18 députés dont 3 minsitres en Prison depuis 3 mois.

---

"Maintien en détention de 18 députés du Hamas arrêtés en juin
BASE MILITAIRE D’OFER, Cisjordanie (AP) — Un tribunal militaire israélien a ordonné hier le maintien en détention de 18 élus du Hamas jusqu’à la fin de leur procès.

Israël avait arrêté ces députés, parmi lesquels figurent trois ministres du gouvernement de l’Autorité palestinienne, en juin, après la capture par des militants proches du Hamas d’un soldat de l’armée d’occupation israélienne.

La semaine dernière, la justice israélienne avait ordonné la libération sous caution de ces prisonniers pendant le processus judiciaire. Le bureau du procureur militaire d’Israël avait fait appel de cette décision.

La question de leur libération dans le cadre d’un échange avec le soldat israélien enlevé avait été évoquée."

---

Personnellement, je n’adhère pas à la ligne politique suivie par le Hamas qui ne donne pas une chance à la paix dans ce pays ravagé par un demi-siècle de guerre. Ce qui reste du peuple palestinien mérite mieux qu’une politique d’entêtement et de haine, mais ce gouvernement a été élu par ce même peuple et on ne peut que respecter et accepter ce choix.

Je ne veux pas polémiquer sur les raisons qui ont hissé ce mouvement au pouvoir, même si cela suit un pattern qui est en vogue en ce moment.

Ce qui est injustifiable c’est les actions du gouvernement israélien, à qui tout est permis et surtout le silence des grands de ce monde envers ces actions.

Sur quelle base juridique, la justice israélienne peut maintenir ces gens en prison? Il s’agit de 18 députés, élus au suffrage universel, dont 3 ministres en exercice!!

Au fait, il ne faut même pas essayer de comprendre. It’s a hopeless case.

Global Warming WARNING!

Lately, on two occasions, someone recommended the film “An inconvenient truth”, so I decided to go see it, which I did yesterday.

Most of the footage of the film is from a slide show that Al Gore (ex US VP) used in more than a 1000 meetings he did trying to educate people about the effect of the CO2 level increase and global warming.

The slide show is very impressive, the data is very accurate and agreed upon by the majority of scientists, and the truth is very inconvenient indeed because the effect of global warming is catastrophic.

Average temperatures jumped 3 to 5 degrees Celsius in a lot of major cities of the world like NY or Beijing in the last 20 years. I myself witnessed this for my birth city TUNIS, in Tunisia. I remember that 20 years ago, summer temperatures were lower than today’s. It was very unusual to reach the 40’s; nowadays it is reached almost daily, and AC is becoming as necessary as a refrigerator. Another effect that we Tunisians can verify, is the rise of the see levels that made a lot of our beaches shrink to sometimes a few meters, so that houses that were built 100 ft from the sea are now a few feet away.

The increase of the CO2 level is also creating a preferential selection for weed plants and other invasive plants that strive in high CO2 levels and can be harmful to agriculture, cities and even at sea.

Global warming causes higher sea evaporation to produce stronger and killer hurricanes as we all noticed in the last few years. Hurricane season cost more every year to the countries on the hurricane path whether in money or in human fatalities.

The scariest effect is the melting of the glaciers (a.k.a Glacier retreat).This can cause 20% of the caostal land of all continents to be flooded, including major parts of Florida, Manhattan Island in NY…etc.



Global warning and its effects is now considered by scientists as a fact and not a theory. Unfortunately the corporate lobbies and their hired politicians try to confuse the populations by creating counter organizations and environmental think tank who states that Global warming is a theory created by alarmist tree huggers (environmentalist). This propaganda will cost them less than trying to reduce the Co2 emission from their plants, cars, Etc.


Reversing or even stopping global warming is a responsibility for all of us, towards our children and grand children. What countries like the US, China and others are doing, will for sure result in death and destructions to our kids and theirs.

For energy consuming companies, cars manufacturers and other CO2 emitters corporations, spending money on lobbying and disinformation will cost them far less than reducing CO2 levels in their plants or products and that’s why the state of California is taking a lead role as usual by suing 5 auto makers for these emissions and their effects. The outcome of this suit will shape the legal framework for this issue.


Fortunately, a lot of momentum is being built around this issue with the involvement of some key figures like Al Gore, Bill Clinton who just raised $7 Billion for the cause and donations coming from wealthy entrepreneurs like British multi-billionaire and Virgin Group founder Richard Branson who pledged $3 Billion over the next 10 years.

On another note,like many others I think that Al Gore should not have been the narrator or the presenter of “An inconvenient truth”, since he is a democrat and given his loser image, it will prevent the majority of republicans to go see a film perceived as an Al Gore PR event, and it would create more controversy and affect its credibility. They should have left politics out of this one.

For more info about the film check this, you will also find a page with a list 10 things you can do to help with this issue.

Ramadhan Moubarak

"Romdhan mabrouk 3likom ou 3la ommet saidna mo7ammed."

Happy month of Ramadan, may it be blessed for all muslims everywhere.

A night of this month is better than a thousand months

RE> Un accès à l'éducation payant....

J’ai commencé à rédiger un commentaire sur le blog de notre ami Ranim&Hanin mais j’ai trouvé qu’il était très long, alors je poste ma réponse ici :


Je crois qu’on est tous d’accord que l’éducation publique doit être gratuite pour le primaire et le secondaire. Pour l’enseignement supérieur la question se pose.
L’effectif des étudiants dans les établissements supérieurs public est évalué à plus de 320000 ! Celui des enseignants à plus de 15000 repartis sur plus de 150 établissements.

Il est évident que le coût des études supérieures est de loin plus élevé que celui de l’enseignement de base vu la qualification des enseignants, le coût de l’infrastructure…etc. L’état étant en charge de tout ce système ne pourra jamais assurer une qualité acceptable vu la diversité des programmes et n’oublions pas que c’est un service public ou comme partout dans le monde, ceux qui y travaillent ne sont pas forcement très motivés pour améliorer l’état des choses.

Il est clair aussi que la volonté du gouvernement est d’accroitre le nombre de diplômés universitaires, et ceci se confirme par le taux de réussite au bac qui dépasse les 50%, ce qui engendre une baisse dans la qualité et la création de filières soupapes comme le droit, science éco, gestion… pour accommoder ces nouveaux bacheliers.

Donc on arrive à un rapport qualité/prix très médiocre. L’état dépense beaucoup et pour quelques filières comme ceux mentionnés ci-dessus le diplômé se trouve dans la même situation qu’un bachelier et finit par occuper un poste d’agent de bureau ou autre qui ne nécessitait pas 4 ans d’études. C’est de la mauvaise gestion.

A mon avis rendre l’éducation supérieure payante tout en restant sous la tutelle de l’état ne résoudra pas le problème. Une solution serait que l’état se désiste complètement tout en gardant quelques institutions stratégiques comme l’ENA, les CHU et les instituts de recherches. Les autres seront privatises, et s’adapteront au marche de l’offre et la demande.

Les privés, pour se construire une réputation de qualité choisiront non pas les étudiants les plus aisés mais ceux qui passeront leur tests d’admission ou autre critères académiques. Ceci motivera les étudiants à bosser plus s’ils veulent être admis.

Les privés seront très motives pour avoir un taux élevé de placement dans les entreprises et donc ils assureront forcement une formation de bonne qualité. Même les filières et les spécialisations se feront en fonction du besoin de nos entreprises, car les privés veulent toujours assurer un travail à leurs élèves.

Reste le problème du financement pour ceux qui n’ont pas les moyens et il y a plusieurs solutions.

1) l’argent libéré par la gestion des universités devra être utilisé pour assurer des bourses aux plus démunis.

2) Les élèves admis dans les meilleures écoles n’auront aucun problème à se procurer des bourses sponsorisés par des futurs employeurs ou des prêts auprès des banques vu qu’ils ont une grande chance de trouver un travail a la fin de leurs études.

Pour les étudiants qui sont académiquement moyens, l’état doit créer des filières courtes axées sur la formation professionnelle qui donnera plus de chances a ces jeunes de trouver un boulot ultérieurement au lieu de faire 4 années de droit et galérer pour trouver un travail ou finir dans un call center.

IMHO

Negative Campaign Ads

When I was in France, I don't remember if during elections, candidates were allowed to have TV ads or not, but I am sure I've never seen a negative ad on any medium where basically the candidate does not talk about his program but rather attacks the other candidate. In the US, negative and personal critical ads are common even though people start to see them as bad strategy, since 2004 presidential campaign used them extensively on both sides.

The following ads are for Arnold Scharzenneger (R) and Phil Angelides (D) running for California governor.

Recipe for disaster

George W Bush used the 9/11 drama to take his revenge against Saddam who tried to kill his dad, and push the hidden agenda of some hawks of his entourage to clean the Middle east of the big threat to Israel. He picked the wrong battle and lied and twisted the truth to get Saddam and "free" the Iraqi people from a tyrant.

Bush, the people of Iraq thank you for what you did, they are now free to vote whoever they want thanks to your efforts, to the 2600 us soldiers who died for them and for the $750 billions (some say $1 trillion) from the us tax payers and 100,000 to 400,000 dead (depending on who you ask), of their own people. And by the way thanks also for finding and destroying the WMD produced in Iraq!!!

The White house is so good in spinning news and hypnotizing American people that they got him elected for a second term despite all his wrong doing. Presidents like Nixon or Clinton could not get away with far smaller lies, the former resigned and the latter went thru an impeachment hearing for lying about an affair. If he were a CEO of a public company he would not have spent one minute in office after such catastrophic decisions.

Now that he feels untouchable, he is preparing the same recipe for Iran, a recipe for disaster!!! He started by testing the grounds thru a plan with Israel to clean Lebanon from pro-Iranian Hezbollah and we all know the results of this test. And never giving up, he moves forward with his plans. The next step is the sanction thru the UN and then? We’ll see

Are we all unbelievers?

My eldest son is doing a school project in social studies. He has to write a paper about a political subject of his choice. Since we subscribe to NewsWeek magazine, he started going thru them to see if he can find an interesting subject.
One hour later, he came with one of this year's issue, I think it was from June and asked me this:
-Dad, did you read this?
-Euh, I don't know, what is it about?
-It says that the Taliban don't allow their daughters to go to school. Aren't they Muslims? They even burned some schools and threaten to cut the hair and the ears of girls who dare going to school.

At that moment I knew that I was in big trouble. I don't know if this is specific to immigrants but it makes me mad that we work our ass hard to raise our children in a western country while keeping them rooted to our culture and our religion and then this!
These are the typical questions that I am scared of. My son is a teenager and he trusts me, so I have to be very careful in my answer, but I can't find anything politically correct to base my answer on, so I tell him.

-Son, you know that they are Muslim, but Muslims are also humans and some of us are just ignorant and can believe anything. You know that North Korean think that their "eternal" president Kim II song fought the Japanese in WWII alone and chased them by himself. They even teach that to their kids in history books. Do you believe it is true? I don't. But a whole country does so!

-You mean it is not true that Muslim girls cannot go to school, right?

-Of course, don't be silly, your mom and even your grandma went to school and your little daughter also, do you think that we are all unbelievers?

-Ha ha, no but it is something to read that some Muslims don't allow it, isn't it?.

-You know, people do a lot of silly things in name of Islam; we’ve talked about that before.

After he left, I was so mad because I felt him confused, and that he was under the impression that our Islam is different from theirs.

All Islam’s scholars study the same Koran that Allah ST guaranteed its uniqueness, so how can some come up with such rules?

None can argue that
-Alcohols consumption is sin
-Adultery is a sin
-Gambling is a sin
-Murder is a sin
-Stealing is a sin

Some can still find arguments, even though questionable that
-Interest earning bank accounts are not allowed
-Polygamy is allowed
-Women should wear hijab

Now, can someone dare to explain to me why should I be considered an unbeliever because I send my daughter to school??
Is there any hidden sourat in the Koran that is visible to them but not to us?.
How can they make such rules coming from Allah ST, the great, the merciful, the FAIR.

Am I missing something? Should I start to think that at 40, I still don't know the basics of my religion?

Wallahi El Jehl Msiba.

Are we happier?

Did you ever ask yourslef if you enjoyed the era you live in? I mean did you ever wish you were born 500 years ago or 2000 years ago?
Actually I asked myself this question (I guess I was bored at the time) and I couldn't answer. are we lucky to live this particular period of time?

In the last 150 years, technology changed drastically humans life. Technology used to evolve relativley slowly prior to the 18th century. But in the last 150 years, we invented so many things in so many fields, from engines to airplanes to medecines and the industry itself.
Now with eclectronics and computers and the money poured in research, our way of life is changing constantly.
Do you think in 1500s a father would tell his son the famous "in our time, it was tough,we had to work harder"?, I bet not. I am sure that this kind of remarks started in the last century and I find myself starting telling my son "Stop complaining about the HD size of your ipod, at my time we had big bulky cassette players and a cassete is 120 mn max". Of course he smiles at me when I say that, the same way I smiled at my father when he did the same kind of remarks.
So the question is are we happier than our ancestors because we have cars,planes,computers,internet....etc? What about our values? Did the technnology made us better persons?
I really don't know

A chacun sa M....

Je viens de lire cette depeche de Reuters qui reprend un press release de l'US census bureau et cela m'a surpris car je ne me rappele pas avoir lu ou vu un commentaire du gouvernenent US ou des democrates sur ces stats pendant toute la semaine.
Ceci est une preuve qu'aucun systeme n'est parfait.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In the world's biggest economy one in eight Americans and almost one in four blacks lived in poverty last year, the U.S. Census Bureau said on Tuesday, releasing a figure virtually unchanged from 2004.


The survey also showed 15.9 percent of the population, or 46.6 million, had no health insurance, up from 15.6 percent in 2004 and the fifth increase in a row.

It was the first year since President George W. Bush took office in 2001 that the poverty rate did not increase. As in past years, the figures showed poverty especially concentrated among blacks and Hispanics.

In all, some 37 million Americans lived below the poverty line, defined as having an annual income below around $10,000 for an individual or $20,000 for a family of four.

The last decline in poverty was in 2000, the final year of Bill Clinton's presidency, when it fell to 11.3 percent.

"It shows that we are spending more money than ever on anti-poverty programs and we haven't done anything to reduce poverty," said Michael Tanner of CATO Institute, a free market think tank in Washington.

Around a quarter of blacks and 21.8 percent of Hispanics were living in poverty. Among whites, the rate edged down to 8.3 percent from 8.7 percent in 2004.

"Among African Americas the problem correlates primarily to the inner-city and single mothers," said Tanner, adding that blacks also suffer disproportionately from poor education and lower quality jobs.

Black median income, at $30,858, was only 61 percent of the median for whites.

Some 17.6 percent of children under 18 and one in five of those under 6 were in poverty, higher than for any other age group.

Real median household income rose by 1.1 percent between to $46,326 from $45,817 -- its first increase since 1999.

The figures contained wide regional variations, ranging from a median household income of $61,672 in New Jersey to $32,938 for Mississippi.

Major cities with the highest proportions of poor people included Cleveland with 32.4 percent and Detroit with 31.4 percent under the poverty line.