The SAITM issue has become a national issue. This has become an issue for politicking for various politically motivated groups. Various groups and individuals have raised their voices for and against SAITM creating much heat and less light.
The SAITM issue has brought out some important questions regarding state funded/private higher education in this country.SAITM assumes importance since it is an institution providing private medical degree. In this regard the following questions needs to be addressed:
1. Do we need private medical degree warding institutions?
2. Is it possible to provide adequate training for private medical students in the private sector?
3. What are the entry criteria for private medical colleges?
4. What are the important issues with SAITM
5. Will private medical colleges affect the state medical faculties?
Do we need private medical degree warding institutions?
The simple answer for this question is yes. We have private education from kindergarten to university level except for medical profession. There are two important factors that make private medical degree contentious issue compared to other professional courses:
1. Inadequate patient turnover in the private sector hospitals
2. Immediate government employment at completion of the degree course.
At present not a single private sector hospital in Sri Lanka could provide the number and the variety of patients needed for training medical graduates. This can only be resolved by giving private medical students access to government hospitals and other health care facilities for training purposes. This will benefit the private sector as well as the government sector in the long run.
Immediate government employment at the completion of the degree course is a privilege enjoyed by medical graduates in this country. State medical graduates and foreign medical graduates enjoy this benefit at present. This ensured state employment has given rise to the argument about the number of doctors produced vs number needed to serve the country. However, the number of graduates / professionals produced in the country and the need of the country has not been raised in any other profession. All the doctors produced in this country are not going to stay in this country and are not going to be confined to state sector alone. We need not assume that the kinetics/ dynamics will remain the same when there is high demand and when there is surplus production.
The popular argument against private medical education is that it will affect the free education. Is that applicable only for medical education? Is it acceptable to prevent a tax payer’s child obtaining a private medical degree in spite of the tax payer providing money for the ‘free education’ of a state medical faculty graduate? However those who have money are sending their children to other countries to obtain medical degree at a loss to the country’s foreign exchange.
What are the entry criteria for private medical colleges?
Medical students are admitted to the state medical faculties once a year depending on the National Advanced Level examination results. However, the SAITM and the Kotelawala Defence University (KDU) admits students more than once a year depending on National or London Advanced Level examination results.There are three important issues regarding student entry into private medical faculties:
1 Minimum results at the Advanced Level examination
2. Students entering at a younger age into private medical faculties
3 more than one batch being admitted per year
The minimum results required to enter the university in Sri Lanka has remained as simple pass in all subjects probably since the time the A/L examinations started. That was so when 4As were hard to find and it remains same when 3As are in abundance. This needs to be revised.
The students who are entering through London A/L have an undue advantage of being at least one year younger to their peers who enter state universities through the National A/L. The state university students will waste one more year to enter state medical faculties whereas the students entering the non-state institutions will be able to start their medical education soon after the A/L results are released. This anomaly will affect the career of medical graduates from state medical faculties as they will be older than their parallels from the private medical college. This will become one of the major disadvantages of being a medical student in a state medical faculty in the future.
Do mosquitoes transfer dengue virus to its offspring? If so, how does it affect the dengue epidemic?
There are several issues to discuss. First, what has actually been found? Does it happen in nature? If it does, to what extent? How does it affect the progress of the epidemic and its control?
If anyone were to Google "vertical transmission of dengue virus" or something similar, dozens of sites will turn up. This may give someone the impression that vertical transmission or transfer of the dengue virus by an infected female mosquito to its offspring or vertical transmission (VT) is a well-established fact and is a common occurrence. The reality is, VT is neither a well established fact nor a common occurrence. In fact, it is more implied or inferred or even speculated rather than scientifically proved.
Vertical transmission was thought to have happened because dengue outbreaks appeared in a locality after a long period being free of dengue cases. It is known that the eggs of the Aedes mosquito, which transmit the dengue virus from person to person, survive in a quiescent state for a long period in nature, even in a drought situation when all pools of water have dried out. Following rains, these eggs hatch and mosquitoes emerge. The suggestion was, therefore, made that the epidemic suddenly appeared because the dormant eggs had dengue virus in them. In other words the mother mosquito had passed the virus to the eggs, and the virus had survived for a long period in the eggs and when the eggs hatched the virus was already in the newly hatched mosquito, which then infected one or two persons and the epidemic started. Although this had not actually been proved, the explanation was more or less accepted as being a possibility.
Now with advances in molecular biology it is possible to test if this happens in nature. There are lots of articles from all over the world "proving" that vertical transmission is actually taking place. Once again it is more implication rather than proof. What has been shown is that the virus is found in nature inside aedes mosquito larvae and in male mosquitoes. The argument then is that the virus cannot be in larvae unless it was in the eggs, and it cannot be in a male mosquito because a male mosquito does not suck blood from humans who may carry the virus. In other words, the male must have got it from its mother through the eggs, i.e. vertical transmission. There are two problems with this theory. First, the virus can be acquired orally, in other words it can be eaten by the larvae from the environment, i.e. from the water in the pool it lives in. The way the pool acquires the virus is from the mother mosquito while laying eggs or infected mosquitoes dying in the pool and the larvae cannibalising them. There is a way a male mosquito can acquire the virus other than via vertical transmission. It can acquire the virus from a female mosquito during the mating process. So there are alternative explanations to how the virus could get into larvae and males other than through vertical transfer.
As I said before, there are dozens of articles in the net. If you only read the TITLES of the articles, one gets the impression that vertical transmission is proven fact. But if you read the articles further, you will find that in fact what they have found is that, after examining hundreds of samples they have found DNA that belong to dengue virus in a very few samples. It is not actually a case that they isolated the virus from eggs and grew the virus in a tissue culture or something similar. We need not go through all these articles (which are quite boring), because researchers from the Institut Pasteur, Paris, with knowledge in these matters have studied all of the articles and come to the following conclusions:
" In general, VT contribution to arbovirus persistence is likely modest because vertically infected mosquitoes are rarely observed in nature. Taken together, however, our results call for caution when interpreting VT studies because their conclusions are context and method dependent."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25077992
Similarly researchers from Universities of Exeter UK and University of California, US, have also studied this issue and come to the following conclusion:
"Given the evidence from mathematical models and the number of studies that failed to find evidence of vertical transmission, vertical transmission is unlikely to be important for the persistence of DENVs at a local or regional level. A combination of asymptomatic DENV infection in humans and the movement of viraemic people may well be more important in virus recurrence"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26545718
The next question is, if VT transmission actually takes place to even a modest degree how will it affect efforts at controlling the epidemic? Some people in Sri Lanka believe that isolating dengue patients, which I am advocating as the quickest means of eradicating dengue from Sri Lanka (please visit the blog), will not work because of VT.
The reason is that the Aedes mosquito is born already infected. Therefore, there is no need to bite a dengue patient to acquire the virus. Therefore, it is pointless screening dengue patients. What this means is that in order to eliminate dengue the, entire population of aedes mosquitoes will have to be destroyed to stop dengue, because even if a few are left behind they will restart the epidemic. In other words, we will have to use tons of chemicals like we did in trying to control malaria, to eradicate the entire Aedes mosquito from Sri Lanka. There is another flaw in their argument. Mosquito is the intermediate host in the dengue life cycle. Man is the definite host. This is similar to malaria, where the mosquito is the intermediate host and man the real host, where the parasite lives. For the survival of the organism, for malaria as well as dengue, both hosts are necessary. Remember that the dengue virus has to live for 8-10 days in the mosquito before it becomes infective. The process in the mosquito is well understood with malaria, but still not with dengue. However, it is necessary for the virus to go through man to complete the cycle. Breaking the Man-Mosquito-Man cycle should stop the epidemic.
Tuesday, 25 July 2017
The buss word vibrating in town is “waste management”. There is enough stench in the air for public to feel something is not right. This reminds us of the adage “comments are free but facts are sacred”. The public make all sort of comments about why solid waste management practices in Sri Lanka are not effective and even some suggest how this issue could be resolved. All comments count for the debate. However, the real fact is that everyone is a part of the problem and everyone has a role to play in the solution. Until this is understood, nothing is going to work.
JERUSALEM - Religious leaders at Al-Aqsa mosque on Tuesday rejected an Israeli decision to remove some security measures controlling access to Islam's third holiest site, telling worshippers to boycott the site until the return of the status quo.
Israel on Monday night said it would remove metal detectors around the Noble Sanctuary, home to the mosque, which led to a "day of rage" on Friday that left six people dead amid Palestinian claims Israel was trying to cement control.
However, Israel's intention to leave "security measures" at entrances to the site was on Tuesday morning rejected by the Waqf, the administrators of the compound.
"No entry into Al-Aqsa mosque until after... the return of the situation to how it was before the 14th of this month," read a statement.
Witnesses told Middle East Eye the area had been a hive of activity overnight as Israeli forces installed other "security measures".
Ikrima Sabri, the former grand mufti of Al-Aqsa and its spiritual leader, told Middle East Eye: "The issue wasn't solved, Israeli forces removed the metal detectors but they put other dangerous obstacles that change the status quo of the Aqsa mosque.
"Until now we don't have details of what exactly they did, what cameras are where.
"But the director of the Waqf will give us a report on all the violations of the Israeli forces, and then we will decide how to continue our struggle."
After midnight on Tuesday, about 30 Israeli cars and lorries and hundreds of Israeli forces closed the Lion's Gate area, pushing Palestinians back.
Mahmoud, a protester, saw the Israelis remove the metal detectors, but said he saw them installing cameras.
"There were about 70 stands for cameras," he said, "What's going on here is big lie."
Later on, activists told Middle East Eye that Israeli forces asked protesters to leave the area of Lion's Gate and pushed every one out. Some said Israeli forces uprooted trees near the gate.
Palestinian Muslim worshippers, who refused to enter Al-Aqsa mosque compound due to Israeli-imposed barriers, pray at the Lions Gate entrance to the compound, 16 July.Oren ZivActiveStills
Of my 22 years of life spent in Jerusalem, I have never felt more fear of losing my beloved city than today. We, Palestinian Jerusalemites, are becoming strangers in our land.
Today, I find myself feeling helpless in the face of systematic obliteration of our culture and identity. We are losing our native character and becoming directionless wanderers with a diminishing sense of where we belong.
A similar phenomenon is affecting the whole of Palestine, but I cannot help but feel it hitting me the hardest in Jerusalem.
Over the past two years, I have had various groups of friends visit from abroad and stay at my house in Beit Hanina. I try to show them as much as I can of Jerusalem, while trying really hard to describe the actual nature of the oppressed city. Palestinian existence in Jerusalem is gagged, chained and continuously beaten down by Israeli institutional violence.
Beneath neatly paved paths
I get really irritated hearing tourists lavish praise on their visits to Jerusalem, as I am sure they have not seen the grim reality lying right beneath the neatly paved paths around the city walls or the fancy well-lit shopping areas, restaurants and bars of the western side of the city.
This is not only true for foreign tourists, but also for many Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza who receive the rarely issued permits from Israeli occupation authorities allowing them to visit the city.
Jerusalem is being strangled slowly and away from the eyes of anyone unfamiliar with its wider realities.
A cousin of mine who owns a store in the Old City told me that Jerusalem has only seen rapid decline since the 2014 events and the war on Gaza. He was referring to the 51-day long Israeli attack that left more than 2,200 Palestinians, including 550 children, dead.
He described Israeli guides who refuse to allow their tour groups to stop and check out their stores, saying that those guides pretty much have a monopoly over tourism in the city.
His descriptions match my own observation that the city is slowly being shut down in hopes that it will eventually be emptied of its Palestinian population.
Anyone with experience of the Old City could observe this too by taking a stroll through Souq al-Attareen – the perfume market – or al-Wad Street.
The Palestinian shopkeepers’ biggest fear has become the tax authorities and Israeli police who always go after them to create an insufferable situation.
Last remaining space
In recent years, I have just not been able to get myself to enjoy the atmosphere of Jerusalem. I see the decline of the city in growing poverty, disappearing street vendors, the total absence of nightlife and the lack of public hangout places and cafes.
Jerusalem is dying, and yet the Israelis seek to kill perhaps the last symbol of Palestinian existence in the city.
Since the morning of the closure of the al-Aqsa mosque compound, following the 14 July attack that left two Israeli occupation officers and three Palestinian citizens of Israel dead, I have tried myself to go to the compound.
I did the same almost every day that week, but so far unsuccessfully due to Israel placing metal detectors at the gates, which Palestinians have refused to pass through in protest of the occupation’s attempt to impose even tighter control.
Last Friday, I grabbed a prayer rug and headed down to get as close as possible to al-Aqsa to pray, despite not being a regularly practicing worshipper.
I am angry at the recent Israeli measures at al-Aqsa, as they only mean one thing: emptying al-Aqsa of its people.
The compound is one of the last remaining public spaces in Jerusalem, with which Palestinians associate their identity. Al-Aqsa is also central to Palestinian economic and social activity in Jerusalem.
The imposition of gates and metal detectors is an effort to empty al-Aqsa by making it an extra hassle for everyone who wishes to enter. Worshippers who pray at al-Aqsa leave their work or home for less than 30 minutes, walk down to pray alongside others and then return to continue their routine.
Others enter al-Aqsa as a shortcut to get from one side of the city to the other. Palestinian traders in Jerusalem depend largely on the vast numbers of worshippers who regularly make their way to al-Aqsa.
We all resist
The placing of the metal detectors created a new obstacle which the Israelis hoped the Palestinians would just get used to and then begin to loathe the idea of visiting al-Aqsa.
The same happened with Qalandiya checkpoint years ago. That checkpoint lies in the occupied West Bank between the cities of Ramallah and Jerusalem. What started as a roadblock manned by one Israeli army jeep turned into what it is today – a huge checkpoint making the life of anyone crossing it a living hell.
Qalandiya forced people to change where they live and work, to change their entire lives to accommodate a grim new reality imposed by the occupier.
Qalandiya checkpoint is succeeding in making Palestinians hate the idea of crossing it to reach Jerusalem, leading to the slow emptying of the city.
I have no doubt that the metal detectors placed by Israel were part of its long-term plan to wrest total control of al-Aqsa, destroying one of the last remaining symbols of Palestinian existence in Jerusalem.
On Monday night, following more than a week of sustained protests and civil disobedience by Palestinians, Israel decided to remove the metal detectors. It has said it will place “smart” cameras to monitor entrances instead, a move Muslim authorities in the city who have said they will accept no change to the status quo are still examining.
Jerusalemites forced Israel to change course, but Israel will not give up its efforts to impose new restrictions and take our city unless we have sustained support for our struggle from all over the world.
The spirit of unity amongst Jerusalemites today has been extraordinary. People from all walks of life, practicing Muslims and non-practicing Muslims and even Christians, have taken part in directly protesting the closure of Al-Aqsa. We all recognize the significance of this battle, and so we all resist.
President Trump's speech to thousands of Boy
Scouts at the National Scout Jamboree in Glen Jean, W.Va., on July 24,
took an unexpected turn.
(Taylor Turner/The Washington Post)
For 80 years, American presidents have been speaking to the National Scout Jamboree, a gathering of tens of thousands of youngsters from around the world eager to absorb the ideas of service, citizenship and global diplomacy.
In keeping with the Scouts’ traditions, all eight presidents and surrogates who have represented them have stayed far, far away from partisan politics.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the occasion to talk about good citizenship. Harry S. Truman extolled fellowship: “When you work and live together, and exchange ideas around the campfire, you get to know what the other fellow is like,” he said.
President Trump spoke before the National Scout
Jamboree on July 24. It is an 80-year tradition for the sitting
president to address the Boy Scouts.
(The Washington Post)
President Dwight D. Eisenhower invoked the “bonds of common purpose and common ideals.” And President George H.W. Bush spoke of “serving others.”
For a brief moment at this year’s jamboree in West Virgina, President Donald Trump indicated that he would follow that tradition — sort of.
“Who the hell wants to speak about politics when I’m in front of the Boy Scouts?” he said.
Then, standing before all 40,000 of them, he bragged about the “record” crowd size, bashed President Barack Obama, criticized the “fake media” and trashed Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. In the lengthy 35-minute speech, the president threatened to fire his health and human services secretary if he couldn’t persuade members of Congress to vote for the Republican health-care bill.
At one point, he told a rambling story about a conversation he had at a New York cocktail party with a once-successful home builder who “lost his momentum.” The lesson, apparently: “You have to know whether or not you continue to have the momentum. And if you don’t have it, that’s okay.”
Througho
ut the address, Trump dropped in praise for “the moms and the dads and troop leaders” and thanked the Scouts for upholding “the sacred values of our nation.”
It was yet another example of Trump ignoring the custom that past presidents have dutifully observed in such public ceremonies. In his first full day in office, Trump bucked tradition at the CIA when he delivered a campaign-style speech in front of a memorial wall for fallen agency employees. In May, he used a commencement ceremony at the Coast Guard Academy to lament that he has been treated “more unfairly” than any other politician in history. And so it was at this year’s jamboree. Trump, who promised to be different from all the rest, was indeed just that, talking to the Scouts in a way no president ever has.
Here, by way of illustration, is an abbreviated history of American presidents and their encounters with the Boy Scouts jamboree.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1935 and 1937)
Roosevelt, once called the “greatest friend Scouting ever had in the White House,” helped secure support from federal and local officials to host the inaugural Scout Jamboree in Washington, D.C., in 1935. There were plans to line the scouts along Constitution Avenue and throw a party on the White House lawn. But the gathering was derailed when a polio outbreak near the nation’s capital put the Scouts at too great a risk.
Roosevelt said that Boy Scouts, present and former, “constitute a very real part of our American citizenship” that relies on unselfishness and cooperative attitudes. “Scouting revolves around not the mere theory of service to others but the habit of service to others,” he said.
The young boys should be engaged in civic affairs in their home communities, even before they can legally vote, Roosevelt said, praising “the many contributions that individual Scouts and Scout organizations have made to the relief of suffering, the relief of the needy, to the maintenance of good order and good health, and to the furtherance of good citizenship and good government.”
The great outdoors, he added, are to be loved and understood, and he reminded the boys of their Scout Motto to always “be prepared.”
“When you go out into life, you have come to understand that the individual in your community who always says ‘I can’t’ or ‘I won’t’ or ‘I don’t,’ the individual who by inaction or by opposition slows up honest, practical, far-seeing community effort, is the fellow who is holding back civilization and holding back the objectives of the Constitution of the United States,” Roosevelt said.
“We need more Scouts,” he added. “The more the better. For the record shows that taking it by and large, boys trained as Scouts make good citizens.”
Two years later, Roosevelt joined the Scouts in D.C., where they found his face on the first page of the Jamboree Journal with a greeting and plug for good citizenship, according to Scouting Magazine.
The former president toured the camp site, took 12 Eagle Scouts to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game and visited with a group from New York that had built a large replica of the Roosevelt family home, reported the magazine.
President Harry S. Truman (1950)
This jamboree was on July Fourth at Valley Forge, Pa., where General George Washington brought his army in the winter of 1777. Truman noted the soldiers’ struggles — the bitter cold, lack of food, poor shelter and tattered clothing — to make a greater point about perseverance.
“But the men of Washington’s army stuck it out,” Truman said. “They stuck it out because they had a fierce belief in the cause of freedom for which they were fighting. And because of that belief, they won.”
Truman’s speech morphed into a lesson on international diplomacy, world peace and freedom for all. He listed off the many states and foreign countries from which Scouts had come to attend the jamboree.
“When you work and live together, and exchange ideas around the campfire, you get to know what the other fellow is like,” Truman said. “That is the first step toward settling world problems in a spirit of give and take, instead of fighting about them.”
The “Scout movement,” the former president said, is “good training” for nation building work across the globe. Truman took shots at the dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, then shifted his criticism to “Communist-dominated countries” that are giving children “a completely distorted picture of the world.”
He said:
“The great tragedy of our times is that there are movements in the world that deny this fundamental ideal of human brotherhood. These movements have devoted themselves to preaching distrust between nations. They have made a religion of hate. They have tried to turn the peoples of the earth against one another — to create a gulf between different peoples that fellowship cannot bridge. As a part of this effort, they have tried to poison the minds of the young people.”
The United States, Truman said, “is striving to build a world in which men will live as good neighbors and work for the good of all.” He said he hoped all Boy Scouts in attendance would take home an understanding of “human brotherhood” and “work for freedom and peace with the same burning faith that inspired the men of George Washington’s army here at Valley Forge.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Vice President Richard Nixon (1953, 1957 and 1960)
Eisenhower, who visited the jamboree in 1950, was unable to physically attend three years later as president but recorded a video message for the Scouts.
Like Truman, he noted the importance of rubbing elbows with fellow Scouts of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. He predicted they would leave the gathering with “a new sense of the vastness and complexities of this nation and of the world.”
“I am confident that, in meeting and talking with your fellow Scouts, you will gain a renewed awareness of the need for cooperating — working together — in our country and in the world,” Eisenhower said. “Bonds of common purpose and common ideals can unite people, even when they come from the most distant and diverse places.”
Nixon spoke on Eisenhower’s behalf in 1957 and Eisenhower delivered another speech three years later, but the transcripts were not readily available.
President Lyndon B. Johnson (1964)
Johnson, eight months into his first presidential term, built his address around the theme of the great “American idea,” encouraging the Scouts to remember the country’s history as they work to better its future.
“This country of ours is a community built on an idea,” Johnson said. “Its history is the history of an idea. And its future will be bright only so long as you are faithful to that idea.”
He used their location — again at Valley Forge — to speak of the “idea and a dream” that gave the troops at Valley Forge “the strength to survive the winter.”
The “American idea,” Johnson said, was what the founders outlined in the Constitution: a government of and by the people, religious freedom and the right to speak without censorship.
“As a result, in America we have a Government which exists to protect the freedom and enlarge the opportunities of every citizen,” he said. “That Government is not to be feared or to be attacked. It is to be helped as long as it serves the country well, and it is to be changed when it neglects its duty.”
He touched on the otherness of the Beltway, and how Washington, D.C., “must often seem difficult to understand.” But he reminded the Scouts that government is made of people like them, all over the country, with different home towns and backgrounds and life experiences. Johnson said he was certain a number of them would even grow up to serve their country, too.
“These ideas are as old as your country, but they are not old-fashioned ideas,” he said. “They are as alive and as vital as America itself. I have no doubt that if you remain true to them, you will remember these days of Scouting as only the beginning of a lifetime of useful service to America.”
Looking at the Scouts’ “smiling, optimistic” faces, Johnson said with a hint of melodrama, “will give me strength that I need in the lonely hours that I spend in attempting to lead this great Nation.”
(Read Johnson’s full speech here)
First lady Nancy Reagan on behalf of President Ronald Reagan (1985)
President Reagan was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery during the 1985 jamboree, so first lady Nancy Reagan addressed the crowd in his place, delivering a forceful speech about the perils of drug abuse. Reagan told the Scouts they were “what is most positive about America’s young people today.”
“No one can use drugs and remain a true Boy Scout,” she said. “Drug-free is the best way and the only way to live. Boy Scouts can help save their generation from drugs.”
President George H.W. Bush (1989)
In his remarks at the 1989 jamboree, the elder President Bush touched on everything from the American colonists to salmon fishing to moon outposts. He raved about the potential for a new generation in space exploration and encouraged Scouts to keep a “spirit of wonder, of discovery and adventure” that would draw them to “far distant worlds.”
Like Nancy Reagan before him, Bush devoted a significant part of his speech to the war on drugs, one of the signature domestic policies of his presidency. Bush listed drug abuse as one of his “five unacceptables,” which also included illiteracy, unemployment, child abuse and hunger.
Citing the rise of crack and cocaine, he called on the Scouts to lead by example and refuse “any illegal drug.” He recalled a story about a boy named Ryan Shafer who started using drugs at age 12 and died four years later after becoming a “stranger to his parents and classmates.” Bush implored the Scouts to ask themselves if they knew someone like Ryan and whether they had done everything in their power to help.
“By actively engaging in the lives of others,” Bush said, “you are demonstrating a central theme, a central idea of this administration: that from now on in America, any definition of a successful life must include serving others.”
President Bill Clinton (1997)
When Clinton spoke to the Scouts in 1997, it was the 60th anniversary of the first jamboree, and Clinton seemed to revel in the occasion.
With classic Clintonian flair, he name-checked no fewer than a dozen attendees and associates, gave a shout-out to the Arkansas flags flying in the background, recounted his days as a Scout at Ramble Elementary School, then told a more recent story about a scoutmaster from Missouri who tackled a man who had tried to run down pedestrians at a park in Washington (“I don’t know if there’s a Scout merit badge for tackling dangerous people who are violating the law,” he said, “but if there is one, I think he ought to get it.”)
The bulk of his speech focused on people doing “good turns” for one another — a core practice of the Scouts, he said.
“If every young person in America would give back to their community in the way you do, just imagine what we could do,” he said. “Imagine how many fewer problems we could have. So many times I have wished that every young person in America had the chance to be a part of Scouting. And tonight I see why, more clearly than ever. So I hope you’ll go home and help others to serve and learn the joy that you share by the service you do.”
Clinton closed with a quote from French writer Alexis de Tocqueville: “America is great because America is good.”
President George W. Bush (2001 and 2005)
The younger President Bush addressed Scouts directly on two occasions, the first in 2001 during the early days of his presidency. Bad weather had prevented him from appearing in person that year, but he offered some words of advice in a videotaped message, putting his “compassionate conservative” image on full display.
Bush spoke of the Scouts’ “heartland” values that “build strong families, strong communities and strong character.”
“The goodness of a person and of the society he or she lives in often comes down to very simple things,” he said. “Every society depends on trust and loyalty, on courtesy and kindness, on bravery and reverence. These are the values of Scouting and these are the values of America.”
Four years later, Bush spoke for more than 17 minutes, drawing multiple rounds of applause — and even a few laughs — from the tens of thousands of Scouts gathered at the 2005 jamboree. The speech came at a time of growing national tension over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush’s popularity was nearing what was then a low point, largely as a result of his handling of the conflicts. Without discussing politics specifically, he struck a somewhat defiant tone, invoking War on Terror rhetoric in his speech.
“Lives of purpose are constructed on the conviction there is right and there is wrong, and we can know the difference,” Bush said, a group of Scouts in matching beige uniforms standing behind him. “You’ll find that confronting injustice and evil requires a vision of goodness and truth.”
“All of you are showing your gratitude for the blessings of freedom,” he continued. “You also understand that freedom must be defended, and I appreciate the Scouts’ long tradition of supporting the men and women of the United States military. Your generation is growing up in an historic time, a time when freedom is on the march, and America is proud to lead the armies of liberation.”
Follow your conscience, Bush told the Scouts, and serve a cause greater than yourself.
President Barack Obama (2010)
Obama didn’t attend the jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia in 2010, which marked the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America. But he did send the Scouts a brief videotaped message praising the organization’s history of community service and legacy of producing national leaders (he noted that 11 of the 12 people who walked on the moon were Scouts).
“That service is worth celebrating, but there’s still more to do,” Obama said. “In the years ahead we’re going to depend on you, the next generation of leaders, to move America forward.”
The USA Today and iMediaEthics poll shows half of voters are for Trump being impeached while the other half are against it. Buzz60 Susan Page and Emma Kinery, USA TODAYPublished 5:00 a.m. ET July 24, 2017 | Updated 5:22 p.m. ET July 25, 2017 CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS: An earlier version of this story misstated the percentage of respondents who said President Trump wasn't likely to complete his first term. The correct number is 36%.
WASHINGTON — Just six months after his inauguration, Americans already are split down the middle, 42%-42%, over whether President Trump should be removed from office, a new USA TODAY/iMediaEthics Poll finds.
While no serious effort is now underway in Congress to impeach Trump, the results underscore how quickly political passions have become inflamed both for and against the outsider candidate who won last year's campaign in a surprise. A third of those surveyed say they would be upset if Trump is impeached; an equal third say they would be upset if he's not.
Those findings, designed to measure the intensity of opinion, also show a perfect divide, 34%-34%.
"I don't really trust him — all the things he's done while he's in office, all of the lies, the investigation that goes on with him, the things he says to his staff," Vera Peete, 47, of Antioch, Calif., said in a follow-up phone interview. The caregiver from suburban San Francisco, an independent who voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, was among those surveyed.
The online poll of 1,330 adults, taken July 17-19 by SurveyUSA, has a margin of error of 2.8 percentage points.
Americans are braced for turmoil ahead.
More than a third, 36%, say Trump isn't likely to complete his first term, for whatever reason. Only about one in four, 27%, express confidence he'll serve all four years of his term. Even one in 10 Republicans doubt he'll finish his tenure.
"These results suggest that Trump is probably the most beleaguered first-term president in the country’s history, and certainly in modern history — highly unpopular among the public, with a significant portion clamoring for his impeachment barely six months after his inauguration,"
says David Moore, a senior fellow at the University of New Hampshire and polling director for iMediaEthics.org, a nonprofit, non-partisan news site.
In the poll, 44% approve of the job Trump is doing, 51% disapprove. His opposition is more intense than his support: 38% strongly disapprove of him; 22% strongly approve.
Nearly seven in 10 Democrats say Trump should be impeached. So do 36% of independents and, perhaps surprisingly, 15% of Republicans.
Sherman argued that the ousting of Comey, who was leading the investigation into Russia, amounted to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" required in the Constitution for removal from office.
In a speech on the House floor in May, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, also called for Trump's impeachment.
But more senior Democrats haven't joined in. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has called instead for creating an outside, independent commission to investigate the Russia allegations. House Republicans, who hold a 46-seat majority, are unlikely to entertain the possibility of removing the president.
That said, if Democrats won control of the House in next year's midterm elections, the party's base might press for a debate on the issue, especially depending on what the Russia investigations conclude.
Special counsel Robert Mueller and congressional oversight committees are investigating meddling in the 2016 election by Moscow that U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded were designed to help Trump and hurt Clinton. The inquiries are examining whether Trump associates may have colluded with the Russians, an allegation the president strongly denies.
Support for impeachment is stronger among younger people than older ones; 51% of those under 35 but just 33% among those 50 and older say Trump should be removed from office. Women are more likely than men to back impeachment, 46% compared with 38%. There is also a racial and ethnic divide. Two-thirds of African-Americans and a majority of Hispanics back impeachment, compared with a third of whites.
"I believe in 2018 they will vote enough Democrats and independents in to impeach him," says Jeffrey Hobbs, 49, of Ochlocknee, a town of 605 in southern Georgia. He voted for Republican Mitt Romney in 2012 but didn't cast a ballot in 2016, and now he vows to never vote Republican again because of the GOP's failure to stand up to Trump.
Trump denounces the Russia allegations as a "political witch hunt," and his aides and allies argue he is the victim of biased news coverage.
"At the end of the day, I think, when those investigations are over, it will be another chapter in Washington scandals incorporated, that we had to have a scandal going on and gin up all this sort of nonsense, so that we could distract the president from his agenda and his people, and run around chasing something that's all about nothing," the new White House communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, said dismissively on CBS' Face the Nation, one of a series of appearances he made on Sunday talk shows.
Opponents of other modern presidents have backed impeachment, even when that didn't seem to be a realistic prospect. In 2014, a third of those surveyed by CNN/ORC said Barack Obama should be impeached; 65% said he shouldn't. In 2006, 30% said George W. Bush should be impeached; 69% disagreed.
As the Watergate scandal unfolded in 1973 and 1974, the Gallup Poll showed support for impeaching Richard Nixon steadily grew. It rose from 19% in June 1973 to 57% in August 1974, when he resigned in the face of his almost certain removal from office.
Bill Clinton is the only modern president to be impeached by the House, though the Senate refused to convict him on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the Monica Lewinsky affair. Even as the House was moving to impeach him, though, Gallup found the public opposed to the step by 2-1.
No president since Nixon has faced as broad and fervent calls for his ouster as Trump does now, a situation that creates complicated cross-currents for him in politics and governing.
House Speaker Paul Ryan last month dismissed a reporter's suggestion that Republicans would be suggesting impeachment if a Democratic president had been accused of the same actions as Trump.
"No, I don't think we would, actually," he said. "I don't think that's at all the case."
In the new poll, more than one in four, 27%, say Congress already has enough evidence to impeach Trump. Another 30% say there isn't sufficient evidence yet but predict there eventually will be from ongoing investigations.
Only about a third of those surveyed, 31%, say there will never be enough evidence to justify removing Trump from office.
President Trump lives up to promises made. He maintains his support for more balanced trade relations and the requirement for all nations to pay a fair contribution for the benefits they obtain from the United States.
by Michael Czinkota-
( July 26, 2017, Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian) When President Trump attended the G20 meeting in Hamburg, Germany, the aspects publicly reported were mainly uncontrolled demonstrators, burning Porsche cars and police at the end of their rope. Few benefits were attributed to the meeting. That is incorrect.
A longer term, all embracing perspective shows important progress. Traditionally, Europeans and their media undertake little effort to learn and contemplate about US plans, visions, and constraints. It’s like they are measuring in meters while we measure in yards which can lead to bias and error. The 10% difference might not appear large, but it sure matters in the long run.
U.S presidents tend to be attacked on a global scale for their thinking on trade, investments, collaboration, and innovation. Many misunderstandings emanate from differences in context and background. Meetings offer opportunities to clarify, explain, and build consensus. President Trump reflects U.S. leadership when raising the need for greater circumspection in trade, investment, and defense. No longer can there be continuous special flows of funds and privileges from the United States to Europe. Times have changed and Europe has the privilege and obligation to stand on its own.
In preparation for Germany’s September election, Chancellor Angela Merkel seeks to claim a leadership vision when she warns that Europe may need to assume responsibility for its own fate. Such a leitmotiv invokes belated and hollow comparisons to the past due to a lack of commitment. It also bypasses progress due to a lack of implementation for the future. Aside from Trump’s comments, both exploratory and forward moving, little else from the G20 meeting was long term, silo busting, or innovative.
Trump has explained before that he does his best work one on one with leaders, rather than in a consortium. This was demonstrated by the improved mutual relations between the United States and France. In the past, ties often have been strained. Now President Trump has developed a new rapport with President Macron with new steps to help develop a relationship in which trade and investments and joint intentions can prosper.
The French President worked his way through the crowd of international leaders to ensure his position next to Trump. The two shared a firm handshake and a hug and a smile, proving President Trump might have a way with the French after all.
There also was the ceasefire in Syria, a major win for Trump. Earlier, attempts to create peace in the bombed-out nation failed. Now we seem to have a working cease-fire agreement. The atrocities that have infected Syria for the past years have diminished. In fact, groups have rested their weapons.
This could be one of Trumps biggest achievements in the first year of his presidency. This peace-treaty, if it holds, is not only a pat on the back for the US, but will improve all global relationships.
The Trump approach aims to shape the future both of economies and countries. It sets far-ranging priorities, in which partners with good intentions rectifications and recognizes their responsibilities and lead in their implementation both spiritually and financially. They also accept rectifications made necessary by shifts.Government based on responsibility is not always fun to implement. By contrast, Europeans are much more transaction-oriented and opaque.
President Trump lives up to promises made. He maintains his support for more balanced trade relations and the requirement for all nations to pay a fair contribution for the benefits they obtain from the United States. He also aims to change formerly strained relationships to flourishing ones, not only for the benefit of international trade but for the viable maintenance and success for spheres of interest.
Change links new thinking, a new context, improved approaches, and incorporation of new parameters into newly structured partnerships. That is good and long overdue in an era of boiling liquids just below the surface. Relationships that are rigidly frozen cannot last. It is time for the emergence of new bonds and new trust bridges, which substitute for prejudice, uninformed claims, and rabble rousing. There is also no longer room for failed treaties. Progressive positive relationships are upon us.
Michael Czinkota is a Professor of International Business and Trade at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, U.S. and University of Kent, Canterbury, UK – http://www.faculty.msb.edu/index.htm http://www.twitter.com/#!/michaelczinkota http://www.facebook.com/169628456631
The SAITM issue has become a national issue. This has become an issue for politicking for various politically motivated groups. Various groups and individuals have raised their voices for and against SAITM creating much heat and less light.
