By Brian Dann

During the last election I was asked by a friend, “Are you better off today then you were yesterday?”  The assumption was that if I answered yes I should vote Republican and if I answered no then I should vote Democrat.   The problem though is that the question itself is flawed.  The question forces us to consider nothing but our own situation and assumes that this is all that matters in deciding what candidate will be best for us, when in reality we should be considering not what is best for us as individuals, but what is best for all of us as a country.  The American Dream is that we are all given the opportunity to be anything we want to be, but the fact is that while this may be true for some, for others their situation makes it harder to obtain this dream.  Today the line between the haves and the have nots is growing bigger and bigger, the middle class is growing smaller and smaller, and as this next election gets closer we all have to ask our selves, are we as a country better today then we were yesterday? To answer that let’s consider what has happened since the last election.

Today it is illegal to pay women less then men for the same job. (The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act)

Today uninsured children who do not qualify for Medicaid can get affordable insurance through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Today, Americans investment in General Motors has saved GM from bankruptcy and thereby has saved hundreds of thousands of jobs not only at GM bus also at the thousands of companies that supply parts and services to GM.  With out this investment, which has been fully paid back, the loss of jobs as well as the domino effect on our economy would have been staggering.

Today tobacco companies must disclose all poisons contained in their products, must limit any advertising directed towards minors, and can no longer use words such as “light”, “low”, or “mild” to give the impression of being healthier.

Today our children can not be denied medical insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

Today health insurance companies can not cancel your coverage because you get sick.

Today young adults can be covered by their parent’s health insurance until they are 26 years old.

Today a health insurance company can no longer put a cap on the amount they will cover over your lifetime.

Today for new health insurance plans, preventive medical care is free.  This includes screenings for mammograms, vaccinations, vision screening for children, Autism, HIV, and the list goes on.  For a full list Click Here.

Today, in an emergency, you can no longer be… (To Read More Click Here)

The Perils of Ignoring Gaza’s Leadership

The biggest obstacle to peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is not the Palestinians’ demand that Jewish settlements in the West Bank be dismantled, the barrier separating much of the West Bank from Israel, or the recent rightward shift of the Israeli body politic. It is the emergence of Hamas as the de facto government of the Gaza Strip, where 1.5 million Palestinians reside.

Hamas has regularly attacked Israel with rockets from Gaza or allowed others to do so. It poses a strong and growing political threat to the more moderate Palestinian Authority, which is led by President Mahmoud Abbas and his technocratic prime minister, Salam Fayyad, and which governs the West Bank and used to run Gaza, too. Whereas PA leaders see negotiations with Israel and institution building as the best way to ultimately gain statehood, Hamas seeks to undermine the peace process. Many Hamas members have not reconciled themselves to the Jewish state’s existence. Hamas’ leaders also fear that Hamas would reap none of the benefits of a peace deal and that in the event of one, the PA would score political points at their expense. Hamas has shown repeatedly that it can bring talks to a painful end by castigating moderate Palestinians and turning to violence.

Despite Hamas’ centrality to Israeli security and Palestinian politics, Washington still clings to the policy that the Bush administration established after Hamas beat more moderate Fatah candidates in elections in Gaza in 2006. The United States and other members of the international community withdrew development aid from Gaza, tacitly supporting Israel’s shutdown of the Gaza Strip, and refused to work directly with Hamas. Their hope was to force Hamas’ collapse and bring Fatah back to power. But isolation has failed, and today Hamas is far stronger than when it first took power. The Obama administration, more by default than by design, has continued these efforts to isolate and weaken Hamas, opposing talks with the group and condoning Israeli military raids.

Israeli policy also remains stuck in the past. Regular rocket barrages from Gaza mean that Israel cannot simply forget about the area or Hamas. Israel has kept Gaza under siege and has sometimes used considerable force. Although the Gaza war of December 2008 and January 2009 (which Israelis call Operation Cast Lead) did damage Hamas’ credibility, and even though Hamas has since reduced its rocket attacks, the long-term sustainability of such an aggressive approach is questionable. Still, Israel and the international community have not developed a new strategy in response to Hamas’ consolidation of power.

Some prominent Israelis, such as Efraim Halevy, the former director of Mossad, the Israeli secret service, and Giora Eiland, a former head of Israel’s National Security Council, have called for negotiating with Hamas. Other Israelis, who fear that the group will never abandon its goal of destroying Israel, think the Israeli military should retake Gaza before Hamas gets any stronger; they argue that postponing the day of reckoning will cost Israel dearly in the future. But with neither option being palatable at this time, Israel continues to rely on economic pressure and military operations to preempt terrorist attacks from Gaza, kill the people there who launch rockets into Israel, and retaliate for Hamas’ provocations.

Although shunning Hamas may seem morally appropriate and politically safe, that policy will undermine Israel’s peace talks with Abbas and other Palestinian moderates. An alternative approach is necessary. Hamas could, perhaps, be convinced not to undermine progress on a peace deal. To accomplish this, Israel and the international community would have to exploit Hamas’ vulnerabilities, particularly its performance in governing Gaza, with a mix of coercion and concessions, including a further easing of the siege of Gaza. At the same time, they should support the state-building efforts of Fayyad and restart the peace process with Abbas in order to reduce the risk that Hamas will win the struggle for power among the Palestinians. Moreover, because the effort to transform Hamas into a responsible government could fail, the international community must be prepared to support a more aggressive military response by Israel if Hamas does not change.

THE EVE OF DISRUPTION

Peace talks can begin with Hamas on the sidelines, but they cannot finish if Hamas refuses to play ball. Hamas has proved that it has the means to threaten Israel and disrupt peace talks. Rocket and mortar strikes are the most obvious method. According to Israeli government statistics, in 2005, Hamas and other Palestinian groups launched around 850 rockets and mortars at Israel from Gaza. By 2008, the figure had climbed past 2,000. The death toll from these attacks was low, but the psychological effect has been considerable. Hamas uses Qassam rockets, which have unpredictable trajectories and so fall on soldiers and civilians alike. One 2007 study found that 28 percent of the adults and between 72 percent and 94 percent of the children in Sderot, the Israeli town most frequently hit by rockets, suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder.

In addition to the rocket attacks, Hamas and other militant groups shoot at Israeli soldiers and agricultural workers near the Gaza border. From 2000, when the second intifada broke out, through 2009, there were over 5,000 such attacks from Gaza. The vast majority occurred before Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, but Israel still suffered more than 70 attacks in each of the three years that followed. A particularly difficult problem has been Hamas’ use of improvised explosive devices near the security barrier. These bombs are powerful enough to endanger Israeli soldiers patrolling the Israeli side but can only be dismantled from the Gaza side.

Attacks by Hamas plummeted following Operation Cast Lead, a tough, sometimes brutal three-week campaign against Gaza carried out by Israel in December 2008 and January 2009; it ended with a cease-fire on both sides. After March 2009, no month of that year saw more than 25 rocket and mortar attacks — a far cry from the violence of 2008. There were only four shootings in 2009. So far, 2010 has seen a comparatively low number of rockets flying from Gaza — few, if any, of which were launched by Hamas itself.

But few attacks is not the same as no attacks. The Israelis still fear that Hamas, which is building its capabilities, could easily step up the violence if it chose to do so. For the Israelis, engaging in peace talks premised on giving up territory is difficult when their country is under attack; they justifiably feel the need to hit back. The Israelis also worry that Hamas or another Palestinian group would launch rockets from any territory that Israel surrendered in the West Bank, just as they did from Gaza after Israel withdrew its forces in 2005.

For moderate Palestinian officials seeking peace, the challenge goes beyond Israeli fears. Israel and the international community, of course, recognize that Abbas does not control Hamas. But if violence again flared up, the Israelis would question the value of peace talks with moderates if they cannot end the violence. Israel does not respond to every attack, but when it does it often hits back hard, killing Hamas leaders and, inadvertently but regularly, civilians, too. Moderate Palestinian officials would find it impossible to gain popular support for negotiations while Palestinian civilians were dying at the hands of Israelis. So even when its attacks do no damage, Hamas walks away triumphant, whereas both Israeli and Palestinian moderates are discredited.

Hamas is also capable of kidnapping personnel from the Israel Defense Forces or other Israelis: a rare but game-changing event. The most dramatic incident was the June 2006 abduction of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Israeli society rallied behind Shalit’s family, and the IDF invaded Gaza in an operation that killed over 400 Palestinians and failed to secure Shalit’s release. The kidnapping also helped convince then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in July 2006. In circumstances like these, negotiations are almost impossible.

Further complicating the picture is Hamas’ ability to undermine peace talks without using violence itself. Gaza is home to various other terrorist groups, from Fatah rejectionists to Salafi jihadist organizations, none remotely as strong as Hamas but all itching to attack Israel. Hamas can allow these groups to operate and then claim impotence or ignorance. It can also stymie negotiations politically. Hamas lambasted Abbas for meeting with Israeli officials and for not demanding that the UN endorse the findings of the Goldstone report, which criticized Israel’s conduct of Operation Cast Lead. Hamas uses such attacks to “prove” to Palestinians that Abbas is selling out the Palestinian cause. Such charges make it harder for Abbas to consider making any concessions to Israel, particularly the type that involve no immediate quid pro quos from Israel or, worse, that mean swallowing rebuffs or tolerating continued settlement building.

For now, Hamas does not have to do much to scuttle peace talks: disagreements over settlements and other disputes have left the Israelis and the PA unable to get anything going beyond indirect talks brokered by Washington. Both sides view these talks with considerable skepticism. But should negotiations move forward, as the Obama administration is urging, Hamas is likely to play the spoiler. Progress on negotiations with Israel would make the Palestinian moderates look good and pose a threat to Hamas’ standing among Palestinians by reducing the appeal of its ideological hostility toward Israel.

Skeptics might contend that peace talks have often occurred without Hamas’ participation. Since the second intifada, Washington has tried to move the ball forward from time to time, but any resulting talks made so little progress that Hamas did not perceive them as a serious threat. When talks were near fruition in the mid-1990s, however, Hamas — much weaker then — struck. In 1996, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) launched a series of suicide bombings against Israel. These not only killed over 60 Israelis but also shattered the prospects of Prime Minister Shimon Peres and his pro-peace bloc in upcoming elections, paving the way for the triumph of Benjamin Netanyahu, who was far more skeptical of negotiations. Terror has worked for Hamas, and it might be tempted to use the tactic again.

THE ISOLATION OF GAZA

Israel, Egypt, and the international community have put Gaza under siege to isolate and weaken Hamas. Israel has sealed off Gaza from the sea, and the crossing points into it from Israel and Egypt have usually been closed to normal traffic. Humanitarian aid goes in, but there is a long list of prohibited goods. Ironically, however, Israel’s humanitarian concerns have prevented it from truly pressuring the Gazan people. Israel has tried to coerce Hamas without causing mass starvation, an approach that Israeli officials have described as “no prosperity, no development, no humanitarian crisis.” Although Israeli policies are pushing Gaza closer to the brink, the threat of even more misery simply is not credible.

This is small comfort to Gazans, however. Aid agencies now put Gaza’s poverty rate at 80 percent, and most Gazans survive on UN handouts and aid from Hamas’ patrons, such as Iran. The World Health Organization reported at the beginning of this year that hospitals are unable to deliver quality health care; their doctors, unable to receive training. Disease and malnutrition are spreading, and schools are deteriorating. Gazans, who for decades took menial jobs in Israel, lost access to the Israeli labor market after violence flared during the second intifada. Subsequent border closures and the collapse of aid and investment have further decreased employment.

The world lays the blame for this humanitarian catastrophe at Israel’s feet. After UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited Gaza in March 2010, for example, he declared Israeli policy “wrong,” contending that it was causing “unacceptable suffering.” Still, except during Operation Cast Lead, the siege received only limited attention until recently.

The spotlight focused again on Gaza on May 31, 2010, when Israeli commandos stormed the Mavi Marmara, a civilian Turkish ship trying to break the blockade, and killed nine activists. Turkish leaders, already at odds with their once close ally over Operation Cast Lead, denounced the raid, demanded an apology, and took reprisals, including the decision to close Turkish airspace to Israeli aircraft. British Prime Minister David Cameron said the raid was “completely unacceptable,” and Obama administration officials called for “a new approach to Gaza.” Soon, the botched raid became a broader fiasco for Israel. It put global attention back on the siege of Gaza. Israel’s restrictions of innocuous items, such as cilantro and jam, came under increased scrutiny. Worse, Hamas started to look like it was the victim of Israeli cruelty and violence.

To appease critics after the Mavi Marmara bungling, Israel declared that it would focus on military-related goods only and promised to make it easier for Gazans to seek medical care outside the Gaza Strip. But it maintained a ban on “dual-use” items, which could include goods ranging from electronics to construction materials, depending on how the term is interpreted. Egypt, for its part, opened the Rafah crossing to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza and to admit into Egypt Gazans seeking medical care. But Cairo remains eager to avoid helping Hamas unless forced to by public opinion and, significantly, is continuing work on a wall along and under its border with Gaza. Easing Egypt’s and Israel’s siege would lessen Gazans’ misery somewhat and help Hamas politically, but the Gaza Strip still has a long way to go before it is not a basket case.

HELP FOR HAMAS

The siege has failed on another level: it has not weakened Hamas, which has by now crushed or outflanked its political rivals. Today, Hamas has an unquestioned — and, in the eyes of most Gazans, largely legitimate — monopoly on the use of force in the Gaza Strip, and its political clout among Palestinians has grown at the expense of Fatah. Hamas bases its claim to power on its victory in the 2006 elections, when it ran largely on a platform that stressed Fatah’s corruption and failure to deliver either services on the ground or sovereignty at the negotiating table. Younger Palestinians, in particular, are disillusioned with Fatah: they prefer the new brand of political Islam to old-fashioned Arab nationalism. Meanwhile, the plunge in trade and investment in Gaza has hurt the small Gazan middle class and others who might otherwise have had the resources to stand up to Hamas.

The siege has also increased the importance of the social services that Hamas provides. After it took over the Gaza Strip in 2007, Hamas revamped the police and security forces, cutting them from 50,000 members (on paper, at least) under Fatah to smaller, more efficient forces of just over 10,000, which then cracked down on crime and gangs. No longer did groups openly carry weapons or steal with impunity. People paid their taxes and electric bills, and in return the authorities picked up garbage and put criminals in jail. Gaza — neglected under Egyptian and then Israeli control, and misgoverned by Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and his successors — finally has a real government.

Despite the siege, Hamas is growing stronger militarily. Its rockets are getting more powerful and are reaching farther. Until 2008, the rocket attacks hit only the relatively unpopulated areas near Gaza, such as Sderot. Over time, however, Hamas tripled the range of the rockets; today, they can reach large nearby cities, such as Ashqelon and Beersheba — and possibly even Tel Aviv. And it is developing indigenous rocket systems that have an even longer range and a larger payload. Through illicit tunnels linking the Gaza Strip to Egypt, Hamas smuggles out hundreds of young men for advanced training in Lebanon and Iran. Its fighters are becoming more formidable.

Hamas has also found a way to benefit economically from the blockade by taxing the tunnel trade, even creating a “tunnels authority.” Yezid Sayigh of King’s College London has estimated that Hamas earned up to $200 million from tunnel taxes in 2009. The tunnels also employ over 40,000 people, creating an important business constituency for Hamas.

And thanks to Israel’s blockade and military strikes against Gaza, Hamas has found it easier to raise money from Iran, which gives Hamas tens of millions of dollars a year as part of its struggle against Israel and to score points with ordinary Sunni Arabs who admire Hamas. Hamas is also beginning to look beyond pariahs such as Iran for backing. Khaled Mashaal, the group’s so-called external leader, met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Damascus in May. And together with Turkish President Abdullah Gül, they called for including Hamas in peace talks. The Mavi Marmara raid has accelerated Hamas’ escape from diplomatic isolation, with more and more countries casting Hamas as the victim.

The siege is also dragging down U.S. policy toward the Muslim world. The suffering of Gazans — broadcast constantly on al Jazeera — acts as a radicalizing force from Morocco to Indonesia. Terrorists in the United States itself, such as Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, and Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, cite Gaza to justify their actions. And as many Muslims see it, U.S. support for Israel’s siege proves that the United States is anti-Palestinian. Although the Obama administration successfully pressed Israel to ease the blockade, the remaining restrictions and the general sense that the United States continues to be Israel’s strongest ally have meant that this perception endures.

This perception would become stronger if a new military operation on the scale of Operation Cast Lead occurred — an ever-present risk. In part, this risk is random: the rockets that land in Sderot usually kill no one, but there is always a chance that one could kill children or harm enough adults that the Israeli government would feel political pressure to escalate the conflict. An even bigger problem for Israel is that the current cease-fire is now based on short-term deterrence rather than a long-term deal. Hamas has stopped attacking Israel not because it has agreed to a broader political arrangement but because the benefits outweigh the costs for now. The deterrence equation could easily be disrupted if, say, more arms went to Hamas or if politics in Israel or Gaza changed. In other words, the siege is failing even on its own terms: Hamas has become stronger politically and militarily.

THE LIMITS OF FORCE

Some Israelis believe that the alternative to the siege is to confront Hamas head-on, removing it from power and forcing it underground. But that strategy would lead Israel into a quagmire. Conquering Gaza would be a relatively easy task for the IDF, but it would almost certainly result in far more Israeli casualties than the 13 who died during Operation Cast Lead. The Palestinians lost over 1,000 Hamas fighters and civilians in Operation Cast Lead, and they, too, would probably lose far more. In Operation Cast Lead, Israel penetrated only partway into the Gaza Strip and did not stay and occupy the territory. If the IDF were to remove Hamas from power, however, it would have to stay for months to dismantle Hamas’ infrastructure there: the hospitals, mosques, and social services that Hamas has been putting in place for decades. And it would not be cheap, since Israel would have to bear the financial burden of deploying thousands of troops to Gaza.

Diplomatically, occupying Gaza again would hurt Israel’s relations with the United States, the international community, and Palestinians in the West Bank. Israel would inevitably make mistakes and kill innocent Gazans, making negotiations even more difficult. Hamas, meanwhile, would try to make the long-term price of any occupation too high for Israel to sustain. In Gaza itself, the organization could attack Israeli soldiers with snipers, improvised explosive devices, suicide bombs, and ambushes, and in the West Bank it could use its operatives to strike Israel. All this would take a bloody toll on the Israeli military.

Another big political loser would be Abbas. When Israel invaded Gaza in December 2008, the credibility of both Abbas and Fayyad suffered; they called for a cease-fire rather than for the kind of violent opposition that Palestinian leaders had been extolling for years. At the time, many Palestinians believed, and correctly so, that Abbas was rooting for Israel and against his fellow Palestinians because he sought to gain a political advantage over Hamas. Public opinion polls taken before the war showed that the leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, would lose a presidential race against Abbas; polls taken after the war showed Haniyeh winning. Renewing the peace process with Abbas will be impossible if the IDF and Hamas are shooting at each other in Gaza. Abbas would not want to be seen as supporting the Israeli takeover, and he openly rejected such an option during Operation Cast Lead. But even if Abbas kept a low profile, Hamas would still see him as complicit and try to undermine his position in the West Bank.

Another problem is that Israel would lack staying power. Israel left Gaza in 2005 in the hopes of never returning, and it does not have the stomach for another grinding occupation. On the other hand, seizing Gaza again only to withdraw again would simply allow Hamas to retake power once more, because Hamas’ moderate rivals in the Gaza Strip are too weak to take over. A new occupation is not the answer, and despite bluster to the contrary, most Israelis realize this.

CEASE-FIRE CALCULUS

If Hamas cannot be uprooted, can it be calmed enough to not disrupt peace talks? Maybe — and the chance is worth pursuing. Although often depicted as fanatical, Hamas has shown itself to be pragmatic in practice, although rarely in rhetoric. It cuts deals with rivals, negotiates indirectly with Israel via the Egyptians, and otherwise demonstrates that unlike, say, al Qaeda, it is capable of compromise. Indeed, al Qaeda often blasts Hamas for selling out. Hamas has at times declared and adhered to cease-fires lasting months, and some leaders have speculated that a truce lasting years is possible. And although Hamas has refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist, its leaders have also said they would accept the UN-demarcated 1967 borders between Israel and the Palestinian areas as a starting point for a Palestinian state. Perhaps the most important sign of pragmatism has been Hamas’ general adherence to its cease-fire after Operation Cast Lead.

To be sure, there are many reasons why Hamas might undermine peace talks. Progress on negotiations would elevate Abbas’ standing among Palestinians and threaten Hamas’ position. More important, it would weaken Hamas’ message that resistance is the path to victory. In the 1990s, support for Hamas rose and fell in inverse proportion to progress on the peace talks, and Abbas hopes that he can outdo Hamas by rebuilding Fatah’s political position at the negotiating table. Thus, if serious peace talks begin soon without Israel’s dealing with Hamas first, Hamas will have a political incentive to break the cease-fire — either directly or by granting groups such as the PIJ more leeway to attack Israel.

And even if Abbas and the peace process were taken out of the equation, formalizing a lasting cease-fire would be risky for Hamas. Doing so would damage Hamas’ credentials as a resistance organization. That, in turn, would jeopardize Hamas’ funding from Iran and weaken it relative to Abbas, since both would then be tarred with the brush of passivity. Pressure from al Qaeda-like jihadists, the PIJ, and Hamas’ own military wing make it hard for Hamas’ leaders to renounce violence, particularly openly.

Hamas would also risk alienating elements of the group outside Gaza. The organization has a major presence in the West Bank, where it did well in elections in 2005 and 2006, and much of its leadership and fundraising apparatus is based in Syria and other Arab and Western states. These facets of the organization, which are committed to violent resistance and focus on gaining power in all of historic Palestine, not just Gaza, would have to take a back seat while the emphasis is on Gaza.

All these concerns seemed insurmountable in the past. And although they remain serious, today there is hope that Hamas can be convinced to let the peace process move forward. Its biggest vulnerability stems from its biggest victory: its electoral win in 2006 and takeover of Gaza in 2007. Now that Hamas must govern and is responsible for the welfare of the Gazans, it can no longer simply be a resistance group, criticizing and undermining Abbas and other moderate Palestinian leaders, avoiding responsibility for tough decisions, and gleefully watching moderates get blamed when Israel retaliates for its acts of terrorism. Hamas learned this lesson during Operation Cast Lead, when Gazans criticized it for the devastation the IDF inflicted on Gaza. The Gazan public is firmly opposed to renewing the rocket attacks. The siege has not weakened Hamas’ power, but it has forced the organization to become more realistic. Gazans are sick of empty slogans of resistance; giving them a better life will require Hamas to make compromises.

Although the siege of Gaza has weakened opposition to Hamas, it has also prevented Hamas from governing well and from proving to Palestinians in the West Bank and Arabs in general that Islamists can run a government. When Gaza came under Palestinian control in 1994, the poverty rate there was 16 percent, barely above that of the United States. In 2009, 70 percent of Gazans were living on less than $1 a day, according to the UN. Mundane concerns about making ends meet dominate the local agenda. As an International Crisis Group report quoted one Palestinian aid worker, “People in Gaza are more concerned with Karni [the crossing point to Israel] than al-Quds [Jerusalem], with access to medical care than the Dome of the Rock.”

Iran, tunnel taxes, and Hamas’ fundraising apparatus allow the movement to survive, but they are not enough to make Gaza prosper. Hamas cannot pay for all of Gaza’s employees and projects. In the past, it spent money on sustaining its mosques, hospitals, personnel, and military. Now, however, it is responsible for all of Gaza — a much greater financial challenge. It is also difficult for Hamas to get currency into Gaza; it must smuggle it in from Egypt. Hamas is considering dramatic increases in taxes on cigarettes, gasoline, propane, and other basic commodities, which would dent its popularity. Even Hamas’ tunneling infrastructure is at risk now that Egypt — with U.S. help — has begun to crack down on the tunnels, building a barrier along its border with Gaza that extends over 20 meters underground.

Perhaps most damaging to Hamas was its failure to emerge from the 2008-9 Gaza war with the aura of victory that Hezbollah enjoyed after its 2006 war with Israel. Hamas’ military strategy was poor, as was its implementation. The Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar had warned soon before the war, “Just let them try to invade Gaza. Gaza will be their new Lebanon,” but Hamas found itself completely outmatched by the IDF and Israel’s intelligence services. No Hamas terrorist cells attacked Israel from the West Bank or within Israel proper, and Israel did not lose one tank or one helicopter or suffer one kidnapping. Hamas’ rocket attacks tapered off as the conflict ended rather than growing in intensity, as Hezbollah’s had in 2006, which allowed Hezbollah to claim it was unbowed when the guns went silent.

Hamas’ political weakness outside Gaza also became evident during Operation Cast Lead. Hamas received no significant support from Arab states: most worried that the Islamist opposition in their own countries would get a boost from a Hamas victory. Even Hezbollah gave only rhetorical support, for fear of renewed conflict with Israel. In the West Bank, Abbas was successful in stopping pro-Hamas demonstrations, using the rebuilt Palestinian police and security services to suppress dissent.

Politically, Hamas is beset from all sides, and its leaders worry that they are losing ground. Fatah is always waiting in the wings, with Abbas salivating over any weakness on the part of Hamas. At the other end of the spectrum, the PIJ hopes it can gain support from disaffected Hamas members by claiming the mantle of Islamic resistance if Hamas moves toward a lasting cease-fire. The extreme Islamist position evokes considerable sympathy among Hamas’ rank and file, particularly in the armed wing. In August 2009, Abdel Latif Moussa, a preacher in Gaza whose ideology resembles Osama bin Laden’s, declared Gaza an Islamic emirate — a direct challenge to Hamas’ caution on this score. Hamas fighters swarmed his mosque, resulting in a shootout that left 28 people dead, including Moussa.

For now at least, Hamas can neither govern freely nor fight effectively, and so it risks losing out to moderates on one side and groups more extreme than itself on the other. Improving the economy in Gaza from abysmal to simply poor would be one victory. So would allowing some Gazans to escape the quarantine the international community has imposed. But to accomplish either of those things, Hamas will have to be willing to make the existing cease-fire more permanent. Doing so would remove the immediate risk of another devastating and embarrassing military operation. Talks with Israel and the rest of the international community, particularly Western officials, would also demonstrate that Hamas is the voice of the Palestinian people in Gaza, and greater legitimacy could bring more aid to Gaza from international organizations and Arab states that so far have shied away from Hamas under international pressure. And if Hamas then managed to govern successfully, it could hope to gain more political power down the road.

DEAL OR NO DEAL?

In order for Hamas to want the cease-fire to last, Israel and its allies must change the organization’s decision-making calculus — a process that will require both incentives and threats, political and military, and, above all, time.

One way to go about this would be for Israel to make a short-term concession on border crossings, allowing the regular flow of goods into Gaza with international, rather than Israeli, monitors manning the crossing points. Israeli intelligence would still watch what goes in and out to ensure that the international monitors did their job, but symbolically the switch would be important. In exchange, Hamas would commit to a lasting cease-fire and agree to stop all attacks from the territory under its control; in other words, it would no longer allow the PIJ to fight in its stead. Hamas would also close the tunnels and end its smuggling. To make the deal more politically palatable for both sides and remove another bone of contention between them, it should include a prisoner exchange that swaps Shalit for Palestinian prisoners. The deal would not require Hamas to officially recognize Israel or Israel to recognize Hamas (which Hamas does not want anyway).

Egypt would have to broker such an arrangement. Like Israel and the PA, Cairo does not want Hamas to succeed: Hamas emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood movement, Egypt’s main opposition force, and its success could have an impact in Egypt itself. At the same time, Cairo wants to separate itself from Gaza; it does not want crises there to further damage its credibility by making it look like an ally of Israel in oppressing Muslims.

Such a deal would allow Hamas to claim credit for improving the lives of Gazans, and it could use the resulting increase in the flow of goods to reward its supporters. Also, Hamas’ dealings with additional outside actors could widen the circle of those who tacitly recognize Hamas. For Israel, the regular rocket attacks would come to a complete halt and the threat of renewed attacks would diminish, allowing Israelis living near Gaza to resume their normal lives. Hamas’ rockets could rust. A cease-fire would also free up Israel diplomatically. If the problem of Hamas receded, Israel could take more risks in the West Bank and give Palestinians more control over security with less fear that this would lead to a Hamas takeover. Meanwhile, Abbas could negotiate with less fear that Hamas might undermine him. Internationally, a cease-fire would reduce, although hardly eliminate, some of the anger at Israel or at least take Gaza off the front pages.

The hope for Israel is that a long-term cease-fire would, over time, produce its own momentum. Peace would push Hamas to emphasize governance more, strengthen the group’s moderates, and discourage its leaders from attacking Israel. Hamas’ military capabilities might grow, but it would be reluctant to risk any economic improvements in Gaza in another round of fighting. Hamas could crack down on or neutralize groups such as the PIJ and the Salafi jihadists without risking its popular support. Hamas’ ties to Iran would diminish — an important fact for Israel if tension between Tehran and Jerusalem grew over Iran’s nuclear program — and indeed Tehran would be bitter that its stalking-horse had turned away from violence. Finally, a cease-fire that allowed goods to flow into Gaza would make it harder for Hamas to blame all of its constituents’ problems on Israel.

HEDGING AGAINST FAILURE

Formalizing the cease-fire with Hamas would raise the question of whether Israel and moderate Palestinians were simply postponing an inevitable fight and allowing the enemy to get stronger in the meantime. There is some validity to this concern. Certainly, the growth of Gaza’s economy and the increased flow of goods, such as concrete, that can have both civilian and military uses would help Hamas’ military. And Hamas has been taking advantage of the current lull in fighting to better arm and train its forces.

With border crossings open, however, Egypt and international monitors could more easily justify completely halting traffic through the tunnels than they can today, since the goods that would be smuggled would exclusively be contraband. Now, stopping the tunnel traffic is too politically sensitive: with both weapons and consumer goods being smuggled in, it would mean exposing Gazans to the risk of starvation. Privately, even some Israelis and Egyptians recognize that some smuggling should be allowed. But if legal trade becomes possible, there will be no more excuse for smuggling. Whatever military advantages Hamas would gain from the freer flow of trade, moreover, would be small: Hamas smuggles so much through the tunnels today that the relative increase in imports that could have military uses would be less than most Israelis fear. In any event, Hamas would still be a pygmy to the Israeli giant.

Another risk of striking a deal with Hamas is that Palestinian moderates would rightly complain that Israel was rewarding violence: once again, their biggest rival would be benefiting from concessions from Israel without having to accept the political price of peace. And if Gaza’s economy improved, the contrast between living conditions there and living conditions in the West Bank would become less stark, which would hurt Abbas politically. Thus, in order to offset any political gains Hamas might make, the international community should encourage Fayyad’s efforts to provide law and order, reduce corruption, and otherwise start building a state in the West Bank. This would help make the PA a true rival to Hamas when it came to governance.

Fatah would also benefit politically because Hamas could no longer argue against rejecting violence and talking to Israel; however indirectly, it would be doing these things itself. At the same time, Abbas and Fayyad need the political legitimacy that would come with any success in peace negotiations with Israel. If the settlements grow and the talks stagnate, Hamas’ argument that what works is resistance, not negotiations, will only gain force. A deal would also place a heavy burden on the PA to outgovern its rival, which is not necessarily a bad thing. An ideal way to move forward would be by reconciling Hamas and Fatah. For Israel, reconciliation would mean that Abbas could cut a deal for all Palestinians and not have it rejected by Hamas. For now, however, that remains unlikely, and neither peace talks with Abbas nor a cease-fire in Gaza should wait for this.

The long-term success of a cease-fire is far from guaranteed. It will depend on the personalities, preferences, and political positions of Hamas’ leaders and on the vicissitudes of Israeli politics. The silver lining, however, is that even failure could have its benefits. Right now, Hamas gains from the perception that Israel and the international community seek to crush the Palestinians. Opening the crossings into Gaza would dispel this impression and place Hamas in a difficult spot politically: it would have to give up either on resistance or on governance.

If the rocket attacks from Gaza resumed or if credible evidence emerged that Hamas was dramatically increasing its military capabilities, Israel would have a strong case for resuming the siege or using force. The international community, therefore, must support not only the idea of formalizing the cease-fire but also Israel’s right to retaliate militarily in Gaza if, despite Israel’s concessions, Hamas resorted to violence. Such backing would both make success in convincing Hamas to adhere to the cease-fire more likely and give Israel a Plan B should the cease-fire collapse. Failure might also foster splits within Hamas. Currently, the group’s leaders disagree over how much to emphasize resistance over governance. Making the choice starker may not force Hamas to abandon resistance, but it could steer relative moderates away from the group.

Hamas is here to stay. Refusing to deal with it will only make the situation worse: Palestinian moderates will become weaker, and Hamas will grow stronger. If the Obama administration is to move its plans for peace forward, the challenge of Hamas has to be met first. At stake is not just the failure of the peace process but also the possibility of another war and of Israel occupying Gaza again.

Reprinted from Foreign Affairs Magazine, Copyright © 2002-2010 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66541/daniel-byman/how-to-handle-hamas?page=show

By Brian Dann

I woke up Saturday morning and realized that I had entered Bizzaro World! The strangest things were happening and it just did not make sense. For example I turned on the television and before me I saw a rally that seemed to be commemorating the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech except that it was being hosted by Glenn Beck and the keynote speaker was non other then Sarah Palin, and to top it off the rally was attended by nothing but a sea of white people! It just did not make sense. There was barely a minority to be found. But the weirdest thing was that on stage was Martin Luther King’s niece, a parade of African-American singers and speakers who all looked like they had shown up to the wrong rally. And all everyone was talking about was “restoring honor” and giving America back to the people. I thought that was what happened when dubya left office and the vast majority of Americans voted Barack Obama and the democrats back into power. I was waiting for Rush Limbaugh to walk out on stage with an African robe on and start singing “We Will Overcome”, hand in hand with Beck and Palin. I swear, it was the weirdest thing! Then I realized that I had not entered Bizzaro World at all but had instead woken up to a normal day and this was really going on!

But what possible reason would Glenn Beck have for hosting a rally of all white people to commemorate the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech? And what did King have to do with the messages that Glen Beck and Sarah Palin have been preaching to the far conservative right wing and the Tea Party movement? And how come the only black people that were there were on stage? Maybe I’m making too much of this. After all, there was no talk of Obama being a socialist or questioning his religion. Their was no talk of comparing Obama to Hitler, and Sarah Palin only spoke of the bravery of our troops. The Tea Partiers did not bring their traditional anti-Obama signs and the overall tone seemed to be as peaceful as could be. At first glance it appeared that Beck’s rally turned out to be nothing but a peaceful get together, with out the traditional Beck/Palin messages, celebrating King and the hope for a better tomorrow. But at second glance, maybe the first glance is the actual problem.

You see when Martin Luther King Jr. spoke at that rally in 1963, which was called “The Great March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom,” his message was not directed simply to those who followed him but to all of America, and his message was consistent with all that he had said before that day. What made King so great was that…(To read more click here)

By Brian Dann

Today I am issuing a challenge to everyone who reads this, a challenge to prove me wrong.  Right now, as you read this, you are either being attacked, or a victim of theft, or unknowingly aiding and abetting in a crime, or being set up to fall victim to one or more of these events, or at best being spied upon. How do I know this?  Take my word for it, I do.  Thirteen years in I.T. experience and a Masters Degree in Cyber-Security better count for something, but if you don’t believe me then here is my challenge.  When you get done reading this article, download a free program called Malwarebytes, install it, and run a full scan on your computer. I will provide details on how to download and run this at the end of this article.  If it finds nothing then you have proved me wrong and you or someone is taking very good care of your computer.  But I suspect in most cases it is going to find files or programs on your system that are infected with untold numbers of malware and spyware that you never knew was there, how it got there, or what it is doing on your system.

You may be wondering why I am issuing this challenge.  Is it because I am such a caring individual that I want to make sure that your personal computer is safe from danger and potential threats?  No, I am issuing this challenge simply to illustrate to you a growing problem that not only involves you and me, but corporations of all sizes around the world, the Pentagon, The White House, governments in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Russia, and The Middle East.  If malware exist on your personal computer and is able to spy on your activities and extract data from your system, just imagine the type and amount of data that could be extracted from some of the largest corporations around the world.  Just image the type of data that could be extracted from computers and networks that run our government and military, from the CIA and the FBI.  Recently the number two man in charge at the Pentagon, United States Secretary of Defense, William J. Lynn III wrote an article describing the Pentagons strategy to defend our country from cyber-attacks and the extent to which the threat exists.  In this eye opening article, Lynn, who is only one official away from answering directly to the President, writes:…(To Read More Click Here)

By Brian Dann

“I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.” – Arnold Schwarzengger

Is being gay something that is learned or something that is inherent to a persons being? In other words is it nature, or nurture?  Is a person born gay, or are they taught to be gay?  This is the ongoing debate about homosexuality.  Thinking about it for a minute I am not sure what you could do to teach someone to be gay.  I mean no one ever taught me to be straight, I just am.  Oh sure I guess there would be some obvious things you could do like, making your kid listen to showtoons all of the time, although when I was a kid I loved going to see musicals, or encouraging your son to decorate the house, although I was excited to go help my mom pick out wall paper and a matching comforter for my bedroom, or I suppose you could dress up your son in girls clothing and put makeup on him and call him Briana, although my older sister used to do that to me to amuse her friends and tell my mom that she has a new sister, but even through all of that, as far as I can tell, I am completely straight. I am married to an absolutely wonderful, drop dead, knock-out, beautiful wife, I have two wonderful kids and although I feel secure and confident enough in my masculinity to admit that George Clooney is a very good looking man, I have no desire to sleep with him.  The closest I ever got to being gay was when I was in the show “Tony and Tina’s Wedding” for six months.  I understudied the role of the all too obviously gay videographer who if you played the part right made Richard Simmons look like a WWE wrestler.   I wore a purple suit with a cropped jacket with shoulder pads that looked like it was stolen from Prince’s closet.  I knew I had done the role justice when one night after the show an overly homophobic audience member, who I had earlier highly embarrassed at his dinner table came up to me just to make sure that I was straight and not really a member of the Kathy Griffin fan club.   Basically, if nurture was what made a person gay, then I would be a flaming homo by now.  But even so the debate over nature vs. nurture rages on.

The answer all depends on who you ask but regardless of the answer, many believe homosexuality is just wrong.  Many believe that it is a sin and that very simply it is against the teachings of the bible.  On that note, what else is against the teachings of the bible?  Well according to the Holy Scriptures these… (To Read More Click Here)

//

By Brian Dann

Yesterday President Obama made history.  No he didn’t solve the immigration problem or eliminate the national debt.  He didn’t bring peace to the Middle East or teach Sarah Palin the difference between Iran and Iraq.  Yesterday President Obama appeared on The View.  Ok, this may not be history on the level of the falling of the Berlin Wall, but none the less this was the first time that a sitting president has appeared on a daytime talk show.  I believe he was supposed to appear on Jerry Springer but they could not find anyone to claim that the president was their baby-daddy.  This obviously was a big honor for the ladies of The View and I am sure that the fact that Barbra Walters is the producer and a co-host was one of the reasons that the President chose this show over Kathy Lee and Hoda.  Of course being the type of show that it is I didn’t expect the questions to be as hard hitting as Meet the Press, but the ladies held there own.  Perhaps the most interesting part of the show was watching Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who thinks that Fox news really is “Fair and Balanced”, act perfectly giddy as President Obama strolled out onto the stage. (Didn’t she loose on Survivor?  How exactly do you make that transition from Survivor looser to talk show host along side Barbra Walters?  If losing is the requirement to success then I should be co-host of the Tonight Show by now.)  Watching Hasselbeck was like watching Sasha and Malia at a Justin Bieber concert. I was just waiting for her to yell out, “I love you Mr. President, Oh and by the way what about the Death Panels!” or ask him to produce his birth certificate.  Much to my disappointment, neither of those things happened.  She did ask a question, very respectfully, about “saved jobs”, or jobs that were not lost due to the Stimulus Package, that sounded like it was lifted straight from the transcripts of a Sean Hannity show, but as the President pointed out, he was sure that any person who’s job was saved due to the Stimulus Package was not upset about his administration talking about “Saved Jobs”. (BooYa Hasselbeck!)  By the way, before the President goes to bed each night do you think he asks Michelle if she would like to see his stimulus package?

It’s no secret that I am a supporter of President Obama but that does not mean I think he can do no wrong.  I believe that pouring more money and troops into Afghanistan is a mistake and we need to get out as soon as possible.  The money we are spending there could be much better spent rebuilding our own infrastructure, investing in clean energy, supporting our schools, and so on. But I believe that President Obama has made two huge mistakes in his presidency.  First,… (To read more Click Here)

By Brian Dann
I remember when I was in grade school, sex education was taught to us in fifth grade.  I believe that they spent about two hours on it and most of it consisted of badly animated movies of a very happy sperm swimming upstream to meet up with an equally happy egg only to join together and well you know what happens next.  The egg wakes up with a bad hangover only to look at the smiley sperm lying naked next to her and wonders how she got there and why her panties are around his neck.  Seriously, that is all we got.  There was no mention of love or marriage, foreplay or how the sperm got in there in the first place, and certainly no mention of any of the other creative ways that two people could express there undying lust for each other, although looking back on it, that would have been awesome!  But I was not that lucky, at least not as lucky as the fifth grade class that my oh so cute, blond and perky, twenty something wife taught during the first year of our marriage.  It was her first year teaching science to fourth and fifth graders and she was assigned the task of teaching the fifth graders sex ed.  The first thing I thought to my self was somewhere there is a group of fifth grade boys who can’t wait to get to science class!  Whereas I got two hours of “instruction” in this subject, her students received two weeks.  By the time she was done, each one of her students could name each position of the Kama Sutra and had memorized five pickup lines.  But seriously, her curriculum was very appropriate for the age of the students.  The parents had the option of having their child opt out of those lessons, and my wife pulled it off with the grace, style and professionalism that I knew that she was fully capable of.

Now let’s fast forward to today, and a sleepy little town called Helena, Montana.  Actually Helena, the capital of Montana, is not that little with a population of about 29,500 and home to such notables as Gary Cooper, the A-Teams Dirk Benedict, Liz Claiborne, and L. Ron Hubbard the founder of Scientology.  Helena is the type of place where you can stroll down its quiet streets that have retained the feel of the old west, and with a murder rate of zero for 2007 and 2008, feel safe while you admire the 18th century, gold rush architecture.  It is also a place that has turned the subject of sex education upside down and has created a national uproar that had not been seen since sex education was first introduced to our educational system in the 1970’s.  The Helena school board has put forth a proposition that would teach school children, as young as kindergarten, sex education using anatomical terms such as penis, vagina, breast, nipples, testicles, scrotum and uterus.  It would teach first graders about same-sex relationships, and would teach fifth graders that intercourse can not only be done vaginally, but also anally and orally.  That’s right.  It teaches fifth graders about blow jobs. Here is an actual excerpt from the proposal.  “Understand that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration; using the penis, fingers, tongue or objects.” Objects?  What, are they going to bring in vibrators and dildos?  It’s interesting, talking to a ten year old on the internet about blow jobs is called a felony, but… (To read more Click Here)

By Brian Dann

I’d like you to ask yourself some questions, some real tough questions, and I‘d like you to be brutally honest with yourself.  After all, you are the only one who will know the answers.  Let’s get started.  First, how stressful is your marriage?  What percentage of the time do you spend fighting, bickering, and arguing, or what ever you want to call it?  And how are you as a parent?  Be honest.  What are your short comings as a parent?  Have you really done the best you can?  Have you given your kids all the love, patience and understanding that you are capable of?  Is there anything that you can see your children looking back at, twenty years from now, that you did or said, that they may say to themselves, during some therapy session, “My parents really messed me up with that one.”  Oh and by the way, if you can’t think of anything, believe me, there’s something.  And finally, what has contributed more to the success or failure of your family, the fact that you have a “traditional marriage”, and by that I mean a man married to a woman, or the decisions that you made as a parent and their effect on your children?  I don’t know what your answers are and frankly, I don’t care.  But what I do know is this.  How you parent has a much larger impact on the type of individual your child turns out to be then if your family is “traditional” or not. I have seen many a heterosexual married couple mess up there kids beyond belief.  I have seen kids scarred by divorce, had there lives ruined by physical and sexual abuse.  I have seen kids who all they want is time from mom and dad but instead are told that they are too busy, kids who crave some attention then act out because they simply can’t get it.  I have seen kids who turn to drugs, alcohol, who get pregnant at fourteen years old.  I have seen kids who whether they know it or not just want a loving family to be there for them. And I don’t care if you are gay, straight or bi, you all of an equal opportunity to mess up your kids lives.

According to traditional Christian belief, a marriage is made up of a man and woman who take certain vows and then are “married” in the eyes of g-d.  Add kids to this formula and supposedly you have a family.  And according to traditional Christian belief this is final and absolute.  There is no other form of marriage, or family.  It is precisely this final and absolute Christian definition of marriage that has been challenged in the last few years.

If you look up the word “family” on the internet you find the following definitions… (to read more click here)

By Brian Dann

With this Forth of July weekend coming up I think it’s time once again to celebrate the United States continued dominance through out the world, to remind ourselves that we are number one, and to never forget that the American dream lives in all of us!  Not only in this country do we have a constitution that promises us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but also a promise of the right to keep and bear arms, the right to have the highest murder rate, involving guns, of all non-third world, higher income nations, a rate that is five times higher than Canada, and ten to forty-four times higher than other high income countries around the world.  According to the Brady Campaign, “in one year, guns murdered 17 people in Finland, 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 60 in Spain, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States.”  We’re number one!  Woo Hoo!  We should be so proud of our selves.  To anyone who says, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” I say DUH!  A gun lying on the ground with no one touching it is pretty harmless.  What a stupid argument.  I could say the same thing about a guitar string, but if I pick it up and wrap it around someone’s throat and pull it with all my strength, I could probably chop there head off, except that people actually use guns to kill other people, they rarely use guitar strings!

The fact is this.  There is a direct correlation between the number of guns owned per capita, to the number of deaths by firearm per capita. And guess who is number one on both lists, the United States.  For example, the United Kingdom with only 56 guns per 1000 people had only 39 gun related deaths for the entire year.  Canada with 315 guns per 1000 people had only 200 gun related deaths for the entire year.  But the United States with a staggering 900 guns per 1000 people had 9,484 gun related deaths.  You can make any argument you want but these are the numbers and the numbers tell the story.  Listen, I’m not saying that people shouldn’t have guns.  If you hunt, you should have the right to own a gun.  I have no desire to deny… (To read more Click Here)

By Brian Dann

What’s your problem?  No really, what’s your problem? What’s that one thing that is eating away at you that you just want to get up and scream about at the top of your lungs?  What is pissing you off!?  Think about it for a second because I know there is something.  What is the biggest thing that is going on in your world at this very moment that is just making you insane, the one thing that you just wish you could do something about?  Is it that your kids don’t call you enough?  Is it that one is stoned all of the time or that you think your wife is cheating on you?  Is it that you regret not going to med school and life insurance sales is just not working out for you?  Is it that your friends have a bigger house than you do or that your partner who you thought you could trust has been embezzling from you for the past five years? Maybe you think you need to loose ten pounds, or maybe you’re morbidly obese and can’t figure out why you use food to comfort the pain that your obsessive eating is really all about.   Maybe you think that your problems actually matter!  To be honest I have no idea what your problem is but I’m gonna tell you right now… GET OVER IT!  DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!  STOP FEELING SORRY FOR YOURSELF AND TAKE CHARGE!  Because the truth is nobody give a crap about your problem because we all got problems and everyone thinks theirs is more important that yours is.  So do something about it and stop wining about it on Twitter!

Let’s put your “problems” in perspective here.  The reality is, your “problems” pale in comparison to what is going on in the world right now!  I mean really, the U.S. just lost in the first elimination round at the World Cup! (Yea, like we really cared.  We don’t even call the sport by its real name.  Unless your native land is somewhere in Europe the last soccer match you watched was between bunches of kids while you sat in a folding chair playing games on your iPhone.  The U.S. has given new meaning to the phrase ‘fair weather fan’) The real truth is none of your problems really matter in comparison and if you think they do pick up a news paper. At this very moment man is destroying the earth. Ok, BP is destroying the earth, but… (To read more Click Here)