It turns out that more people commit suicide with a firearm than murder:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/...

"More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies."

I'd be willing to wager that if a firearm were not readily available, a suicidal person would be less likely to actually kill themselves, and more likely to either seek help, or make a less permanent attempt at suicide, which is really a subconscience cry for help.

http://health.nytimes.com/h...

"Suicide attempts that do not result in death far outnumber completed suicides. Many unsuccessful suicide attempts are carried out in a manner that makes rescue possible. These attempts often represent a desperate cry for help"

Just some food for thought. 

I can't help but wonder, is McCain's "Bomb Iran" comment starting to become more the reality? It would definately appear that Bush is up to something in his final months as Commander-in-Thief. 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WOR...

The thought occured to me that maybe the Israeli flexing of military muscle earlier this month would also suggest the possibility of a U.S.-Israeli joint war against Ahmadenijad.  After reading that the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff Michael Mullen was in Israel this week, I think any intelligent person can put two and two together.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/e...

While I'm actually impressed that Kim Jong-il appears to be playing into Dubya's hands, I'm not at all surprised that the U.S. would not use the same methods on Iran.  Whereas the Korean war was nothing more than a proxy between us and Russia over the spread of communism, Iran's almost 30 years of defiance against America has been a much more personal blow.  After spending many years and an exorbitant amount of time, energy and even money to help build up Iran into a military power, the U.S. lost it's coveted position as Iran's best friend with the removal of the Shah in the late 70's.  We'd been grooming Iran to become the central figure in Mid-east politics and policy, and considering that at his pinnacle, the Shah commanded one of the most impressive military forces in the world, America was dealt a very large blow when the whole idea blew up in our face in the form of the Iranian Revolution.  And now, years later, as Iran is portrayed as continuing to envelop the idea of Islamic rule, Neoconservatives are falling over themselves at the possibility that they could possibly stamp out such anti-democratic sentiments for good.

Interestingly enough, Ahmadinejad might not be as popular with his people as Bush would like us to believe. While his international policies have definitely had a major part to play in his either like or dislike, it appear that his domestic decisions seem to be getting him into even more trouble (kinda reminds me of somone else.. a lot closer to home..).

http://www.npr.org/template...

http://www.time.com/time/ma...

Also interesting to note is that Iran is, and has been going through a tremendous amount of political morphing.  While the Bush administration and many other war-hawks would love for the American public to believe that all Iranians are foaming at the mouth, it turns out that many actually support democratic reform. In fact, the vast majority of Islamic Clerics in Iran have virtually no political sway, unless you're taking into account that they're the Islamic equivalents to Jeremiah Wright.

http://www.merip.org/mer/me...

http://www.cfr.org/publicat...

As for the Nuclear issue, it appears that the average Iranian viewpoint is that while Nuclear energy should be sought, Nuclear weapons should not.  In fact, most Iranians would prefer no Nuclear program at all, if it will mean a better relationship with the rest of the World.

http://www.washingtoninstit...

With Ahmadenijad's political future on the rocks in the upcoming election next year, maybe we should wait and see what the Iranian people have to say before we begin another costly venture into "ridding the world of Nuclear menaces and allowing for the spread of democracy."  We might just find out that we've been barking up the wrong tree the whole time.

With all the talk about politicians and flip-flopping, it's come to my attention that a great many people in this world (and not to mention on this site) are nothing more than walking hypocritical contradictions.  This got me thinking a bit more, so now I'm going to compile a list..

• Many who support the death penalty are also strictly against abortion.  If you're pro-life, shouldn't you be pro-life in general?
• Many people say they support freedom, yet they are quick to support restrictions on freedom only because they do not agree with what that freedom means for other people.  At what point is someone supporting freedom, and at what point are they supporting supression of freedom?  I'd like to think that supporting any law which limits what one can do in the privacy of their own home (so long as it doesn't harm another person) would be a supression of freedom, don't you?
• Many people who support the sanctity of marriage seem to have their own marital issues they should be worrying about.
• Many people who are upset at the current oil crisis continue to support some of the very things that got us into this mess
• Many people who point the finger at others refuse to point the finger at themselves
• Many who feel strongly about their religion and wish to promote it become offended when those who have a different faith wish to do the same

I'm sure I'll think of others.  Feel free to add to this list, as needed.

So, only months after the Central Californian Diocese officially broke away from the Episcopal Church and joined the Anglican Church, it appears that Conservatives within the worldwide Anglican network are stopping short of a true breakaway from those they consider "liberal." 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/...

It saddens me that the very denomination I grew up in is currently in the midst of what will ultimately be a schism.  What really gets me is that many of those who wish to split away easy forget how the Episcopal/Anglican church began!  It was King Henry VIII of England's desire to divorce his first wife and marry another which created the original schism between the Roman Catholic Church and his Island nation.  Sexual misconduct fueled the very formation of the denomination that today is being torn apart by another sexual taboo.  What irony!  Unfortunately, due to these strong feelings, I am at a person crossroads, as it's quite obvious that I cannot worship at a local "Anglican" church, considering the disagreements we obviously have.

Hopefully some people will realize just how ludicrous this whole issue really is!

ALICEN -

I appreciate and understand your desire to block those whom offend you.  I would like to apologize for my remarks a number of weeks ago, and I would hope that you'd find it acceptable to allow me to comment on your blog, as I intend to only comment appropriately. 

Thank you,

FloridaStateGrad

http://www.votenader.org/

I'd consider myself a Christian. I admit that I'm far from perfect, and that there are plenty of times when I probably don't seem Christ-like.  Isn't that what being a Christian is all about? Isn't that what being human is all about?

It seems to me that values are more divisive than they are unifying.  My values might differ from your values - in fact, I'm sure they do.  There has been no time in History when every person has put equal value on all things.  Yet, when I contemplate such a concept, it dawns on me how similar most of us are. 

Any rational human being values his or her life.  We value attention, respect, love and admiration. We value a complex simplicity of emotion.  We value liberty.

Of course, there are those who, whilst sharing these values, deviate off the normal course.  These people put a monkey wrench in the basic values of every human being.  These are the people which create heinous acts of violence and hatred. 

Despite our values, we are a selfish breed.  Above all, humanity seems to value vanity first.  Greed runs rampant, as does a desire for fame and power.  It is rare that one will find a person who willingly puts others first before them.  This doesn't mean that people do not have such a value on selflessness - more that we are weak-minded, and as noted above, far from perfect.

Such imperfection goes way beyond what I've discussed.  What confuses me, though, is how many do not admit to such imperfections, either inwardly or outwardly.  As I write this, a Del Taco commercial plays in the background.. and all I hear is, "more, more, more! I want more!" Wow.. that really says a mouthful, now doesn't it?  I'm just as much to blame for such a self-indulging promotion as any.

So, what if, as a society we were to better recognize our imperfections?  What if we were more open to admitting fault for our actions?  What if we were willing to admit that we don't have all the answers?  What if we were willing to admit that we fear that which we don't understand?  Maybe at that juncture, when we're not only truthful with others, but truthful with ourselves.. maybe at that point will our values all finally merge into one.

It could be possibly at this point when we all work together to accept the things we cannot change, change the things that we can, and have the wisdom to know the difference.

Then again, I'm cynical, and I wonder if it's ever possible for all of mankind to view each other as equals, and not as opponents.

Did you know that the toilet seat is usually the most sanitary portion of a public restroom?

Any given day when I use a public restroom, I notice an alarming amount of men who do not wash their hands after using the toilet.  Not only is this a show of bad hygiene, it also shows a lack of class, as well as a lack of respect for your fellow man.  Your dirty hands infect door handles, money, gas pumps - anything that other public hands would come in contact with on a normal basis. 

I'm honestly sick of this!  If I wasn't so afraid of getting assaulted, I'd tell each person that didn't wash their hands exactly what I thought about them.  Maybe I should just gather up the courage and do it anyway!

Even with the housing market in shambles, it appears that Bakersfield and the surrounding areas are still experiencing growth.  Since I'm newer to the area, I'm wondering what some opinions are from the veteran locals. 

Do you think Bakersfield will double or triple in size by 2020?  Do you look at this as a positive, or a negative?  What do you think of the current downtown area - do you ever think the skyline will take off?

I'm surprised that there's not much mention, if any, of the 64th Anniversary of the greatest amphibious assualt ever: D-Day!

This was a blog entry I wrote a year ago on another site, and I think it'd be great to hear what others have to say about it..

The Healthcare System

I think it's safe to say that the nation's current Healthcare system is beyond screwed. Insurance companies have a chokehold on the nation, and to be completely honest, it's making me sick.

I believe that with all the tax dollars that we give to the government each and every year, there should be MORE than enough money to invest in a Universal Healthcare system. The Federal Government should easily be able to take care of immeditate and emergency care of ALL Americans. Basically, if something is life-threatening (physically or mentally), the patient should not have to pay a cent. Why do I think this? We have some of the best doctors in the world. We have some of the best facilities in the world. We have some of the best technology in the world. Americans deserve to reap the benefits of this without having to worry about whether they are insured or not. Insurance companies should be heavily restricted, if not completely banned, in my opinion. The #1 priority of Insurance companies and HMO's is to make money. That's a fact. Why should we trust our medical care to these bastards?

Back in 2001, I had surgery on my ankle. To wait in a room for 6 hours prior to my surgery to "elevate the damaged area" cost my family over $5000! There is absolutely NO excuse for that!

Of course, one major way of reducing health care costs would be put heavy restrictions on malpractice insurance, if we couldn't get rid of it entirely. They don't have malpractice insurance to cover all the mistakes that Bush has made over the years.. why should Doctors get it? There's absolutely no excuse for a doctor to make a careless error (such as leaving a surgical instrument in the body, or sheer negligence) - they should be forced to live with the consequences. That's not to say that a Doc should be fined millions of dollars... I think that's friggen idiocy. The fact is that less than .5% of doctors screw someone over that bad to where they would get sued. Think about ALL the money they pay to insurance companies. Think of ALL the money those insurance companies make in profits.

Ok.. I have another point to make now. Screw "Patient's Rights" - what about "Family Rights?" I understand that each and every adult has a right to privacy, but there need to be some clear guidelines. When a patient is mentally or physically unable to make their own legal decisions, or when a patient is impared to the extent that the family SHOULD be involved, there needs to be soom leeway so that the family CAN get involved. It's not MY fault that some men beat their wives - why do I have to suffer due to their stupidity? Why am I treated like a fool? Something needs to be done about this, and it needs to be done immediately. It is unfair to the family for medical professionals to not be able to give out REAL information to the family, all because the patient did not sign a consent form. In cases of mental instability, HOW CAN SOMEONE SIGN THESE DOCUMENTS, IF THEY ARE NOT IN THEIR CORRECT STATE OF MIND? It doesn't make sense to me! Surely, if someone were to hand a mental illness patient a legal document while the patient is in a clear state of mental disarray, how can one consider the patient to be in the correct mind to sign such a document? How can a patient in such a state discern what is what, when they don't even have a full grasp of reality? There is a complete contradiction in terms here, and it really needs to be cleared up.

Since we're on the case of mental illnesses..

Obviously the heinous acts of VA Tech have angered and saddened many. My question is this: it was known years ago that the perpatrator had a mental illness, yet he slipped through the cracks. The fact of the matter is this: the mental health system fails. It fails in part, in my opinion, due to the very argument I just made in the last paragraph. It is not fair to the patient, to the patient's family, or to the rest of society to make the assumption that because a person is an adult and has "rights", that the person automatically has all rights and priveledges to legally speak for themselves. The system also fails because the laws inacted (at least in California) are such that when a person is commited to a mental facility, if after 72 hours the doctors wish to continue the hold, the matter becomes one of legalities. What I mean is this: at this point, the hospital CANNOT hold someone against their will if the person "appears" to exibit enough mental stability to be considered legally able to take care of themselves without harming themselves or others. (If the Hospital believes it has a case, there is a hearing w/ a judge! How ridiculous is that? Last I checked, most Judges are not Doctors of Medicine) The problem is that this "law" does not take into account circumstance. Just because someone appears to be doing well enough to function does not mean that they CAN function without some continuance of care. To assume this is to fail the patient, to fail the family, and to fail society. This is NOT to say that the person is not in somewhat of a state of normalcy.

Think of it this way: you have a heart attack. You are rushed to the hospital where the doctors are able to save and stabilize you. Do they let you go the very minute you're stable? NO! They usually wait a bit to make sure that the proceedures they've done and the medication they've prescribed will work well enough to where you do not have another heart attack. Now think of this analogy when thinking of someone who has an emotional breakdown.. whether it's a manic episode, a suicidal attempt, a psycopathic episode.. whatever. If a Doc gives a patient a couple pills and sends them on their happy way, telling them to stop back in, in a week, chances are that this patient will 1) not stop back in and 2) they're probably not fully stable to begin with.

Healing takes time. Just because you get a scab on a wound doesn't mean that the healing is done. If we were to focus on the HEALING aspect of medicine, instead of the FINANCIAL aspect, I have a feeling that thousands upon thousands of people would be getting the treatment they deserve.

So I was reading some of my old papers I wrote in college, and came across this one.  Thought it was interesting what I wrote, and now, 4 years later, I'm wondering if I should revisit my conclusions, or if they still hold up.  

A Brief Overview of United States - Saudi Arabian Relations Post 9/11/01 to the Outbreak of Gulf War II

        & nbsp;   On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four planes and attacked the United States of America.  In the wake of the destruction, the World Trade Center in New York City lay in ruins and a large gaping hole had found itself in the outer shell of the Pentagon.  In all, 2,871 people were killed[1].  As more evidence came to fruition, it became apparent that fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi nationals[2].  Though Osama Bin Laden was suspect, and later admitted to being the mastermind of these attacks, the spotlight also shown down on the Saudi Arabian government.  Despite the many conspiracy theories surrounding possible Saudi funding of Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorists, the U.S. 9/11 commission cleared the Saudi’s of any connection with the attacks.  Therefore, I believe it is important to look at relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia since that fateful day, and how Saudi Arabia has helped in the war on terror.

        & nbsp;   First and foremost, it is essential to disprove the theory that the House of Saud had any connection with Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.  Since Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Osama Bin Laden has taken a side of opposition to the current Saudi government.  This is due in fact to Bin Laden’s call for the reliance of Islamic forces to stave the threat Saddam Hussein posed[3].  However, the Saudi’s ignored Bin Laden’s call and instead allowed a U.S.-led coalition to base their operations against Iraq on their home soil.  Bin Laden was furious and claimed that the presence of American forces in the country was an insult to Islam.  Not only was Bin Laden now and enemy of the government, but the Saudi leadership were concerned that he would pose a political threat to the stability of the country[4].

        & nbsp;   While The Saudi’s had no connection with Bin Laden, this does not mean that relations with the United States were at their best.  At the time of 9/11, Crown Prince Abdullah and other members of the Saudi leadership were none too happy about U.S. President George W. Bush’s policies concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Abdullah had refused a meeting with President Bush, in direct protest of America not putting pressure upon Israel to give concessions to the Palestinian position.  The American President was not popular in the Arabian peninsula.  Then again, prior to the terrorist attacks, there were U.S. concerns about the current international price of oil being too high, which officials felt was contributing to an economic slump in the world economy.  Saudi officials, however wished to keep production and prices at their current levels[5].

        & nbsp;   After the terrorist attacks in September, the Saudi government was reluctant to admit that the majority of the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks were of Saudi origins.  In October, the Saudi Arabian Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Saleh Al al-Sheikh commented that, “There is no proof or evidence that Saudis carried out these attacks.[6]  Despite continued questions about their past relationship with Bin Laden, the House of Saud continued to deny involvement, going so far as to speculate that it was another nation that had helped fund the operation[7].  In order to divert attention away from themselves, government officials in Riyadh posed the idea that 9/11 was a result of United States diplomacy in the middle east.  After visiting Ground Zero in New York, Prince al-Waleed bin Talal stated that, “we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack…. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause[8].” 

Facing major problems with the American public’s viewpoint, the Saudi government paid $2.7 million to an advertising company, as well as other considerable amounts of money to other companies to place ads in the American press to improve their image[9].  The issue which plagued many American’s minds was that there had to be some sort of ideological connection between the terrorists and the Saudi government, which had developed a system of mosques, bureaucracies and schools run by religious leaders[10].  It is evident that Riyadh had direct control over what was and was not taught in these institutions of learning.  Increasing press reports of corruption and continued lack of a democratic government also contributed to the negative image which the American public had of Saudi Arabia.         

 As President Bush called for action from all nations of the world, Saudi Arabia began to question their current relationship with the United States, concerned about whether their support of America was worth the continued domestic threats from internal opposition and Al Qaeda.  Some Saudi religious figures, such as Sheikh Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi continued to speak out against the United States.  As America soldiers invaded Afghanistan, al-Shuaibi proclaimed that it was, “a duty to wage jihad on anyone who supports the attack on Afghanistan.[11]” Sheikh Safar al-Hawali was quoted as saying, “Since World War II, America has not been a democratic republic; it has become a military empire after the Roman model.[12]”  

However, there were a number of other contributing factors which soured the U.S.-Saudi relationship in the wake of 9/11.  Many felt that the U.S.-led war on terror was nothing more than a way to gain more power at the expense of Muslims.  Some of these people supported actions against the United States, as it was a blow to a nation which had long meddled in the affairs of the Islamic world.  This sentiment was magnified by the continued sanctions on Iraq, as well as the U.S. Homeland Security act, which made it difficult to obtain a visa.  To make matters more difficult, a mass lawsuit of $116 trillion was filed against the Kingdom and some of the senior princes by families of the victims of September 11[13].  The Saudis would later be cleared of any wrongdoing in January of 2005[14].  Another factor which heavily affected relations was the many Saudis supported the Taliban for its more fundamentalist form of Islamic law.  Then again, in 2002, there were a number of religious scholars and government officials who issued a manifesto suggesting that Muslims could find common ground with the west[15].

Saudi leaders not only had to question their relationship with America on a domestic level, but on a greater spectrum of the entire Muslim world.  Despite all this, however, both U.S. and Saudi officials continued to deny that such issues as the continued presence of 5,000 American military personnel was a concern[16].  Yet, on September 29, 2001, the United States began using Qatar’s al-Udeid air base for operations in lieu of Saudi bases in response to Riyadh’s refusal to allow combat troops on Saudi soil.  Saudi dense minister Sultan bin Abdul Aziz was quoted as saying, “We do not accept the presence in our country of a single soldier at war with Muslims or Arabs.[17]”  Despite these hardships, U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney stated that U.S.-Saudi relations were “strong” and assured that any other assumptions were “simply mistaken.[18]”  At the same time, many leaders of Congress and the Pentagon supported consideration of removing all military personnel from Saudi Arabia.

Despite these issues which tackled both sides, the United States and Saudi Arabia continued to maintain cordial relations.  As per the economic relationship centered around oil, the relationship was not hurt by September 11 – the United States continued to purchase Saudi oil.  Wishing even to mend the relationship, Saudi officials secretly allowed U.S. aircraft to use Saudi bases during a 2002 bombing raid on southern Iraq in response to Iraqi violations of the no-fly zones[19].  To honor the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Crown Prince Abdullah sent a message of sympathy and unity to  the American people.

“It was the perverted hope of the perpetrators of this heinous crime that they could bring humiliation to and terrorize the American nation…. But the brave people of the United States of America, whose greatness lies in the strength of its brave sons and daughters in facing adversity, and which is enriched by their remarkable achievements, all of this will make them ever stronger than the designs of the evildoers.  Instead fo being terrorized by this catastrophe, they became more steadfast and determined…. [the attacks were] pure evil, condemned and abhorred by all religions and cultures.[20]”

He also admitted that while it was deeply painful, Saudi citizens were involved in the planning and execution of the September 11 attacks and vowed that terrorists would not destroy the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Another issue which has cropped up time and time again is U.S. representation in Riyadh.  While Prince Bandar has been Saudi ambassador to the United States for over 20 years, as of 2004, there had been 8 U.S. ambassadors to Saudi Arabia.  These ambassadors had an average tenure of under two years, and at least 3 could not speak Arabic[21].  This has thereby allowed for inconsistent representation, and communications have been described as “lopsided.”

At the same time, there was an inner struggle which plagued the Saudi’s.  This struggle is one of Islam versus the House of Saud, for even though many religious clerics had argued that Islam could find common ground with the United States, many others believed that the United States should be taken down.  In October of 2001, it was found that 95 percent of Saudi men between the ages of twenty-five and forty-one approved of Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden’s quest[22].  Considering that the leading religious clerics of Saudi Arabia were Wahhabi, this meant that Wahhabism was gaining strength in the country.  Let it be noted that it was the Wahhabi ideology that inspired the Taliban of Afghanistan[23].  Technically the Saudi government was a partnership between the House of Saud and the Ulama, but both sides acknowledged the superiority of the Saudi leadership.  However, there was talk that both the civil and religious rulers of the country should have equal power.  But if the House of Saud allowed the Wahhabi leadership to gain more power and influence in the government, it would pose a tremendous problem for the relationship between their country and the United States.  These issues were magnified when in the summer of 2002, Saudi religious police prevented firemen from saving dozens of Saudi girls who were caught in a school fire because they did not have their head scarves on.  Fifteen died, and forty were wounded, forcing the Saudi government to place responsibility for female education in the hands of a non-religious leader[24].

The religious issues did not stop there, however.  The Saudi royal family needed to keep the Wahhabi clerics around for their legitimacy, yet many of these clerics still preached hatred of the west.  An Australian reporter found that the same man who had recruited and taught five of the 9/11 hijackers was still at the same Mosque, teaching the same anti-American philosophy[25].  One Saudi woman admitted that, “Our schools teach religious intolerance, most of our mosques preach hate against any non-Muslims.[26]” 

Ironically, while Saudi Arabian public opinion towards America seemed unfavorable, American public opinion towards the Saudi’s was not all that much different.  In December of 2001, a public opinion poll showed that only 24% of Americans viewed Saudi Arabia favorably[27].  American newspapers also continuously posted articles calling for an overhaul of the Saudi government.  Despite these sentiments, the dependency for oil continued to keep these two countries bonded. 

On May 17, 2003, 35 people were killed when three bombs were detonated in residential areas in Riyadh.  15 Saudis were responsible for the attack, 9 of which died, and all were member of the Al-Qaeda network.  Crown Prince Abdullah said the attackers have no "Islamic or human values.[28]"  This condemnation was seen as optimistic by both American and Saudi officials, as cooperation in the war on terror seemed to begin improving.  FBI Director Robert Mueller “praised Riyadh for a swift-moving investigation that resulted in over twenty arrests, calling it ‘exceptionally significant’ in the fight against terrorism.[29]”  Much of this improved cooperation seems to be a result of the fact that members of the Saudi royal family were targeted in this attack, bringing things closer to home.  Saudi officials admitted that they did not take enough security precautions prior to the attack, despite denying American requests to improve security after reports indicated of a possible attack.  Nevertheless, the Saudi government began to crack down on terrorists inside their own country – actively pursuing a number of prominent Saudis who had helped fund Al-Qaeda[30].

When a United States led coalition invaded Iraq in March of 2003, it was met with mixed emotions in Saudi Arabia.  While the United States was getting rid of the threat of Saddam Hussein, it was also opening up the possibility of an Iraqi civil war, which might have more external affects to countries like Saudi Arabia.  This was also a public relations problem for Crown Prince Abdullah, who had openly supported Iraq at a March 2002 Arab summit when he hugged Izzat Ibrahim, Saddam’s envoy who was also one of those responsible for operation Al-Anfal, the Iraqi chemical attacks on the Kurds in 1988[31].  At the same time, however, the removal of Hussein eased domestic tensions inside Saudi Arabia, as the U.S. no longer needed use of Saudi bases.  In May, the United States announced that it would pull out most of its troops from Saudi lands later on in the month.

It can be concluded that while public opinions are not always favorable of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, the partnership itself has slowly bounced back in the past few years.  Being drawn in more closely in the war on terrorism, the Saudi government has realized that Islamic terrorism not only hurts the United States, but it also harms the Islamic world itself.  However, in order to continue on a positive path, the Saudi Arabian government must do more to change the way in which its people are taught about values.  This by no means concludes that the United States does nothing wrong.  However, if the Saudis wish to keep the peace, they must continue to denounce terrorism, fundamental Islam and anti-American sentiments.  Though the relationship with the United States was rather rocky right after the September 11^th attacks, it is obvious that the House of Saud wishes to better itself not only for its diplomatic relationships, but for its own people as well.

Bibliography

Fergusen, Barbara “Saudis Cleared in 9/11 Cases” Arab News

http://www.saudi-us-relatio...

Find Law “Entry of the 9/11 Hijackers into the United States”

http://news.findlaw.com/hdo...

Foreign Policy Association

http://www.fpa.org/topics_i...

Gold, Dore Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism, Washington D.C., Regenery Publishing, Inc. 2003

Henderson, Simon “The War Against Terror: Saudi Arabia’s Crucial Role” September 20, 2001 & “Inconsistent U.S. Representation in Saudi Arabia: A Continuing Problem” Policy Watch

Kirk, Cynthia “IN THE NEWS - May 17, 2003: Riyadh Bombing Attacks”

http://author.voanews.com/s...

Lippman, Thomas W. Inside the Mirage: America’s Fragile Partnership with Saudi Arabia, Boulder, CO, Westview Press, 2004

The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6^th Edition 2001

http://www.bartleby.com/65/...

The National Obituary Archive – Honor Roll

http://www.arrangeonline.co...

Yetiv, Steve A. Crude Awakenings: Global Oil Security and American Foreign Policy, NY, Cornell University Press, 2004

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/...

I'm surprised there hasn't been more theft of copper wire from Industrial sites lately..

I need to start building my social network.. and I need to do it fast.. before it's too late, and I become the typical Kern County resident!