The great gatsby and the american dream.

Without doubt, the great gatsby would always be one of the great american novels - the book of hope and despair, of love that never ends, the tragic pursuit of the american dream; of riches attained by shady means, and everything lost in death.
In Jay Gatsby, Scott Fitzgerald created the magical american figure, the descendant of Ahab, the man with a sense of going after a thing desired - in Ahab of Moby Dick it was revenge; in Gatsby the love of a  woman - and like all universal tragedies, both died, without attaining the desires of their hearts. While Moby Dick is a superior novel, a dark, secret, heaving book; the Great Gatsby is less clumsy, more controlled, less metaphycial - and much more full, and pursuing with perfect ambition the american dream of great riches (even through unright means).

Why Obama has to win second time for global world?

For a person living outside Us, the media all over the world throws around an idea that the essentialty of america to the world is paramount - and even though half of it might sound good at some ends - and if we take the good part of it, presdient obama's second term at the oval office will do more good to the world's perception about america, than Mitt Romeny's first term does.
           In this peculiar world where colors make impressions,  President Obama, due to obivious reasons will always be termed more freindly to the people right from Brazil, to India, and China, and people in most countries which are not white will accept him much better as a global leader than Mitt. Romeny. Mitt Romeny will be seen as more american - somebody trying to spread america throughout the world; Obama on the other hand would be more about assimilation - about America assmilitaing the whole world into itself.
           And then concern of global security - the question of nuclear armory, which is expanding everywhere, and here Presiendent Obama seems a better hand than Mitt Romeny - Obama will certainly not push a war on anotther country, and one way or the other his policies on world terrorism have always worked.

Ms.Clinton responsible for diplomats' security?

It is surprising the way, American heads of state, in various positions accept responsibilities after an event has occured. It happens there all the time - and more so after the 9/11 tragedy. The collective american establishment, comes out after a mishap, and accepts responsibility - and after that everything just banks out - goes totally mum. The zero state is reched again - untill something more fresh, more sinister happens.
       The basic fact is, this is not a singularity with american politics - it is a fact that has developed over time in almost every state of the world - to accept responsibility - an act that washes over the final stains. The person in charge comes out, rasies hishands, and accepts - and it is all over. You just need to make a stern face, and the hovering, rabid media claims this to be great, wise, courageous statement.
       And this never ever solves anything - the suffering of the victims stays, and more importantly, the outcome of the next eventuallity, is never lowered. The next time, it happens, an american head of an institution will just raise his hand, accept responsibility, and wil go to sleep.