploring how he handled the menace of the Soviet Union and international communism during the Cold War. We can begin by examining Paul’s position on foreign aid to the Soviet Union.

Ron Paul on Foreign Aid to the Soviet Union
Ron Paul has always maintained a consistent opposition to all foreign aid, but especially to the communist states such as the Soviet Union. At a time when the American people were told by the government that the Soviet Union and Communism represented the greatest threat to the world and free people, that same government (the U.S. government) was propping up that very same threat of communism via the Export-Import Bank.

In a 1980 issue of “The Ron Paul Report,” Congressman Paul gives the example of the “largest truck plant in world, on the Kama River in the U.S.S.R.,” which, as he stated, “produced many of the trucks and armored vehicles used in the [Soviet] invasion of Afghanistan…”

Paul went on to explain that the plant was “built at the expense of the American people.” According to Paul, “The Nixon Administration ruled the project to be in our national interest, and the government’s Export Import Bank loaned the Soviets $154 million at an average interest rate of 6.5%, with the first payment not due for 10 years.”

“The rest of the $342 million financing, loaned at market rates by a syndicate headed by the Chase Manhattan Bank,” Paul elaborated, “was insured by the taxpayer through another government agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.”

This Paul opposed, as it benefited the Soviets at the expense of the American taxpayer. “The Export-Import Bank’s funds come from the U.S. Treasury, and the outlays cause our taxes and inflation rates to go up,” Paul said, adding, “The Soviets get the goods. The big banks and companies get the profits. And the taxpayer gets the bill.”

Paul summed up this policy as “simply a transfer payment from the average American to the well-to-do, with a bonus for our enemies.”

Ron Paul on SALT II (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty)
In addition to criticizing the policies of President Nixon, Paul also censured the administration of President Jimmy Carter for its support of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, also known as SALT II.

In the October 1979 issue of his “Freedom Report,” Paul criticized U.S. arms reduction agreements with the Soviets:

Over the past twelve years — years of almost constant disarmament negotiations — the Soviet Union has outspent us on military offense and defense by 35% to 40%. This, the greatest military build-up in the history of the world, has led to rough equivalency between the USSR and the USA at best, and, at worst, clear inferiority for America.

Paul condemned the SALT II agreement, saying of it that “this would probably lead to permanent US weakness and the make the Soviet Union the undisputed military superpower in the world.” He continued, “It would be profoundly destabilizing; and far from promoting peace, it would endanger it.”

Paul’s report explained that “President Carter said we would agree to build no heavy ICBMs if the Soviets would only construct 150. The Soviets said no, they wanted 308 to our zero. We ‘compromised’ at 308, under the leadership of Paul Warnke, head SALT negotiator and George McGovern’s 1972 defense advisor.”

These 308 heavy ICMBs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) were referred to the Soviets as SS-18 missiles, each of which, according to Paul, “is six to seven times as powerful as our best missile.”

Paul also outlined the danger of SALT II and why he opposed it in Congress:

Under SALT, our missiles are allowed three Multiple Independently Targeted Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs). This means each missile can carry three nuclear warheads capable of hitting separate targets. SALT gives the Soviets permission to have 10 MIRVs on each SS-18. (SS-18s have been tested with 14 warheads, and many of our military experts believe they are capable of carrying 16.) Under the terms of the treaty, this one aspect of the Soviet warmaking machine can deliver 3,080 giant nuclear warheads, each with the destructive power of one million tons of TNT. These MIRVs equal 181,000 Hiroshima-size bombs.

Unlike many on the Left, and those both sympathetic and apologetic to the aggressions committed by the Soviet Union and international Communism, Ron Paul was a clear opponent of arms reduction agreements that benefited the Soviet Union and the communist world. He challenged the establishment, whether it was the President of his own party, Richard Nixon, or President Jimmy Carter of the Democratic Party, every time they sought to make treaties to bolster the Soviet war-machine and industry at the expense of American taxpayer dollars and national security.

Ron Paul on Nuclear Freeze and the Soviet Union
In addition to standing against SALT, Ron Paul was equally opposed to the nuclear freeze initiative.

During the height of the Cold War socialist radicals, anarchists, and other leftist extremists heavily promoted the idea that the United States and its Western allies should adopt a nuclear freeze initiative that would have placed a halt on the production and deployment of U.S. strategic nuclear forces.

In a reply letter, dated June 20, 1983, to a Mrs. Elizabeth Hey, a constituent of his 22nd Congressional District, Paul stated: “I voted against the nuclear freeze resolution when it was approved by the House of Representatives on Wednesday, May 4 [1983].”

Paul went on to briefly outline his opposition to the nuclear freeze bill, stating: “The resolution calls for an immediate, mutual, and verifiable freeze. The Soviets, however, have not stated their willingness to freeze nuclear stockpiles.” He continued,

My primary objection to a nuclear freeze treaty with the Soviet Union is that I am unwilling to trust the freedom and independence of the United States to the promises of the Soviet ruling elite. The Soviets have broken almost every treaty they have ever signed, once it was no longer to their advantage to abide by its terms.

Paul also made public his opposition to the freeze two months before, in the April 1983 issue of his “Freedom Report,” in which he stated:

The argument for a nuclear freeze is based on a misconception about the Soviet Union. This view holds that the leaders of the Soviet Union are motivated by the same values as we — the desire for peace. … In reality, the Soviet Union is a totalitarian country ruled by a ruthless elite. The value of individual human life is nothing to the Soviet leaders.

“The American people want peace and freedom; the Soviets desire world conquest,” Paul stated as he went on to further criticize the Soviet Union for its numerous treaty violations:

The Soviet rulers are willing to sign treaties only when they advance their plans for conquest. The Soviets have violated SALT I and other treaties at least 27 times. The use of chemical weapons in Afghanistan is only the latest in the long series of treaty violations. I am unwilling to trust the security of the U.S. to the promises of the Soviet Union. [Emphasis added.]

Although Paul has never been an advocate of increasing the U.S. nuclear stockpile, he did rightfully oppose attempts, such as the “nuclear freeze” initiative,” to formally sign an agreement with the Soviet Union that would have legally bound and prohibited the United States from building such weapons if the need should arise.

Committed then to a sound fiscal policy in the defense budget, as he still advocates today, Paul finished by making a call for less needless weaponry but rather shifting the focus of defense spending to what is, or was, actually needed to defend the U.S. homeland.

“The time has come to stop building more tanks and more nuclear bombs, to stop insisting that our reluctant allies take them, and to start building a defense against a missile attack,” Paul concluded.

Ron Paul on Missile Defense
Recognizing the nuclear missile threat posed by the Soviet Union, Ron Paul, as did also his friend and fellow anti-Communist colleague Rep. Larry McDonald (D-Ga.), supported President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), or “star wars” missile defense.

The purpose of SDI, as Reagan stated in his famous televised speech from the Oval Office on March 23, 1983, was “rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”

In an article entitled “Space Warfare” in the December 1, 1983 issue of Congressman Ron Paul Reports, Paul addressed those opposed to SDI; Paul wrote:

Earlier this year, when President Reagan announced plans to develop a space defense system, critics said he was opening a new horrifying era in the arms race: the militarization of space. Such a system, they said, would be “provocative,” forcing the Soviets to build their own “Star Wars” weaponry.

Paul went on to state that, “Nothing could be more misleading,” noting the hypocrisy of the Soviet Union:

Despite the barrage of propaganda from the Kremlin — propaganda that has been scandalously effective at influencing public opinion in the West — space has already been “militarized.” And it is the Soviets that have been the “militarizers.”

Paul concluded his article by paraphrasing and giving the last word to General Daniel O. Graham, “father of the High Frontier space defense concept and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency….” Paul wrote:

In the event of a nuclear attack by the Soviets, General Graham reminds his critics, you’d better believe there will be weapons in space. They’ll be flying right at us. And it is this that those who seek a real defense capability are trying to prevent.

Ron Paul continued to maintain his support for SDI as far late as 1988, when during a televised interview, while running as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, he was asked, “What about Star Wars/SDI?” Paul replied:

I think that it’s worth doing research on SDI, but I would take the money out of the money we spend overseas. Seventy percent of our military money is spent overseas subsidizing rich allies that should be spent on the defense of this country, such as SDI.

Ron Paul observed that a space-based missile defense such as SDI likely would be a far more effective way of deterring a Soviet missile attack than having to be the policeman of the world with U.S. troops and bases in over 150 countries.

Rather than having to maintain an empire overseas, the United States could still protect and even deter the possibility of Soviet nuclear aggression by the development and deployment of a U.S. missile defense system in space — and this was the position held by Ron Paul.

The Soviet Union was not the only world power seeking to impose Communism on the rest of the world. In addition to the Soviet menace, Ron Paul stood his ground against other communist states such as those in East Asia.

Ron Paul on Communist China
In 1982, Paul strongly condemned the Reagan administration when it decided to extend credit to the People’s Republic of China, via the Export-Import Bank, estimated at $68,425,000. “It is outrageous that the American taxpayers are being forced to subsidize Communist China while domestic programs like Social Security are in jeopardy,” stated Paul at the time.

The following year, in a letter from the Paul’s congressional office dated March 11, 1983, he expressed his strong opposition to one of the Reagan administration’s foreign aid bills — S.637, introduced by Senator Charles H. Percy (R-Ill.) — which would have amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Paul quoted the following provision of S.637, which stated:

The FAA is amended to remove the People’s Republic of China and Tibet (which is administered as part of China) from the category of countries to which assistance is prohibited. As a result of this amendment, the People’s Republic of China would not be considered a “communist-bloc” country…

Paul blasted this proposal in the letter: “The contention that the People’s Republic of China is no longer Communist is ludicrous. There has been no fundamental change in the government in Communist China. It is still a totalitarian, repressive, and collectivist regime.”

“The determination that the People’s Republic of China is non-communist should be an affront to freedom-loving Americans,” Paul added.

Consistent with his free-market principles and opposition to foreign aid, Paul criticized the Reagan administration’s State Department for its aid to Communist China:

Communist China has already received over $125 million in loans and credit since 1981. This includes a $68 million credit through the Export-Import Bank to be used to buy steel making equipment. The Administration claimed that this credit was “in the national interest.” It was certainly in someone’s national interest, but I doubt that it was ours. It is indefensible to be pouring $68 million into the Chinese steel industry when the U.S. steel industry is in such terrible economic straits.

Paul went on to asses the threat of Communist China, identifying China’s ties with the Soviet Union and its territorial ambitions for conquering Taiwan. Paul concluded the letter with the following statement:

There is a saying among Communists that goes something like this: If the Communists were going to hang capitalists, the capitalists would sell them the rope. This is only a half-truth. Nowadays, we’d just give them the rope, “in the national interest.”

Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater on Korea
In a 1980 issue of The Ron Paul Report, Paul quotes Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), who said of South Korea that we should “reassess our military presence” there. Paul continued:

If North Korea decided to take advantage of the domestic turmoil [in South Korea], and invaded, said Senator Goldwater, our 41,000 troops would take the brunt of the attack. Our men are well-armed and well-trained, said the Senator, but they would not be able to stand off a probable North Korean-Red Chinese human flood.

Paul went on to criticize foreign aid, believing in the sovereignty of the South Korean people and military to deal with any threat to their security:

… South Korea’s 620,000-man army, and well-equipped air force and navy, ought to be able to defend the country. We have sent them many billions in military and economic aid.

Ron Paul’s reassessment and eventual call for withdraw of U.S. forces from South Korea was consistent with the views of Senator Goldwater, whose anti-Communist credentials were well known at the time. Paul, like Goldwater, recognized the risk and danger to U.S. national defense by maintaining a permanent presence in South Korea.

Even today, when South Korea is a wealthier and freer country than it was in 1980 — maintaining one of the world’s most advanced military forces, more than capable of taking on the outdated Soviet-era military arsenal of North Korea — it still does not require a U.S. military presence there, which is why Paul continues to advocate the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the peninsula.

Despite the distortions and false imagery presented in certain web outlets, the record of Ron Paul is clear as to where he stood on Communism and the Soviet menace of the Cold War. Assertions to the contrary represent inaccurate history and distort the record of the Texas Congressman, who has always unwaveringly championed the cause of individual liberty — since his early days in office as both defender of the Constitution and cold warrior.

Source: The New American.

شغب في المفرق لليوم الثالث على التوالي


خبرني – اسلام الحوامده
اندلعت أعمال شغب مجددا في مدينة المفرق شمالي شرق المفرق ليلة الأحد الاثنين لليوم الثالث على التوالي احتجاجا على عدم القبض على فارضي الخاوات في المدينة.
وأقدمت مجموعة من عشائر المدينة على إشعال النيران في المحلات التجارية ومبنى المحافظة، وسط حضور أمني كثيف اضطر فيه الأمن لاستخدام العنف والغاز المدمع لتفريق المتظاهرين.
ميدانيا، تشهد المدينة توترا شديدا اعتبر الأعلى في المدينة خلال الليالي الثلاث الأخيرة، فيما لم يتم يتسن لـ “خبرني” تحديد عدد المصابين نظراً لمحاصرة قوات الأمن لمستشفى المفرق الحكومي، لكن دوي عيارات نارية سمع في سماء المدينة.
وتحاصر قوات الأمن والدرك منزل محافظ المفرق سليم الرواحنة خشية وصول المتظاهرين إليه.
إلى ذلك، تشهد المدينة اعتداءات من المتظاهرين على عدد من منازل تعود لمواطنين يؤكدون أنهم ليسوا أطرافاً في المشاجرات التي أدت إلى أعمال الشغب.

المصدر: خبرني.

إسلاميو الاردن يدعون الطغاة للاعتبار من سقوط القذافي


خبرني- هنأ المراقب العام لجماعة الإخوان المسلمين الدكتور همام سعيد “الأمة العربية والإسلامية بسقوط طاغية ليبيا معمر القذافي “،لافتاً الى ان “الشعوب ستنتصر مهما طال الزمن”.

وقال في تصريح له الاثنين :”تهنئ جماعة الإخوان المسلمين الشعب الليبي العظيم والامة العربية والاسلامية بهذا النصر المؤزر الذي وافق ليلية الثاني والعشرين من شهر رمضان المبارك ليضاف الى قائمة الفتوحات العظيمة التي أظلها الشهر الكريم ،وينضم بذلك ان شاء الله الى معركة بدر وفتح مكة”.

واشار المراقب العام الى ان “هذا النصر جاء بعد عشرات الألوف من الشهداء والجرحى وكانت تكاليفه كبيرة مما يعطيه طعماً خاصاً ويجعله انجازاً شارك فيه جميع أبناء ليبيا رجالا ونساءً شيباً وشباناً وقد خرج الشعب الليبي اصلب عودا واشد شكيمة وهو يأخذ اليوم مكانه في طليعة الأمة”.

ودعا بشار الاسد وعلي عبدالله صالح الى “الاعتبار من هذا النموذج الصارخ في الطغيان”،لافتاً الى اختلاف تجارب الشعب التونسي مع الطاغية بن علي ،والمصري مع الطاغية مبارك ،والليبي مع القذافي ،واتفاقها في النتيجة .وتابع:” هذه التجارب ضمن فئة الطغاة الذين يستخدمون القوة العسكرية مع شعوبهم وفي ذلك عبرة “.

ونبه سعيد بالقول:”لا اظن ان طاغية كان بشدة هذا ودمويته،وبالرغم من ذلك فقد شاء الله تعالى ان يقلعه من جذوره وان يخرج كأن لم يكن له اي حضور على الساحة الليبية واصبح عبرة لجميع الطغاة”.

ولفت سعيد الى ان “مثل هذه التجربة الجهادية لا بد ان تؤدي دورها الكبير في قضايا الامة كقضية فلسطين والوحدة والتحرر من جميع انواع الاستبداد والاستعمار والتبعية”،وتابع:”الحمد لله حمدا كثيرا طيبا على نعمة النصر ورحم الله شهداء ليبيا وشافي جرحاهم ونفع الامة بهلاك الظالمين وجمع الكلمة على الخير والهدى “.

المصدر: خبرني.

أردني ينجح بتصميم شبكة إنذار منزلي عبر الموبايل


خبرني- اثبت البروفسور الاردني الدكتور خالد عايد بقاعين قدرته على الابداع والانجاز بتسجيله براءة اختراع جهاز انذار عن طريق الهاتف النقال ( الموبايل ) يقوم بتأمين الحماية الامنية في المنازل والمكاتب .

ويجعل هذا الاختراع جهاز الخلوي وفقا لما يقوله بقاعين للصحفية سهير جرادات في وكالة الانباء الاردنية (بترا ) اكثر من هاتف اذ يمكن ربطه بنظام الامن في المنزل او المكتب عن طريق تصميم نظام حماية يتم تحميله في الجهاز الخاص بالشخص ويقوم بالتنبيه عن أي شخص غير مرغوب به يدخل الى المنزل ، اما عبر مكالمة هاتفية صوتية او صورية.

ويضيف ان هذا النظام يحتاج الى تركيب كاميرا في المكان المراد حمايته ، ولا يحتاج الى جهاز حاسوب أو انترنت ، مشيرا الى انه تم تطوير النظام في جامعة ( جلامورجن ) في مقاطعة ويلز البريطانية بعد تسجيله دوليا .

ويلفت الى انه نجح بتصميم النظام وتصنيعه عبر تأسيس شركة منبثقة عن الجامعة تقوم بتسويقه في مختلف دول العالم حيث بدأ الان في بريطانيا ومن ثم سينتقل الى الهند وبعدها الى الاردن ليكون متاحا امام المواطنين واصحاب الشركات .

ويقول انه يمكن من خلال جهاز الموبايل ان تراقب الام صغارها الذين تتركهم في المنزل عند العاملات ، ومتابعة امورهم عن بعد .

ويأمل بقاعين ان ينتشر هذا النظام ليصل الى الاطباء بحيث يمكنهم من متابعة المرضى في منازلهم وخاصة مرضى الضغط والقلب والسكري ليعطي مؤشرا على ارتفاع الضغط ومتابعة الاشخاص الذين يعيشون لوحدهم .

وكانت رحلة البقاعين بدأت من جامعة مؤته عندما كان رئيسا لقسم الحاسوب ، وحاول فيها ان يثبت قدرته على العمل لتكون اول جامعة اردنية يتم ربطها في شبكة الانترنت في العام 1993 بالتعاون مع مركز المعلومات الوطني الا ان مشروعه لم يتم بسبب الروتين وتوقف لينجح فيما بعد بتأسيس مركز التميز للتطبيقات التكنولوجية في مقاطعة ويلز في بريطانيا .

ويسعى الدكتور بقاعين الى تصميم نظام يساعد المصابين في ضعف البصر لتعريفهم على الطرقات واي اماكن يرتادونها عن طريق ربطهم بجهاز هاتف مع الاقمار الصناعية ليتعرفوا على الاتجاهات في الطرق ومعرفة اوقات انطلاق الحافلات، ويكشف عن نيته تصميم نظام يمكن الشخص عن طريق الموبايل من معرفة مواقع ومواعيد انطلاق الباصات خلال السنوات الخمس المقبلة .

ويعكف على انشاء مركز تميز اردني لتطبيقات الحاسوب في المملكة يرعى الإبداع والمبدعين يكون مشابها لمركز التميز الذي يرأسه حاليا في ويلز ويعد من اكبر مراكز الأبحاث في أوروبا في مجال تطبيقات وخدمات الانظمه الخلوية الذكية . ويوضح ان المركز الاردني سيسهم في توسيع نطاق الأبحاث المتميزة وتقديم خدمات الاستشارات وتطوير الانظمة والبرمجيات الخلوية إلى الشركات المحلية والدولية الأمر الذي سيزيد من القدرة التنافسية لهذه الشركات في عالم يتوقع أن يزيد فيه الانفاق على التطبيقات الذكية عن خمسين بليون دولار في عام 2015.

ويبين انه يعمل حالياً على بناء شبكة من العلاقات والإتصالات كمحاولة لنقل بعض من هذه النشاطات العلمية من بحثية أو تطويرية إلى المملكة مشيرا الى انه نظم مؤتمراً دولياً في عمان بالتعاون مع مركز المعلومات الوطني في الجمعية العلمية الملكية في شهر تموز الماضي. يشار الى ان مركز التميز في ويلز تصل موازنته الى 5 ملايين جنيه إسترليني جاءت في أغلبها من تمويل اوروبي ومن الحكومة المحلية في ويلز بالاضأفة إلى مساهمة العديد من الشركات الكبرى في مجال الاتصالات والتطبيقات الخلوية.

يذكر ان الدكتور البقاعين بالإضافة إلى منصبه كبروفسور في الجامعة ومديراً لمركز الأبحاث والتطوير فيها فإنه يشغل العديد من المناصب الدولية كونه رئيساً للاتحاد الأوروبي لجمعيات المحاكاة وتمثيل الأنظمة ورئيساً لما يزيد عن خمسة عشر مؤتمراً دولياً في مجال الإتصالات والتطبيقات الخلوية الى جانب الاشراف على العديد من رسائل الدكتوراه لطلبة اردنيين ً.

المصدر: خبرني.

Gator in your tank: Alligator fat as a new source of biodiesel fuel

Washington DC (SPX)
Aug 22, 2011

Amid growing concern that using soybeans and other food crops to produce biodiesel fuel will raise the price of food, scientists have identified a new and unlikely raw material for the fuel: Alligator fat.

Their report documenting gator fat’s suitability for biofuel production appears in ACS’ journal Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research.

Rakesh Bajpai and colleagues note that most of the 700 million gallons of biodiesel produced in the United States (2008 data) came from soybean oil.

The search for non-food sources of biodiesel already has identified a number of unlikely candidates, including spent oil from deep fryers in fast-food restaurants and sewage.

The scientists realized that alligator fat could join that list. Each year, the alligator meat industry disposes of about 15 million pounds of alligator fat in landfills.

They showed in laboratory experiments that extracted oil from alligator fat can easily be converted into biodiesel. The oil actually was more suitable for biodiesel production than oil from some other animal fats.

The gator biodiesel was similar in composition to biodiesel from soybeans, and met nearly all of the official standards for high quality biodiesel.

Source: Bio-fuel Daily.

Jordan urges “peaceful” transition of power in Libya

Aug 22, 2011

Amman – The Jordanian government on Monday called for a ‘peaceful and speedy’ transition of power in Libya after the downfall of Moamer Gaddafi’s regime.

‘Jordan is closely watching the rapid developments in Libya and hopes the country will see a speedy and peaceful transition of power,’ Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh said in a statement carried by the official Petra news agency.

Judeh also urged ‘a compromise among all political and social forces on a roadmap that permits the setting up of a democratic system of government which enables Libya to play its due role in the Arab world and preserves the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.’

He said that the Transitional National Council has an ‘important’ role to play in the process of the transition of power.

Jordan was one of the first Arab countries to recognize the opposition council and establish diplomatic ties with the Libyan rebels.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood movement, Jordan’s main opposition group, congratulated the Libyan people for toppling Gaddafi and his regime.

‘We congratulate the great people of Libya and both the Arab and Islamic nations for this brilliant victory,’ the Brotherhood’s leader Hammam Saeed said in a statement.

Saeed in particular advised Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Yemeni leader Ali Abdullah Saleh ‘to take a lesson from this outstanding example of despotism.’

Thousands of people have taken part in anti-government protests in Syria and Yemen this year.

Source: Monsters and Critics.

Reforestation and Lions in Greece

London, UK (SPX)
Aug 22, 2011

As the Greek economy maintains its slide towards default and the global climate continues to change for the worse, one organization, writing in Biotropica, has come up with some novel answers to both problems.

Reforest the country to offset historic deforestation and reintroduce long extinct animals such as lions, boosting the economy through eco-tourism.

The Coalition of Financially Challenged Countries With Lots of Trees (CoFCCLoT) also count the introduction of wild gorillas to Spain and the return of forests in G8 nations back to pre-industrial levels, among its suggestions for global sustainability.

CoFCCLoT of course does not exist. However, argue Erik Meijaard and Douglas Sheil, from the University of Queensland and the Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation respectively, this fictitious organization’s demands are an example of the effective use of satire to bridge seemingly impassable gaps in the understanding of politically contentious issues.

“Mockery is seldom part of the scientific approach, but it is effective when it comes to sustainability and the environment,” said Meijaard.

“Scientists tend to approach problems using objective logic and data, ignoring the emotional content and subjective values. Conservation science is especially vulnerable as it is about values as much as facts.”

The use of satire to cut to the heart of a crisis has a noble history stretching back to 1729 and Jonathan Swifts Modest Proposal to consider cannibalism as an answer to the economic plight of the improvised Irish community.

It is this tradition, Meijaard and Sheil argue, which should be embraced by climate and conservation communicators today.

In their Biotropica paper Meijaard and Sheil consider a range of issues to compare the demands ‘the West’ makes of the developing world and how this contrasts hypocritically with how western consumers and politicians view their own actions.

For example it’s perceived that ‘the West’ lambasts developing economies for focusing on cash crops, while remaining firmly attached to the resulting morning cup of coffee.

“An effective use of satire and humor can clarify the social, political or ethical obstacles to which conservation science is often blind,” concluded Sheil.

“These obstacles play a major role in the political impasse to combating problems such as climate change. Using satire to force a reader to consider an issue from a surprising new angle, even if that angle is ridiculous, can help bridge the gap in perspectives.”

Source: Terra Daily.

Wildlife responds increasingly rapidly to climate change

York UK (SPX)
Aug 22, 2011

New research by scientists in the Department of Biology at the University of York shows that species have responded to climate change up to three times faster than previously appreciated. These results are published in the latest issue of the leading scientific journal Science.

Faster distribution changes. Species have moved towards the poles (further north in the northern hemisphere, to locations where conditions are cooler) at three times the rate previously accepted in the scientific literature, and they have moved to cooler, higher altitudes at twice the rate previously realized.

Analyzing data for over 2000 responses by animal and plant species, the research team estimated that, on average, species have moved to higher elevations at 12.2 meters per decade and, more dramatically, to higher latitudes at 17.6 kilometers per decade.

Project leader Chris Thomas, Professor of Conservation Biology at York, said: “These changes are equivalent to animals and plants shifting away from the Equator at around 20 cm per hour, for every hour of the day, for every day of the year. This has been going on for the last 40 years and is set to continue for at least the rest of this century. ”

This study for the first time showed that species have moved furthest in regions where the climate has warmed the most, unambiguously linking the changes in where species survive to climate warming over the last 40 years.

First author Dr I-Ching Chen, previously a PhD student at York and now a researcher at the Academia Sinica in Taiwan, said: “This research shows that it is global warming that is causing species to move towards the poles and to higher elevations.

“We have for the first time shown that the amount by which the distributions of species have changed is correlated with the amount the climate has changed in that region.”

Co-author Dr Ralf Ohlemuller, from Durham University, said: “We were able to calculate how far species might have been expected to move so that the temperatures they experience today are the same as the ones they used to experience, before global warming kicked in. Remarkably, species have on average moved towards the poles as rapidly as expected.”

A diversity of changes. These conclusions hold for the average responses of species, but individual species showed much greater variation. Some species have moved much more slowly than expected, others have not moved, and some have even retreated where they are expected to expand.

In contrast, other species have raced ahead, perhaps because they are sensitive to a particular component of climate change (rather than to average warming), or because other changes to the environment have also been driving their responses.

Co-author Dr David Roy, from the Center for Ecology and Hydrology, illustrates this variation among species: “In Britain, the high brown fritillary butterfly might have been expected to expand northwards into Scotland if climate warming was the only thing affecting it, but it has in fact declined because its habitats have been lost. Meanwhile, the comma butterfly has moved 220 kilometers northwards from central England to Edinburgh, in only two decades.”

Similar variation has taken place in other animal groups. Cetti’s warbler, a small brown bird with a loud voice, moved northwards in Britain by 150 kilometers during the same period when the Cirl bunting retreated southward by 120 kilometers, the latter experiencing a major decline associated with the intensification of agriculture.

How they did the research. The researchers brought together all of the known studies of how species have changed their distributions, and analyzed them together in a “meta-analysis”.

The changes that were studied include species retreating where conditions are getting too hot (at low altitudes and latitudes), species expanding where conditions are no longer too cold (at high altitude and latitudes), and species staying where they are but with numbers declining in hotter parts and increasing in cooler parts of the range.

They considered studies of latitudinal and elevational range shifts from throughout the world, but most of the available data were from Europe and North America.

Birds, mammals, reptiles, insects, spiders, other invertebrates, and plants featured in the evidence. For example, I-Ching Chen and her colleagues discovered that moths had on average moved 67 meters uphill on Mount Kinabalu in Borneo.

Co-author Jane Hill, Professor of Ecology at York, said: “We have taken the published literature and analyzed it to detect what the overall pattern of change is, something that is not possible from an individual study. It’s a summary of the state of world knowledge about how the ranges of species are responding to climate change. Our analysis shows that rates of response to climate change are two or three times faster than previously realized.”

Implications. The current research does not explicitly consider the risks posed to species from climate change, but previous studies suggest that climate change represents a serious extinction risk to at least 10 per cent of the world’s species.

Professor Thomas says: “Realization of how fast species are moving because of climate change indicates that many species may indeed be heading rapidly towards extinction, where climatic conditions are deteriorating. On the other hand, other species are moving to new areas where the climate has become suitable; so there will be some winners as well as many losers.”

Source: Terra Daily.

Eldest Gaddafi son Muhammad gives in

Sun Aug 21, 2011

Libyan opposition forces say the country’s dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s eldest son Muhammad has surrendered himself to the fighters.

He gave himself up to the revolutionaries in the early hours of Monday after they seized control of Tajura, an eastern suburb of the capital, Tripoli, the Doha-based news channel of Al-Jazeera reported on the Tweeter.

Muhammad Gaddafi was in charge of the main internet provider service for Libya and cut the country loose from the cyber world immediately after the beginning of a revolution against Gaddafi’s regime in February.

There are also reports that the dictator’s security guards have joined the forces.

Libya has been the scene of intense fighting between government troops and opposition forces since a revolution seeking to topple Gaddafi began in mid-February.

Libya’s former Prime Minister Abdessalam Jalloud, who defected from Gaddafi’s regime on Friday, has said that it was too late for the authoritarian ruler to strike a deal to quit power and that he would probably be killed.

“I think it would be difficult for Gaddafi to give himself up…I don’t think the evolution of the situation in Tripoli will allow him to survive,” he said.

The regime would fall in less than 10 days, said the former official, who was among the officers, who helped Gaddafi wrest power in a coup in 1969, but fell out of favor with the ruler in the nineties.

Source: PressTV.

US preparing for unrest, martial law: Ron Paul

Sun Aug 21, 2011

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul says that the federal government is preparing for civil unrest and martial law in the United States.

Ron Paul has recently said that H.R. 645 (The National Emergency Centers Establishment Act) could lead to Americans being incarcerated in detention camps during a time of martial law, Infowars reported on August 20.

“Yeah, that’s their goal, they’re setting up the stage for violence in this country, no doubt about it,” responded Paul.

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645, first introduced in January 2009, mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill.

The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations.”

The bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

The legislation was referred to committee and did not proceed any further, but it was not rejected in a vote and can be re-introduced at any time in a new session of Congress.

In the aftermath of the UK riots, police departments in the United States are being trained to deal with rioting and civil unrest.

Back in 2008, U.S. troops returning from Iraq were earmarked for “homeland patrols” with one of their roles including helping with “civil unrest and crowd control.”

In December 2008, the Washington Post reported on plans to station 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011 onwards, an expansion of the militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.

The United States has continuity of government plans in place should martial law be declared by the President. However, the details of those plans have been so tightly guarded that even Congressman and Homeland Security Committee member Peter DeFazio (D – OR), who has the necessary security clearance, was denied access to view the material when he requested to do so back in July 2007.

“I just can’t believe they’re going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,” DeFazio told the Oregonian at the time, adding, “Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right.”

Congressman Paul has warned about preparations for martial law before, telling the Alex Jones Show, “They’re putting their back up against the wall and saying, if need be we’re going to have martial law.”

Source: PressTV.

Tag Cloud