Hasta La Gadget!

President Barack Obama has chosen, once again, an “in-between” approach to keep all his options open, no matter how contradictory they are. The anti-ISIS coalition operations started by imposing U.S. priorities on the members of the alliance, with the US insisting that that their concerns must wait because the US has priorities including the elimination of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and continuing the attempts for rapprochement and appeasement with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Arab countries that have taken part in the strikes against ISIS in Syria this week, underscored Barack Obama’s insistence on his priorities. They took part operationally in the raids in the hope that the partnership would practically prompt the US president to contain Iranian regional ambitions in Syria and Iraq – the main theater of the war on ISIS – to challenge them directly and in earnest. Will those hopes be shattered? The answer to this question remains ambiguous, given the conflicting information – if not conflicting US policies in the nuclear negotiations with Iran.

There are clear hints that the five Arab countries that took part in the air strikes in Syria had been coerced, countries that are linked to the US by bilateral security ties that supersede their priorities in Iraq and Syria equally. Yet there are gains that the five countries – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Jordan, and Bahrain – have made through their involvement in the operations in Syria: first, they proved their merit in assuming the responsibilities assigned to them in the coalition against ISIS, no matter where it is, regardless of differing views with the US leadership over this alliance.

Secondly, they precluded the kind of partnership that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had sought to forge with the US in counterterrorism, as a way to rehabilitate himself and replace the key Arab countries in the alliance against ISIS wherever it may be.

Thirdly, the US entered – finally – as a direct party in Syria, after a long period of repudiation, hesitation, and pussyfooting that accompanied the positions of the President Obama, since the peaceful quest for reforms turned into a devastating conflict.

Fourthly, the Barack Obama administration, finally and after the death of 300,000 Syrians, showed its willingness to provide practical support to the moderate armed Syrian opposition by allowing its Arab allies to supply weapons, train fighters, and provide aid. This is a qualitative shift that could alter the balance of power on the ground, in order to make it possible to resume work toward political solutions.

Fifthly, they opened the door to the possibility of overcoming the Assad complex, along the lines of how the Nuri al-Maliki complex was resolved in Iraq by forcing him to step down from his post as prime minister.

Sixthly, more measures have been taken against foreign fighters in Syria, under a binding resolution of the UN Security Council, which includes Hezbollah fighters.

What the Arab states taking part in this alliance are using as their ammunition is the fact that they are indispensable in this alliance and this war, which the US president said will not end except after the goal of destroying ISIS and its ilk is achieved, no matter how long it takes. These countries are key partners in the war, and are the main influences on the fighters on the ground – or the boots on the ground – in Iraq and Syria. The US president, meanwhile, wants a war that he vowed would have no American troops fighting in it.

The cards that Saudi Arabia holds in particular are crucial, especially in Iraq, where Saudi can – if it wants – be the most important actor that influences the indispensable warriors in the war on ISIS and the like, namely, Sunni tribes in Iraq. Riyadh does not need Washington in this matter, as much as Washington needs Riyadh, which has the keys to those fighters on the ground.

On the Syrian arena, the indispensable warriors are the Free Syrian Army and other forces that are classed as part of the moderate armed Syrian opposition. The Arab countries that can provide weapons, ammunition, cash, and take part in air strikes – such as the UAE – are indispensable for the US as well.

In other words, the war that the US president declared from behind the rostrum at the UN General Assembly and the Security Council, cannot be fought without the Arab partners – including Arab states and the Syrian opposition.

Nevertheless, the key Arab partners in Obama’s war were drawn into his priorities, and agreed to begin military operations without prior guarantees for their priorities, namely: containing the ambitions for Iranian hegemony in Syria and Iraq, and removing Bashar al-Assad after convincing his regime to agree to a transitional governing body that would include representatives from the regime and the opposition until elections are held.

One of the reasons, perhaps, is their conviction that U.S. military operations in Syria would not stop with ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates, when it becomes clear to President Obama that the actual result of these raids is shoring up the regime in Damascus and allowing it to defeat the moderate opposition, with the US having shunned the terrorist opposition This is an adventure that the Arab poles are engaging in, in the course of their alliance against ISIS. As to the reason for this, the answer lies in their priorities as well. These Arab powers see in turn that ISIS is a direct threat to them in their home soil, and an existential threat to their states.

So, actually, what will happen in Syria is the next step in the war of attrition, with direct US participation and direct Arab assistance. For this reason, the Syrian conflict could drag on.

The conflict in Syria could drag on and on, in the absence of political accords, especially between the US and Iran, and Washington and Moscow. The attrition would affect the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which is deeply involved in Syria, as well as Hezbollah, which continues to fight all spectra of the Syrian opposition in Syria. Most likely, Lebanon will pay a price through ISIS’s retaliation against Obama’s war on the group in Syria and for the ongoing Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian war.

President Obama chose in his speech before the UN General Assembly to mention Lebanon only in one sentence, and he completely ignored Yemen, and mentioned Libya only in passing, while reducing the importance of the Palestinian-Israeli question. Instead, he lectured on the Sunni-Shiite conflict, devoting most of his speech for this topic.

The US president did not present a war strategy except though the standpoint of Arab responsibilities and Muslim duties. He did not address Iran’s regional role beyond its borders in the heart of the Arab world, despite leaked reports that had indicated the US was adamant about tackling the Iranian regional role in the course of nuclear negotiations, followed by other leaked reports that denied this. Obama did not declare a position regarding Bashar al-Assad as he had done before, from the same rostrum, stating that Assad had lost his legitimacy or that his days were numbered, as he once said. Nor did Obama mention the Palestinian state, which he mentioned when he first addressed the UN General Assembly, denying the centrality of the Palestinian cause and only saying that the situation in the West Bank and Gaza at present is not sustainable.

Barack Obama called on the leaderships and the popular bases in the Arab region to radically change their concepts, attitudes, and behavior, but forgot or ignored that their differences with him are primarily “personally political.”

This president has finally decided to engage in the Middle East after ISIS lured him into this involvement. He accepted ISIS’s invitation, and bypassed the demands and political censure from the popular base, deciding instead to dictate his terms to the leaders.

Barack Obama did not seize he opportunity to rework his personal and historical legacy, at the very least in his speech before the world. He declared an incomplete war on terror, just like he declared a futile war on Russia when he named it as one of three major challenges: The Ebola virus, Russia’s role in Ukraine, and the terrorism of ISIS and its sisters.

This is not a conscious leadership. This is a classically reactive policy. If only the US president would rise up to the level of challenges with a comprehensive strategy rather than tactics that keep him trapped in the “in-between” box.

Meanwhile, regarding the Arab participation in the airstrikes on ISIS in Syria, it is no simple matter that the UAE has tasked a woman to pilot an F-16 fighter jet and strike ISIS, which targets women in its barbaric wars through rape and various kinds of oppression and humiliation. There is a very important message behind this choice.

Translated from Arabic by Karim Traboulsi

RaghidaDergham.Com

Written by Scott Bosco

Since he was a child, Chris Burkard had dreams of making the cover of Surfer Magazine as a photographer.
Photo: Chris Burkard Photography

Now at 28-years-old, the Central Coast raised adventurer has not only had several covers published on Surfer Magazine, but he has held many senior photographer positions, worked on countless projects leading him around the globe, and has established himself as one of the most well-known surf and travel photographers, with over ten sponsors.
Photo: Chris Burkard Photography

“That was always one of my goals as a kid,” Burkard said about making the cover of Surfer Magazine. “To be able to slowly climb the ranks, I felt like I finally made it.”

But every journey begins with a unique first step, and Burkard’s journey began in a 1976 Volkswagen Bus.

At the age of 19, Chris enrolled at Cuesta College where he was first introduced to photography. At that time, he was barely scraping by and mostly shooting for fun, until he published his first book. The photo-journal of Burkard and professional surfer and friend, Eric Soderquist’s six-month surfing trip in a 1976 Volkswagen Bus along the California coast, was published as ‘The California Surf Project‘ in 2009.
Photo: Chris Burkard Photography

“Right when I got my first book deal with Chronicle Books on The California Surf Project, things really started taking off,” Burkard said. “The momentum that was created for me was a real testament that this [photography] is what I need to do.”

Since then, his career in photography has continued to evolve, winning several awards with photos of larger-than-life landscapes composed with elements of solitude and danger.

Each photo screams adventure that’s as sharp as a cracking whip, then lingers with a haunting sensation of inspiration that you can’t escape.
Photo: Chris Burkard Photography

You can see Burkard’s work and more of his story in The Surf Channel‘s original series titled, “Exposure,” featuring the world’s most talented surf photographers:

By Rachael Rettner, Senior Writer
Published: 09/25/2014 02:20 PM EDT on LiveScience

It is possible to eliminate cases of the deadly rabies virus in people worldwide through mass vaccinations of dogs, some researchers argue.

Rabies cases are extremely rare in developed countries — in the United States, there was just one rabies case in 2013, and the patient acquired the disease while in Guatemala, according to researchers from Washington State University. Effective rabies vaccines have been available for years, but the virus still kills more than 69,000 people yearly worldwide, most of them children in Africa and Asia.

The rabies vaccine can be given to people after a possible exposure to the virus, and is extremely effective in preventing the disease from taking hold. But once a person begins to show symptoms of rabies — which can include delirium, abnormal behavior, hallucinations and partial paralysis — the disease is almost always fatal.

“The irony is that rabies is 100 percent preventable. People shouldn’t be dying at all,” said Dr. Guy Palmer, a veterinary infectious disease expert at Washington State University’s Allen School for Global Animal Health. [5 Viruses That Are Scarier Than Ebola]

In an article published today (Sept. 25) in the journal Science, Palmer and his colleagues argue that eliminating rabies cases is possible if doctors, veterinarians and public health professionals work together to establish mass vaccination programs for dogs.

Although rabies can infect many different animals, studies show that domestic dogs, rather than wildlife, are the main source of rabies infections in people, the researchers said.

In his article, Palmer pointed to a 2009 study that found that vaccinating 70 percent of dogs in villages in the East African country of Tanzania was enough to break the chain of rabies transmission from dogs to people, and eventually eliminate the disease in those areas.

Since a mass dog vaccination program began in Tanzania in 2003, the number of deaths from rabies droped from 50 a year to almost zero, the researchers said.

Studies also show that vaccinating 70 percent of dogs in an area is cost-effective, and less expensive over the long term than providing vaccinations to bite victims, the researchers said.

In many countries, progress toward eliminating rabies is “hampered by lack of political commitment and financing,” the researchers wrote. Support from international human and animal health organizations could play an important role in scaling up pilot dog vaccination programs to the national level, they said.

“Caine rabies elimination meets all the criteria for a global health priority: It is epidemiologically and logistically feasible, cost effective, and socially equitable,” they wrote.

The vision of Louis Pasteur, who invented the first rabies vaccination in 1885 and wanted to rid the world of the disease, “is within our reach,” the researchers said.

Follow Rachael Rettner @RachaelRettner. Follow Live Science @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science.

• The 10 Most Popular Dog Breeds
• 10 Things You Didn’t Know About Dogs
• 7 Devastating Infectious Diseases

Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

WASHINGTON — In front of a highly supportive crowd at the Values Voter Summit, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) accused Democrats on Friday of being an “extreme, radical party” intent on taking away the rights of Americans.

“These are dangerous, radical times,” Cruz said at the conservative conference, where he received multiple standing ovations during a 30-minute speech that touched on everything from gun rights, Obamacare and abortion to the persecution of Christians around the globe.

Cruz said the U.S. is fundamentally a center-right nation and that he expects the GOP to take back the Senate this year, and the White House in 2016.

Among other things, the senator criticized Democrats for the so-called birth control mandate in Obamacare, and for fighting groups who have sought exemptions because they say it goes against their values. He said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, should be forced to spend a day debating the group of nuns from Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged who are going against the mandate.

“As for me, I’ll stand with the nuns,” he said.

UPDATE: 11:25 a.m. — The Democratic National Committee responded to Cruz in a statement, saying they’re happy to debate him on whether Democrats are truly “radical.”

“If Senator Cruz thinks that fighting for opportunity for all, like paying women as much as men, raising the minimum wage or fixing our broken immigration system is extreme and radical — that’s a debate we’re thrilled to have,” DNC spokesman Michael Czin said. “Exactly a year ago, Ted Cruz was busy orchestrating the government shutdown that ultimately cost our economy $24 billion. Today he’s promoting a fringe agenda that does nothing to help grow our economy and expand opportunity. The choice for voters in November couldn’t be clearer.”

“Well, my child won’t be like that.”

Are there any more hilarious words to come out of the mouths of not-quite-yet parents? Many an actual parent has enjoyed the spectacle of non-parents making pronouncements about a child they haven’t even met yet, combined with criticism of the parenting skills of people whose children are actually here.

“Well, I would never let my child get away with that. My child will eat exactly what I put in front of him.”

“My child will certainly not still be wearing diapers at that age.”

“My child will never, ever behave like that.”

“With what we now know about cognitive development, I will have my child ready to read and analyze 19th century Russian novels in their original language by age three.”

As all actual parents know, this kind of predicting is hilarious because, as it turns out, children are less like programmable toaster-ovens and more like actual independently-functioning live human beings.And for real live human beings, developmental milestones come when they come. You may have your heart set on recording Junior’s first steps before his first birthday, but he’s going to walk when he’s ready to walk.

These developmental milestones are not really negotiable. Your thirteen-month-old child is not sitting there on his butt because he has decided to Fight the Power and Stick It To the Man. You can certainly help his development either by providing the positives of help and support and a loving, safe environment. But in the end, he’s going to walk when he’s ready and able to walk.

You know what won’t help him walk? Threats.

We’ve seen those parents. They’re so invested in being right, so frustrated that this child who is making them look foolish and ineffectual by not delivering on their “Not my kid” pronouncement, so angry that their will is being thwarted by this child. So they go to threats.

You are going to do this, they say, Or Else.

Or Else doesn’t work, not really. It never has. History is filled with proof. You will switch to being right-handed instead of left-handed, or else. You will convert to the True Faith, or else. You will stop falling in love with the Wrong People, or else. The most you can hope for is compliance. Or Else never gets you real change.

Or Else can only get you compliance if it’s possible. Grow a foot taller, or else, is a waste of energy.When compliance is not possible, we can expect to foster anger or resentment or a deep sense of personal failure or a complete loss of respect for us, and for our stupid, impossible demands.

So where do you think it gets us to turn to the eight-year-olds of America and say, “You must be able to read as well as we say by the date we pick in the spring. Or else.”

What do the state legislators who passed “reading guarantee” laws imagine was going on — that a great pack of third graders were out there perfectly capable of reading, but just refusing to learn out of laziness and spite, waiting for someone to kick their little tushies and get them in gear? Did they imagine we are awash in a nation of elementary teachers whose attitude is, “I don’t really care if my kids learn anything. I’m just in this for the money and the recess.”

Why not a height guarantee law? Let’s guarantee every parent that their child will be forty-five inches tall or we will keep flunking the kid till he grows properly. Let’s flunk any child is over or under weight according to the growth charts. Let’s flunk any left-handed kid until he finally switches to the proper hand.

Or Else is a terrible way to raise children. Having expectations that are so rigid that you have already mapped out the child’s life before you meet the child — that’s no way to parent, and it’s certainly no way to run a school system.

Cross-posted from Curmudgucation.