Posted 12/12/2012
by Yasha Husain

'Charting the Course'
is an education
proposal
that encourages
more whole brain
thinking,
the reliance
on
interhemispheric
thinking,
which brings
together
dominant
left-
and
right-brained
thinkers, in a
closed, holistic
learning network.

The author of this
website has written
in her book, Holistic
Living: Tips for
Youth, how
people along the
autism spectrum are
naturally more
right-brained,
while "neurotypical"
people, tend to, from a young age, become dominant
left-brained
thinkers, with the exception that both
character-types
access interhemispheric, and graduated, thought.

The 'Charting the Course' education proposal
shares a vision for a school system that will help all character-types, including people who are dominant left-brained thinkers, who think more linearly, and who are dominant right-brained thinkers, who think more by association, in part by bringing them together into one classroom.

The proposal is also for a single, closed, holistic system, which interweaves the modern education system with holistic, closed systems of the world.

The full education
proposal
can right now
be viewed
using the
following
link.

With questions
or comments,
please email:
yashahusain@gmail.com.

Article - Opinion

"Security and Stability," from Assad
By Yasha Husain
January 6, 2013

The number one problem with arming rebels in the Syrian war is that amongst them are individuals and even groups linked to the ideology of terrorism, including al-Qaeda associates. Sending arms to the rebels, in light of this fact, and despite it, in one way or another, only promotes war, when there are diplomatic solutions in Syria, which do not include bargaining with extremist elements.

As evidence of this, President Bashar Assad has just presented a perfect plan for peace, and to his people, for whom, he purports, he's not been willing to hand-off government control to rebels, among whom are war criminals.

As a long-time leader of his nation, Assad has loyal followers, and it's incorrect for the international community to deny them or their intent in supporting a once, and still, loved, leader of a patriarchy.

What Assad is recommending is precisely what is needed, a committee for reconciliation, after “security and stability” have been accomplished, where dialogue takes center stage as it did, in a not-too-distant past, in South Africa and Ireland.

In South Africa, the white minority leadership had to be forced from power before reconciliation talks could take place and in Ireland a cease-fire was needed for talks to unfold.

Is it because Assad is positioned in the Middle East, with its monumental dynamics related to war and peace still unfolding themselves, that the international community is apt to deny there are terrorists amongst rebel factions in Syria, an act that would be exactly the opposite of what we want done in light of realpolitik? If the international community says it doesn't deny the terrorist element, there are still in any case leaders amongst the free world who've said in news reports from only a week ago we should continue to arm the rebels. How do these leaders differentiate between conditions on the ground when circumstances that would lead, first, to reconciliation talks, which are needed to weed out extremist elements, are not there?

Violence was sparked in the crisis in Syria on both “sides.” Assad is, again, in earnest calling for an end to those sides and an end to violence. How can we as defenders of democratic governance deny him the right to defend himself and his nation against aggression or perceived tyranny, in the first place, and in the second, go on supporting a fight by not just revolutionary forces taking part in a peaceful uprising, but fighters for the cause of terrorism?

The circle of nations at the United Nations in all honesty should have come to Assad's aid, and the aid of the rebels, in March 2011, with a call for reconciliation talks, no less productive than those convened in South Africa and Ireland. The nation's of the world should have done this, and this alone, instead of calling sides, especially in light of what was happening in Libya, not despite it.

Now, at this point, how can we make the mistake of the 1980s all over again of arming disorganized, but with the potential to become more organized, rebels, with terrorist ideology present amongst them? It makes no sense.

The optimal choice to weed out the mere chance of terrorism taking hold is to promote dialogue amongst all parties who aren't extremist, Assad has done this.

Meanwhile, Assad's history is of responsible, inspiring governance, by which he made moves toward the moderate position of Turkey, before the crisis in Syria.

In a 2010 interview with Charlie Rose, Assad talks of his love for his nation and its traditions while sitting afront symbols of his nation's cultural past, which were and are not relics, but are very alive.

There is a deep and rich history in Syria, in its arts, buildings, political way and faith, that should be interwoven into an emergent democracy, and Assad has just called for this.

Why, when an opportunity for peace stares us in the face, should we deny it?

Assad is not alone in wanting negotiations with the rebels who seek a new constitution and elections.

Russia's diplomatic emissaries, along with the UN-Arab League Brahimi-led mission, are still toting the Geneva plan, which Assad has now even risen above in the name of peace.

It would be foolish for the free world to not exploit Assad's calls, or conditions, for a cease-fire and immediate peace, thereby setting up the fortuitous, as they shall be, reconciliation talks, in one move.

I regret the loss of life as much as anybody, and want no more of it. There seems to be a shimmer of light now for the cessation of violence in Syria, and with Syria, still in toe with the spirit of the Arab Spring, there seems to be a shimmer of light for nonviolence in the Middle East.