Cannibalism Redefined, part 9

Cannibalism Redefined, part 9 What would you think of a child that was raised, breast fed even, by a mother that the child decided to/ may be actually killed? It seems to me that some of my friends do believe that having their head up their, or someone else's ass makes them down to earth. I used to drive a cab in West Palm beach. In 1974 the minimum wage was $1.85 an hour, I drove a twelve hour shift, six days a week, on good days making $30 or 40. No benefits. Then I was hired by the City of West Palm Beach as an electrician, starting pay $7.25 an hour, sick leave, pension, paid holidays and retirement, imagine that. In 1985 when I started in civil service, I joined the union on day one. Here in south people are "Republicans", I know many on strike there did not vote for Democrats. I am neither of these. It is common here for people on welfare and medicaid to be republican, a friend that received workman's comp and unemployment also is a republican. I have lived in the third world, if it was not for the safety nets today, our America would be a third world country too. And then the argument that the soldiers get paid less, I know, I was guarding ammo dumps in snow up to you know where at $360 a month. But I also know that the aviation safety, aviator training, and the lives of these soldiers we so adore depends on the work of these same people you are bad mouthing, think about it! Do you want some back yard mechanics or welfare recipients do their job. Time to get that head out. You know I am against big corporate stores in favor of small business, I call it survival strategy. If you want I will post a link about economy. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Cannibalism Redefined, part 8

Reminds me of the movie "Django" where the slave owners used slaves to fight each other, to punish each other, even to kill each other. Today all the American workers are those slaves. Cannibalism Redefined, part 8 Last night a local union on the military base next door went on strike, I don't care why, I am with them. In recent years the American workers have been shafted by their bosses and by their government so someone has to take a stand. I have talked to a couple of people locally about the situation. But what can I say, you know this is the South, we worship the rich because Reagan said so, we hate the unions, because Reagan and Rush say that they are bad for your health and they eat your babies too. Let me assure you that I have lived next to the military base for a long time and raised three kids, the unions do not eat your babies. One contractor said to me they get paid way too much, buy many cars and live in big houses. But to those that have been misled that rich people create jobs, let me remind AGAIN that rich do not create jobs that you have been brain washed in to believing by those that you trust. Whether you work at the local barbecue joint, the Waffle House or any such place, the "rich" are not coming there, it is mostly working stiffs that may make a bit more than you or even a lot, like may be even 80 or 90 grand a year, These are the ones that live in bigger house where you cut their yard, you clean their house or you child baby sits for them, they are the real job creators, The Middle Class. And if you are an average house builder or sub contractor you may be even build their house, the really rich, you probably don't know where they live, couldn't go there because they have guards that shoot. Our politicians are always enamored of the rich, the rich put money in their pocket and buy them elections, then they own the politicians like their lil lap dogs. The politicians lie to you that they are bringing you jobs by opening a Walmart and soon so see the dogs roaming the down town where hundreds of small businesses used to be, the independent business man raising a family could not put thousands in the pocket of the elected and so he got dumped. These union workers may make a bit more than you, (may even be sorrier workers than you are( hard for me to believe that), but they ARE the real back bone of this community, they are the ones buying homes here and supporting local schools and churches, not some big corporation sucking at the governments tit and taking the monies to where ever the heck. The union pay stays local, it is spent here, it helps here. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Guess who wants tax cuts

Did you know? If you are making under forty grand a year, you likely do not pay much in federal taxes! http://youtu.be/M0BV91eNjJw Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Cannibalism Redefined, part 7

Cannibalism Redefined, part7 It is sad that some very poor don't understand the economy. They live on welfare and medicaid, they do drugs and get busted creating jobs for the police and the prison systems, they create jobs for lawyers and judges. They pay more for their cable service and cell phones than they spend on their children, in the South here, they are mostly white and Republicans. They vote for tax cuts, prayer in school and for "straight" marriage while their daughters have sex and kids to of wedlock. Blacks and others do also, but blacks generally vote for democrats. But what about the middle class? We know that the middle class are struggling, living hand to mouth on a measly 100k and up, they are screwed bad and don't even know what happened. This is the cost of being stupid. Can't afford to get married or have kids (unless you move to south and then live within your means, budget and be smart). Just small example, they lost money buying homes and then market dropping, money in 401k lost when market dropped, health insurance through the roof, benefits, retirements cut, but you are hooking up, getting laid, life is good, bend over and spread your cheeks, smile, the economy is picking up while your life falls to pieces. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

An “Army of Lobbyists” Is Quietly Fighting for Budget-Busting Corporate Tax Breaks - Ring Of Fire Radio: Robert Kennedy Jr, Mike Papantonio and Sam Seder

http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2014/04/army-lobbyists-quietly-fighting-budget-busting-corporate-tax-breaks-2/


Sent from my iPhone

Cannibalism Redefined, part 6

Cannibalism Redefined, part 6 It is understood that words have meanings, also known is the fact that words effect emotions and feelings, thus opinions. Aldous Huxley talks about "double speak" to make this clear, change the words and you change the thinking and thus human behaviors. Throughout history, a majority of humanity has found eternal comfort in lasting and persistent ignorance, rather than to go through the pain of learning and opening their minds. In psychology there is a thought that if you want children to learn to speak early, clear and even be smarter then do not use "baby talk". So what when we start talking to adults in baby talk? "Veggies" is one word I refuse to use. May be it is not intentional, but the psychologists, the clergy, the politicians and specially the media treat us like we are kids ( a bunch of fools) and we are eating it up. And we do it to ourselves too, not without help mind you. We must like being treated like fools or they would not dare. One more thing for today. You have heard of "ADD" also called "ADHD". Now most of these kids used to be called "retarted", unable to concentrate, pay attention or stay on task. Of course you and I know that a grown up must be able to pay attention, stay on task, think. Then we are told that people today have a short attention span, college kids fall asleep in class or are on "social media", ( in my own teaching days, I would have called it playing with one's self). This compounds the problem, you are getting screwed but your mind is distracted, sadly it is also happening in IRL more than you think. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Cannibalism Redefined, part 5

Cannibalism Redefined, part5 In practice cannibalism was mostly practiced when a tribe killed a person of an opposing tribe. It would follow that for starters we need tribes. But we don't live as tribes any more so it would be difficult to kill each other. But wait, we are tribes, and divides are deep as ever. Are tribes do not depend on linage, color or race, we are tribes in religion, economic philosophies, education levels, business associations, and much more, our divides as deep as any two given tribes in the past. We have southern tribes and eastern tribes, we have free traders and communists, we have the educated vs the illiterate, left-right, you name it, all near willing to kill each other to prove our point. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Cannabalism Redefined, part4

Cannabalism Redefined, part4 I am a hypocrite, may be my writings make think I am kind or generous or even forgiving, I am not. I am 62, I have lived in four different countries, on three continents, for at least four years. I have lived in eight different societies, learnt seven distinct languages, I have been a watcher of humanity, at many different levels. This no credit to me, I was conniving enough to keep from getting hurt or thrown out or rejected. What I know is what I learnt from osmosis, to survive, even to thrive, what I say is what I learnt about humanity and what it will take for the humanity to make it in the long run, as humanity. Bottom line, to me all humanity is the same, all humans are the same, I am no better than anyone, not do I consider any other human better or superior to myself no matter how. Once we reach this point, other problems of humanity can be solved equitably, judiciously and peacefully, right, true and honest information is the key. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Cannibalism Redefined, part 3

Cannibalism Redefined, part three Of course not like we are cave people, we are sophisticated, and cannibalism is a dirty word. It implies that we kill people, to eat them. Did I mention to you that in modern culture if we don't like something, we just change what we call it, problem solved. I have a whole article on the subject on my blog if you like, but here are a couple if examples. Torture so uncivilized that only the terrorist ( or regimes like North Korea but never ever friends) use it, we in the other hand only use "enhanced interrogation techniques", And by god if killing innocent civilians is gets under your skin, just say "collateral damage", heck we could even use the term in a nursery rhyme, "may the odds forever be in your favor". So that we understand clearly, killing or starving people is not as bad as cannibalism, is it? Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Cannibalism redefined, part 2

Cannibalism redefined, part 2 @tombstone001: A newcomer to a big city walks in to traffic, or falls down a manhole while admiring the high rise buildings, #humans ! We are nothing if we are not enamored by the new things we have, we wouldn't know how we would survive without them, we do not see how the ones before us ever survived without. In this we are willing to do anything, worship any god, and follow anyone that promises us continued and ever expanding universe of expanding goods, easy life, unlimited riches, noting has changed in human history. We followed Jim Jones, David Koresh and we followed Rasputin, no nothing has changed. These things do not come without cost and we are ever willing to pay any cost, people used to sacrifice their own kids. May be we need to redefine cannibalism. Just as I discussed that we can not define murder yet, may be similarly we can not define cannibalism also, I try here to make it clearer, or muddier. Let's say you and I are stranded on an island, all that stands between us and death is a can of beanie weenies, just one can, that night I just find a big rock and smash your brains. Now I have not committed any cannibalism have I, think! May be I did, I have committed cannibalism, but mind is at ease, I did not commit cannibalism Swallow this much. Rest. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Cannibalism Re Explained

Cannibalism re-explained As it has been my effort with @CNN about the missing flight #MH370, we must ask the right questions to get the right response. Sometimes we fail to ask these right questions only because we do not know what to ask, that because due to lack of our own knowledge. I, sometimes, try to first explain, what I am trying to explain, for a reason. We all do not always agree as to what a word or a phrase means. Why I use a term in way that you were never shown to use. May be because I see the world a bit different than others, where everything is connected, like it or not, where the consequences of action A are exactly those of the action B even though A and B are not only not similar or may actually be totally opposites of each other. If I haven't lost you already, hang in there, I am trying hard. So what is (human) cannibalism and what does it have to do with free trade and open markets While back I wrote a series I called, " I roads lead to hell", it is on my blog if you want a link. I tried to show how our policies, liberal or conservative, financial or social will always have the SAME outcome, and will be detrimental to the average person. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/04/15/speculators-cartels-myths-of-scarcity/ More to follow on this Leave a comment, ask a friend to join Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Fool Me Once, Economics 101

Fool Me Once , Economics 101 There is an adage about making the same mistake, it says one is crazy, I might say one is stupid. But we do not believe that our leaders, our finance ministers or bankers are stupid, or crazy, I believe, I know they are a bunch of thieves and crooks scamming the nations, stealing money from governments and leaving the populace broke. We have "known austerities, and "unknown austerities" and we have "known unknown austerities", to paraphrase a minster of ( master of) thieves. Back in the days of Jimmy Carter I happened to take accounting I&II, so I know how to balance the books, apparently we must be paying our financiers to blow smoke up our panties or they would have known how. For the umpteenth time I will explain. I heard the inflation is low, now if you can not buy a house because housing is way up, health care costs are through the roof and higher education, forget that! So some one is either lying or is freaking ignorant as carp pile . I have elsewhere explained how only the rich can cause inflation Is BBC AND OTHER MEDIA STUPID? I know financial news only and already caters only to the rich then who will speak the truth to you and I? The way I see it, the problem is not low inflation, the real problem is lower taxes that are allowing the rich to "buy" parking space near their work for more than an average person will make in their lifetime http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/what-does-465-000-buy-you-london-parking-space-just-f6C10874760 Then the problem, the governments must borrow more and more to keep going while the rich can buy politicians to lower their taxes. This will not, can not end well. While the social spending goes up and then cut back, lowering the standard of living for millions, the rich, the job creators are taking that money to "invest in bonds" or to gamble with in stock markets. The job creators actually are cutting jobs ( improving productivity) the governments are forced to borrow more and spend more to keep the working poor down, and keep them quiet, sometimes it is also called social spending, or to create jobs by Increasing infrastructure spending for the benefit of the rich, better roads and air ports. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27008293 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

When America Becomes a Christian Nation

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/11/louisiana-bill-would-name-bible-as-official-state-book/ Since # foxnews has decided to block my comments, I am posting comments of someone else here http://www.thechurchofwells.com/ http://m.ketknbc.com/w/main/story/113185890/ http://www.masslive.com/umassbasketball/index.ssf/2014/04/westboro_baptist_church_says_i.html http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5104904 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

The Butterfly Effect

The butterfly effect How our support of the Syrian "revolution" is causing higher prices at the pump https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=769313153079928&id=337495259595055 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Bible the Official book

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/11/louisiana-bill-would-name-bible-as-official-state-book/ Since # foxnews has decided to block my comments, I am posting comments of someone else here The separation of church and state is an issue that those in Washington debate just like co-workers do around the water-cooler or familes around the dinner table. How much religion, if any, should be involved in government? When the 2nd "red scare" happened in the late 1940s until the late 1950s, Americans were scared that communism would overtake the country. The greatest example of this was Republican Senator, Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, who drove home the paranoia that not only would communism take over the United States, but that many Americans were communist themselves. Of course this all proved to be false and forever known as "McCarthyism." One of the ways the government wanted to show that they were somehow above communism was their love for god. "In god we trust" was added to all paper currency in 1957 as well as adding "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Today, many conservative politicians and Christians around the country claim that the United States was founded as a "Christian Nation." These claims, however, are not based on factual information. While many of the Founding Fathers were Christians, others were not. Some believed in God, but held no religious preference and others had no belief in anything supernatural. Here are twenty quotes from the Founding Fathers and other great Americans that show that the United States was not founded as a "Christian Nation." 1. "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"- Thomas Jefferson 2. "The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs." -Thomas Jefferson 3. "It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one- Thomas Jefferson 4. "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."- Thomas Jefferson 5. "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."- Thomas Jefferson 6. "Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin . 7. "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."- Ben Franklin 8. "I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them."- Ben Franklin 9. "In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it."- Ben Franklin 10. "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it"- John Adams 11. "The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.'- Thomas Paine 12. "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."- Thomas Paine 13. "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."- Thomas Paine 14. "Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies."- Thomas Paine 15. "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."- Thomas Paine 16. "It is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene."- Thomas Paine 17. "Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."- George Washington 18. "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession."- Abraham Lincoln 19. "It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."- James Madison 20. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison " Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Russia vs World

US warns Russia, if you steal Crimea, it will be a hot summer in the US, gas prices up, gold up, stocks down, car sales down, electric rates up in the middle of summer, Let the games begin! http://m.gulfnews.com/opinion/agents-provocateurs-and-the-shadow-war-in-eastern-ukraine-1.1317779 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2599700/Kremlin-accuses-U-S-security-firm-links-Blackwater-sending-private-army-Ukraine-disguised-local-forces-latest-escalation-anti-American-rhetoric.html Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

A New Way to See, part three

For everyone that would eat dog meat or pork or bitter melon we have others that would disagree, vehemently, and show us the evils of the practice. Same is true of politics too. Liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, communist or capitalist, we are all more concerned with the evils of the other, never seeing anything wrong with our own way, let alone be reasonable and see something good, anything, in the thinking of the others, this why I would use the analogy of a religion, and why I say that politics has become religion. We also forgive the sins of our politicians, too quickly, they may be crooks, liars, thieves or thugs matters not if they are promoting our "political philosophy", stoke our egos and our ignorance, no likes to be proven stupid so how can we ever admit that our politicians are wrong. Whether they are running the economy in to dirt while enriching themselves or stealing money for their friends by giving them government contracts, it all OK. No one sees the irony of the Southern poor supporting the republican party and tax cuts while collecting welfare benefits and asking for lower wages and cuts in unemployment or medicaid. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

A New Way to See, part three

For everyone that would eat dog meat or pork or bitter melon we have others that would disagree, vehemently, and show us the evils of the practice. Same is true of politics too. Liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, communist or capitalist, we are all more concerned with the evils of the other, never seeing anything wrong with our own way, let alone be reasonable and see something good, anything, in the thinking of the others, this why I would use the analogy of a religion, and why I say that politics has become religion. We also forgive the sins of our politicians, too quickly, they may be crooks, liars, thieves or thugs matters not if they are promoting our "political philosophy", stoke our egos and our ignorance, no likes to be proven stupid so how can we ever admit that our politicians are wrong. Whether they are running the economy in to dirt while enriching themselves or stealing money for their friends by giving them government contracts, it all OK. No one sees the irony of the Southern poor supporting the republican party and tax cuts while collecting welfare benefits and asking for lower wages and cuts in unemployment or medicaid. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

A New Way to See, part three

For everyone that would eat dog meat or pork or bitter melon we have others that would disagree, vehemently, and show us the evils of the practice. Same is true of politics too. Liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, communist or capitalist, we are all more concerned with the evils of the other, never seeing anything wrong with our own way, let alone be reasonable and see something good, anything, in the thinking of the others, this why I would use the analogy of a religion, and why I say that politics has become religion. We also forgive the sins of our politicians, too quickly, they may be crooks, liars, thieves or thugs matters not if they are promoting our "political philosophy", stoke our egos and our ignorance, no likes to be proven stupid so how can we ever admit that our politicians are wrong. Whether they are running the economy in to dirt while enriching themselves or stealing money for their friends by giving them government contracts, it all OK. No one sees the irony of the Southern poor supporting the republican party and tax cuts while collecting welfare benefits and asking for lower wages and cuts in unemployment or medicaid. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

A New Way to See, part two

Any "honest" banker or say a billionaire can tell you that when we talk about money in today's economy we are talking about something that does not exist in reality, it is all in your head. A while back I had said, " economics is not a science and politics is not a religion". I do not wish to offend anyone of faith, but let's see, say someone has grown up eating dog meat or apes, pork or bitter melons, shrimp or sausage, it hard to convince them that what do is "wrong" as much as it is to convince some one that there is actually nothing wrong with eating the stuff they don't eat. Yet there is no way out. "Our brains may have grown with the evolution, our minds, not so much". We are blind to our current realities, the future of mankind gets dimmer by the minute, yet we are driving head long, in to the abyss. I enjoy the modern comforts, air conditioning, six cars fir my family of five, indoor plumbing, still some times when washing dishes I wonder how many people in the world have no clean water even to drink while I use gallons to clean a few tea cups. How many wars to keep me in cheap petroleum, and how many starve ( I despise the phrase " food insecurity") while my cat only eats can food. In the inter connected world we are more distant than ever from our own "humanity". Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

A NEW WAY TO SEE part one

I realize that most (if not all) newsmen, politicians, economists, and pundits do not live in the everyday world, if not already way out there in some la-la land. I read these high fluting, high brow commentaries and ideologies and I want some of what they are smoking too, desperately. It is not news that particular person, publications, pundits and politicians will ALWAYS have same ideas and same attitudes on any given subject, my problem is that all is so predictable as to not be of any worth as news or commentary at all. This incestuous relation is dangerous to the future, not only to us but to the future of the globe. Be it Crimea or Cameroon, Syria or Somalia, Palestine or Pakistan, education or economics (and so on) our thoughts do not evolve, we refuse to change our mindsets. One obvious clue here is when in every situation and on every turn when things are not the way like them we invoke the name Hitler or some other jackass in history, no matter how dishonest or far fetched, there it is. Then it is the terrorism, all Muslims must be terrorists. This no matter how ugly they are treated, by local police, or a nation bent on bombing them indiscriminately it is OK. We have changed languages to hide our dishonesty. If the Africans are starving, no problem, they can just die of being food insecure, problem solved. If we plant it it, it is a land mine ( if someone else does it it is an IED, criminals use IEDs good people kill and maim with land mines, feel better, does it not. Like the ad about buzzed driving. We solved the problem about global warming too, just call it climate change. So on, it is not that we do not have better ideas, problem is we are vested in status quo and refuse to promote new paradigms, a new future of new possibilities. At national political level too, the above mentioned characters are more interested in promoting their own selves and securing their own futures as opposed to national well being and that of their own particular "gang of thieves", and this applies to all nations and peoples. We must get away from true and tried to save humanity. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=766487136695863&id=337495259595055 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

CIA misled on interrogation program, Senate report says - The Washington Post

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-misled-on-interrogation-program-senate-report-says/2014/03/31/eb75a82a-b8dd-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?wpisrc=al_national


Sent from my iPhone

Comparative Readings

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26769481 Vladimir Putin: The rebuilding of 'Soviet' Russia 28 March 2014 Last updated at 00:12 The world was stunned when Russia invaded Crimea, but should it have been? Author and journalist Oliver Bullough says President Vladimir Putin never kept secret his intention to restore Russian power - what's less clear, he says, is how long the country's rise can continue. On 16 August 1999, the members of Russia's parliament - the State Duma - met to approve the candidacy of a prime minister. They heard the candidate's speech, they asked him a few questions, and they dutifully confirmed him in the position. This was President Boris Yeltsin's fifth premier in 16 months, and one confused party leader got the name wrong. He said he would support the candidacy of Stepashin - the surname of the recently sacked prime minister - rather than that of his little-known successor, before making an embarrassing correction. If even leading Duma deputies couldn't remember the new prime minister's name, you couldn't blame the rest of the world if it didn't pay much attention to his speech. He was unlikely to head the Russian government for more than a couple of months anyway, so why bother? That man was a former KGB officer, Vladimir Putin, and he has been in charge of the world's largest country, as president or prime minister, ever since. Few realised it at the time, because few were listening, but that speech provided a blueprint for pretty much everything he has done, for how he would re-shape a country that was perilously close to total collapse. The little-known Putin became prime minister Just 364 days previously, Russia had defaulted on its debt. Salaries for public sector workers and pensions were being paid months late, if at all. Basic infrastructure was collapsing. The country's most prized assets belonged to a handful of well-connected "oligarchs", who ran the country like a private fiefdom. The once-mighty Russian army had lost a war in Chechnya, a place with fewer inhabitants than Russia had soldiers. Three former Warsaw Pact allies had joined Nato, bringing the Western alliance up to Russia's borders. Meanwhile, the country was led by Yeltsin, an irascible drunkard in fragile health. The situation was desperate, but Putin had a plan. "I cannot cover all the tasks facing the government in this speech. But I do know one thing for sure: not one of those tasks can be performed without imposing basic order and discipline in this country, without strengthening the vertical chain," he told the assembled parliamentarians. Born in Leningrad in 1952, Putin came of age in the Soviet Union's golden years, the period after the USSR's astonishing triumph in World War Two. Sputnik, the hydrogen bomb, Laika the dog and Yuri Gagarin all bore witness to Soviet ingenuity. The crushing of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 bore witness to Soviet resolve. Soviet citizens were enjoying a time of peace and prosperity. Life was stable. People got paid. The world respected them. Everyone knew their place. When Putin spoke to the Duma, his homeland was a different, and less respected place. He spoke the language of a man who yearned for the lost certainties, who longed for a time when Moscow was to be reckoned with. He did not say it explicitly, but he was clearly stung by Russia's failure to stop Nato driving the forces of its ally, Serbia, out of Kosovo just months previously. "Russia has been a great power for centuries, and remains so. It has always had and still has legitimate zones of interest ... We should not drop our guard in this respect, neither should we allow our opinion to be ignored," he said. His domestic policy was to restore stability, to end what he called the "revolutions", that had brought Russia low. His foreign policy was to regain Russia's place in world affairs. Those two core aims have driven everything he has done since. If only people had been listening, none of his actions would have come as a surprise to them. Since then, he has seized every opportunity history has offered him, from the attacks of 11 September 2001 to the Ukrainian Revolution of 2013, in his bid to secure his aims. He has been tactically astute and ruthlessly opportunistic. At home and abroad, he wants Russia to regain the prestige it held when he was growing up. The obvious place to start his campaign was in Chechnya, symbol of Russia's collapse. The Chechens had defeated Yeltsin's attempt to crush their self-declared independence, but it proved a bitter victory. The war devastated Chechnya's people, economy and infrastructure. Chechnya became a sink of kidnapping, violence and crime, and - until Putin - no-one did anything about it. Finally, for long-suffering patriotic Russians, here was a man not only able to pay their pensions, but prepared to get his hands dirty to defend their homeland. By the turn of the millennium, when Yeltsin stood down, and appointed Putin acting president in his place, the unknown prime minister's public approval rating was above 70% a level it has barely dipped below ever since. Human rights groups and some Western governments accused Putin of breaking Russian and international law in his pursuit of his Chechen opponents. (The European Court of Human Rights has found against Russia in 232 "right to life" cases, effectively ruling that Russia repeatedly committed murder during its Chechen campaign.) But that has done nothing to dent Putin's popularity. In Chechnya, hundreds of soldiers and thousands of Chechens died. Hundreds of thousands of Chechens fled to claim asylum outside Russia, but Russia's territorial integrity was secured, and Putin had begun his task of restoring Russian prestige. Russian troops in Chechnya in 2001 After 11 September 2001, Putin recast his Chechen campaign as part of the global fight against terrorism, thus muting international criticism of his troops' conduct. He became briefly close to President George W Bush - who even claimed to have glimpsed Putin's soul - until the Iraq War drove them apart. In Iraq, Putin insisted that international law must be upheld - no invasion could be allowed without approval from the United Nations Security Council, and that approval was not forthcoming. At home, he crushed the most powerful of the oligarchs, first those who controlled media assets, thus taming the lively television scene, and then in 2003 police arrested Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the richest man in the country. His oil company was dismembered and bought by a state oil company. He was jailed in a process so egregiously predetermined that Amnesty International declared him to be a prisoner of conscience. "I think it became absolutely clear when Khodorkovsky was arrested, that Putin was not going after the oligarchs to reassert the power of democratic civil society over these titans. He was doing it as part of building an authoritarian regime," says Chrystia Freeland, the FT's bureau chief in Moscow when Putin came to power, and now a Liberal member of the Canadian parliament. (She is also one of the 13 Canadians barred from entering Russia this week in response to Canada's imposition of sanctions against Russian officials.) Putin kept a tight grip on the parliamentary elections at the end of 2003, and his allies gained two-thirds of the Duma. He praised the poll as a step towards "strengthening democracy" - monitors from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe called it "overwhelmingly distorted". In just four years, Putin had crushed Chechnya, reined in the free media and the oligarchs, gained a parliament that would do whatever he wanted, and shown that Russia had a strong voice in international affairs. "He says what he thinks and does what he says - at least much more than probably any other contemporary politician or statesman. Western analysts and politicians always try to uncover some sort of false bottom in his statements, when there often isn't one. That applies to many other Soviet leaders including Stalin - at least in the run-up to and during WW2," says Dmitry Linnik, London bureau chief of the Voice of Russia radio. "He is a nationalist - in the federal 'Russian', not ethnic 'Russian', sense of the word. That is his biggest driving force, I think - not hunger for power or personal ambition." Putin restored some of the Soviet symbols, such as the five-pointed star But Freeland disagrees. "I think he has taken a series of decisions, quite rationally from his narrow personal point of view, that this kind of autocratic regime gives him the most personal power and personal wealth," she says. There was one thing missing to make the world of his childhood complete: an ideology. Putin restored some Soviet symbols. He brought back the Soviet national anthem and Soviet emblems, and praised the Soviet triumph in World War Two. But he embraced pre-Soviet themes too. He befriended the Russian Orthodox Church, and name-checked anti-Soviet philosophers like Ivan Ilyin, whose remains he had repatriated to Russia and buried with honour. This trend towards a uniquely Russian form of conservatism accelerated after the wave of protests against electoral fraud that struck Moscow in 2011-2, which alienated Putin from Russia's liberals. Among his favourite ideologues is Vladimir Yakunin, an old friend, a fellow KGB graduate, an Orthodox believer and now head of Russian Railways, one of the country's most strategically significant companies. "Russia is not between Europe and Asia. Europe and Asia are to the left and right of Russia. We are not a bridge between them but a separate civilisational space, where Russia unites the civilisational communities of East and West," Yakunin said in a recent interview with Itar-Tass. Last week, he was added to the US sanctions list for "membership of the Russian leadership's inner circle", following the annexation of Crimea. The idea of Russia being separate from but equal to the West is convenient, since it allows the Kremlin to reject Western criticism of its elections, its court cases, its foreign policy, as biased and irrelevant. Many of Putin's friends, though dismissive of the West's economics, politics, values and structures, are, however, much attached to its comforts. Both of Yakunin's sons live in Western Europe - one in London, one in Switzerland - and his grandchildren are growing up there. According to the anti-corruption campaigner, Alexei Navalny, Yakunin has built himself a palace outside Moscow using foreign limestone and building materials brought in from Germany - a strange step for a man supposedly wedded to creating a Russian economy independent of the West. Putin too has espoused principles, then dropped them when they proved inconvenient. In Iraq in 2003, he made a stand in defence of international law, opposing any invasion without UN approval. In Georgia in 2008, he sent in the troops without even pretending to consult with the Security Council. Last year, intervention in Syria was out of the question. This year, intervention in Ukraine is justified and unimpeachably legitimate. It may be that principles have never been the issue - and that Putin's objective has always been to maximise Russian power, and to defy Western attempts to rein Russia in. "We have every reason to assume that the infamous policy of containment, conducted in the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries, continues today. They are constantly trying to sweep us into a corner because we have an independent position," said Putin in his speech last week announcing the annexation of Crimea, a speech that repeated all his points from 1999, but with 15 years worth of additional resentment. "If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard. You must always remember this." It is not easy re-shaping a country on your own, and Putin has needed the assistance of one key group within Russian society. While he has cracked down on independent journalists, businessmen and politicians, he has relied on state officials to make sure his ideas are implemented. They have been well rewarded for their help. Wages for top officials increased last year by 20%, four times the increase in the general budget. Putin's spending binge means that, for the budget to balance, Brent crude must now average around $117 a barrel, more than five times the level needed in 2006, according to analysis from Deutsche Bank. Even that is not enough for top officials. Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokontsev said last week that, in 2013, the average bribe in Russia had doubled to $4,000. Last year, Transparency International gave Russia 127th place on its Corruption Perception Index, rating it as corrupt as Pakistan, Mali and Madagascar. "Putin has really painted himself into a corner by destroying every independent source of power in Russia. He now has only the bureaucracy to rely on, and must keep increasing its funding to keep ensuring its loyalty," says Ben Judah, the British author of Fragile Empire, a study of Putin's Russia. "Eventually, the money is going to run out, and then he will find himself in the same position Soviet leaders were in by the late 1980s, forced to confront political and economic crises, while trying to hold the country together. He looks strong now, but his Kremlin is built on the one thing in Russia doesn't control: the price of oil." Putin has succeeded in building a version of the country of his childhood, one that can act independently in the world, and one where dissent is controlled and the Kremlin's power unchallenged. But that is a double-edged sword, because the Soviet Union collapsed for a reason, and a Russia recreated in its image risks sharing its fate. According to Vladimir Bukovsky, a dissident who spent a decade in Soviet prisons before his exile to the West in 1976, Putin is totally genuine when he says the disintegration of the Soviet Union was a "geopolitical catastrophe". Putin with the head of the Russian army's main department of combat preparation in early March "He does not understand that the collapse of the Soviet system was predetermined, therefore he believes his mission is to restore the Soviet system as soon as possible," he says. As a middle-ranking KGB officer who loved the Soviet Union, Putin lacked the perspective of senior officers, who knew full well the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own inefficiency rather than because of Western plotting, Bukovsky says. "It leads him exactly to… repeat the same mistakes. He wants this whole country to be controlled by one person from the Kremlin, which will lead to disaster," he says. Putin's decision to invade Crimea was taken quickly and impulsively, by a small group of his favoured top officials. That means Putin has no one to warn him of the long-term consequences of his actions, and until he finds out for himself, he will maintain his course. That means relations with the West will remain uncomfortable, especially in areas he considers to be his "zone of legitimate interests". But we can't say we weren't warned. Oliver Bullough is Caucasus editor at the Institute of War and Peace Reporting. His most recent book is The Last Man in Russia, detailing the demographic decline of the Russian nation. Follow @BBCNewsMagazine on Twitter and on Facebook The article below was published before Facebook or twitter http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2004_04-06/dolan_bush/dolan_bush.html America and empire Manifest destiny warmed up? America, it is said, is the world's latest imperial power. Don't believe it Aug 14th 2003 WHAT is the shelf-life of an idea? Just a few short months ago, the talk—and not just in Washington, DC—was of empire, America's that is. Even before the invasion of Iraq, pundits of all stripes were casting aside their coyness to proclaim that America was the latest imperial power to bestride the world. Today, with tribulations besetting the new Romans in both Afghanistan and Iraq, their most recent conquests, the chorus has died down, but the idea is far from dead. Too many people have invested too much in it. For several years, after all, commentators have been announcing the discovery of an American empire. Books and articles have poured forth, professors and pundits have pondered the implications— and a surprising number have welcomed the new role. "No need to run away from the label," argues Max Boot, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York: "America's destiny is to police the world." Advertisement Behind the claim lies a conjunction of circumstances. First is the sheer scale of America's power. While the sole superpower remains more than ready to put its technological prowess to military use, its western allies, wearied by centuries of fighting, have been quick to cash in their post-cold-war peace dividends and turn to more pacific pursuits. Russia is diminished. China still lags behind. America's pre-eminence in the skies, at sea and on land is thus unchallenged. In terms of both brute force and gee-whizz gadgetry, it leaves even its nearest competitors standing, or rather quaking. Matching this military might, runs the argument, is an unrivalled degree of economic power. Throw together all the output from Hollywood and Silicon Valley to Wall Street and Tin Pan Alley, and you have a commercial empire that would have been the envy of the British East India Company or Cecil Rhodes. And with "hard" power and "soft" power combined, you have influence on a scale never seen before. The polite term for it is hegemony, but in reality, as Mr Boot says, it is Globocop. What other country divides the world up into five military commands with four-star generals to match, keeps several hundred thousand of its legionaries on active duty in 137 countries—and is now unafraid to use them? For, stung by the events of September 11th, America is no longer shy about spilling blood, even its own. Weren't the Afghan and Iraqi wars largely designed to show just that? To power and global reach can therefore be added another imperial characteristic: an actual desire to sally forth and act. Even before Americans were attacked on September 11th 2001, influential voices were calling for a more activist foreign policy. Some were what Ivo Daalder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, calls "assertive nationalists", some were "democratic imperialists". Both groups were impatient with the constraints imposed by treaties, multilateral action and America's membership of international clubs like the UN. Both wanted to see America hit back when attacked. Both thought the Clinton administration had been timid, if not craven, in defence of American interests. If, before September 11th, George Bush belonged to either of these groups, it was to the assertive nationalists—along with men like Dick Cheney, his vice-president, and Donald Rumsfeld, his secretary of defence. The president's instincts were to take robust action if necessary, but to avoid foreign entanglements. In particular, even as a candidate, he had been hostile to the idea of "nation-building" (correctly, state-building) abroad, an ambition more closely identified with the democratic imperialists, also known as neoconservatives. Later, though, Mr Bush started to come round to that idea. September 11th, he was to say a year after the event, "taught us that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states." Accordingly, "We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent." So there it is. The American empire passes the duck test: it not only looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it also quacks like a duck. And, unfashionable as the idea may seem, it has been given a remarkably warm reception. Even non-Americans seem well-disposed. Over a year ago Robert Cooper, a British diplomat, called for "a new kind of imperialism", albeit one that would be provided by the "post-modern European Union". Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian now at Harvard, has also been ready to argue that "imperialism doesn't stop being necessary just because it is politically incorrect," though not for him another European imperium. Doubtful as he is about the enterprise, he can see no alternative to American leadership. Many like Mr Ignatieff are ready to lend support to the idea of an American empire, moved by a desire to bring people living in failed states out of their disorder and misery, and believing that only America can run such an empire. Others are more concerned to deny terrorists a base from which to launch attacks on what was once the inviolable fortress of the West. All take succour from recent, generally favourable reassessments of the British empire, notably the one offered in a book (and television series) by Niall Ferguson, a Scottish historian now at New York University. "What the British empire proved", writes Mr Ferguson, "is that empire is a form of international government that can work—and not just for the benefit of the ruling power." The British empire, he suggests, "though not without blemish", may have been the least bloody path to modernity for its subjects. Such thoughts are still too controversial for senior members of the Bush administration to utter aloud. "We don't seek an empire," avers Mr Bush himself. "Our nation is committed to freedom for ourselves and for others." With equal vigour, Mr Rumsfeld insists: "We're not imperialistic." But after one regime-changing war in Afghanistan and another in Iraq, the administration seems to be gathering the wool of empire, and doing so with a civilising mission that sounds pretty imperial. If Mr Bush does not state the aims explicitly, the neocons feel no such embarrassment. For them, Afghanistan and Iraq are just the start. The transformation of the entire Middle East—Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the lot—must now ensue. In logic, once that is democratised under American tutelage, other regions will have to follow. The United States has long felt free to intervene in Latin America; even before September 11th it was being drawn into Colombia. The Balkans, after a more direct intervention, are benefiting from even starker American supervision (or indirect rule, to use the imperial term, via the EU and UN). Can parts of Asia and Africa be far behind? Perhaps they can. It depends, of course, on what is meant by empire, and therefore on what counts as a constituent part. In one sense, America has had an empire for years. In pursuit of its "manifest destiny", which would have been called Lebensraum (room to grow in) in 1930s Germany, 19th-century American expansionists laid claim to most of their continent. Some parts, such as Alaska and the huge swathe of land between the Rockies and the Mississippi that came with the Louisiana Purchase, were bought. Others were acquired more traditionally: California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona and parts of Colorado and Wyoming all fell into America's lap at the end of the 1846-48 war that President James Polk had baited Mexico into fighting, chiefly to obtain California. A second imperial phase came after the Spanish-American war of 1898. This "splendid little war", in the words of the secretary of state, John Hay, delivered Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. The expansionist impulse continued under Teddy Roosevelt, whose big stick (carry one, while talking softly, he advised) and amendments to the Monroe Doctrine (his corollary proclaimed the United States' right to intervene anywhere in Latin America to prevent the Europeans doing so) have helped to make him a hero in today's Washington. A man of pre-emptive action—grab Hawaii, or see it threaten America's west coast, he argued—Roosevelt is Mr Bush's favourite president, and hugely admired by Mr Rumsfeld too. But soon America was drawing back, first under Roosevelt himself and then under Woodrow Wilson, whose "14 points" set out an idealistic programme for a just peace after the first world war, based on collective security and national self-determination. Yet by the end of the next world war, America, the only country to emerge unambiguously strengthened, had entered a third imperial phase. It was formally in occupation in West Germany and Japan, and it was the de facto power in a variety of places from Dutch Indonesia to the Belgian Congo, from most of Latin America to much of Indochina. If these earlier imperiums were empires, then perhaps America has indeed acquired a new one. But if the imperial attribution is to mean anything, an empire has to have at least two characteristics besides those of huge might and a willingness to use it. An empire must also be a hierarchical system, in which ultimate control resides at the centre, in this case Washington, DC, and all the colonies, client states, satrapies, sepoys, slaves and helots must understand that. And it must be enduring. True, territories can be acquired one by one for a series of different reasons, as Britain's first colonies were. But, as Adam Smith said, "every empire aims at immortality." In other words, running colonies collectively as an empire requires the intention of either continuous control or, more likely, some sort of transformation, which is where state-building comes in, ideally laced with a bit of missionary zeal. The thrills of empire are not those of the one-night stand. In short, the empire now proclaimed in America's name is at best a dull duck, at worst a dead duck, unless it is to be a big strong drake that intends to throw its weight around for quite a while. And this in turn raises two difficulties for the concept of a new American empire. One is that the subjects won't like it. The other is that Americans won't either. Theory, meet practice For the truth of the first proposition, take a look at Iraq. Four months after the fall of Baghdad, America still faces what one of its own top generals has called "war, however you describe it". Even at the outset, the happy natives failed to greet their liberators quite as joyfully as some had so obviously hoped. Yes, Saddam Hussein was loathed; no, the Iraqis would not die for him in any numbers; but now, please leave us to get on with our own affairs. No matter that the Iraqis are in no position to run their own affairs. They still do not want their country run for them. Resistance is encouraged by the emperor's failure to fix the plumbing, stop the looting and get the lights back on, never mind the constant indignities that go with running an empire: arrests, roadblocks and house-to-house searches that offend the modesty of devout Muslim women. The combination of cock-up and hostility has not only cost the new administration its first boss, Jay Garner. It has also led America to reverse its plans to start cutting the number of its occupying troops. A constitution and free elections are promised for next year, but the progress towards democracy has been much slower than was at first hoped. Just a few teething troubles? Up to a point, certainly. But Afghanistan, too, suggests that the imperial role is neither popular nor easy. Nearly two years after a singularly successful toppling of the Taliban, the country is still largely in the hands of warlords of dubious allegiance, each with his own militia (see article). They pay nominal obeisance to the proconsul, President Hamid Karzai, but pay him his dues either grudgingly or not at all, preferring to keep the revenues they collect for their own militias. The 5,000 or so peacekeepers, the emperor's proxy army, scarcely dare leave the capital, Kabul, though they are now under NATO command. In the provinces, meanwhile, anything may be going on. The UN has just said that it is suspending work in the south after a series of attacks, and the Taliban are talking of new offensives in the north. What price commitment? All this is grist to the mill of the true believers in America's imperial mission. It just goes to show that an early exit after a quick war solves nothing. If the peace is to endure, if the rule of law is to be established, if democratic institutions are to take root, you had better be prepared for a lengthy undertaking, with men, money and limitless patience. Such has been the lesson of Bosnia, Kosovo and Northern Ireland—a lesson yet to be learnt perhaps in Congo, Sierra Leone and countless other hell-holes less pressing on the western conscience. The neo-imperialists have logic on their side when they argue that regime change alone is not enough, and, to their credit, they say they are ready for the long haul. Mr Boot, one of their foremost advocates, believes America is too. The price is affordable, he argues, and, in its containment of the Soviet Union and other policies, America has shown it can sustain a commitment over long decades. It is a beguiling argument. But a contradiction lies at the heart of the imperialists' concept. Imperialism and democracy are at odds with each other. The one implies hierarchy and subordination, the other equality and freedom of choice. People nowadays are not willing to bow down before an emperor, even a benevolent one, in order to be democratised. They will protest, and the ensuing pain will be felt by the imperial power as well as by its subjects. For Americans, the pain will not be just a matter of budget deficits and body bags; it will also be a blow to the very heart of what makes them American—their constitutional belief in freedom. Freedom is in their blood; it is integral to their sense of themselves. It binds them together as nothing else does, neither ethnicity, nor religion, nor language. And it is rooted in hostility to imperialism—the imperial rule of George III. Americans know that empires lack democratic legitimacy. Indeed, they once had a tea party to prove it. Some imperialists may be untroubled by such thoughts. Throughout their imperial history, the British, a rather steak-and-kidney sort of people, not much interested in constitutional concepts, would generally fight to defend their own freedom but did not feel obliged to introduce it in their colonies so long as democracy was in prospect for their subjects one distant day. They were helped in this happy procrastination by powerful practical interests (they exported both settlers and capital to their colonies), by a degree of racism, and by a sustained sense of semi-religious mission. And despite the many hardships, those who ran it also had fun with their empire (lots of dressing up with funny hats, playing polo and shooting tigers); and it was a commercial enterprise ("Trade follows the flag," noted Rhodes). Little, if any of this applies to Americans. The neocons may have the missionary zeal, but even this is likely to pall in the face of setbacks. There is certainly no zeal to bear the financial burden: Mr Bush's latest budget was drawn up without any money at all for Afghanistan, and the costs are rising in Iraq (to nearly $4 billion a month, just for the soldiery), even as Mr Rumsfeld says more troops may be needed. Unlike most empires of old, the United States is an importer, these days, both of capital and of migrants. America has changed since September 11th. The new mood allows for more nationalism, more assertiveness, less patience with allies, a greater readiness to go it alone. But there is no appetite to spend a lifetime in a sweaty country in the service of a noble cause. The memories of Vietnam, where every effort to withdraw or hand over to the locals seemed to lead to further entanglement, have not departed. And though the rhetorical heat may now be turned on Iran and Syria, Mr Rumsfeld and his fellow fire-eaters know full well that Americans are not ready for another invasion. Even if, hallelujah, regime change in such countries could be effected peacefully, would the United States really be prepared to shoulder the white man's burden across the Middle East? It is unlikely, to say the least; the imperial idea is a big exaggeration, like previous fads. It was fashionable, after all, to declare history at a close not so long ago. The new battlegrounds would be markets, said some pundits. Commerce, ideas and information were the weapons of the modern world; military might was for the pterodactyls. To be sure, America is now going through an imperial phase, but this one has more in common with its earlier imperial phases than with the imperial eras of Britain, Byzantium or Rome. If the assertive nationalists and the democratic imperialists have come together over Iraq, that does not mean the administration has signed up for the entire neocon agenda. And as for the foreign-policy pundits, in time they will move on to a new idea. That does not mean Mr Bush is wrong to think that democracy is the best hope for the world, though it will surely have to take different forms in different places. He is right. But he is also right in disavowing any imperial intentions. America will have to promote its aims some other way, probably by leading multilateral action. Empire is simply not the American way. If the United States has to intervene in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, and then stay on, it will not enjoy the experience. Running the place, it will discover, is nasty and brutish, so it had better also be short. Good or bad, that is not what most people mean by an imperium. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Comparative reading,

T Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Obama Face Reality?

I am glad I have not gone crazy, at least I am not the only one noticing this hypocrisy. In this age of media, we (US and Russia as well as others) will be well advised to not think that their deeds will go unnoticed. As Obama meets today with leaders gulf states, it only high lights the duplicity of the US foreign policy, one standard for friends another for the rest. Our "high aims" of bringing democracy to the middle east with this attitude has cost hundreds of thousands of lives in that region. Another highlight that US missed was when our people were at the UN whining about Saddam not obeying the UN resolutions, who are we kidding? https://www.facebook.com/Worldmeets.US/posts/10203612638858981 Russia and America: United in Flouting International Law (Diario De Noticias, Portugal) "In his speech responding to Russia's argument that if Kosovo was an exception, than Crimea is as well, Obama said that where Crimea's Russian-speaking population was not in danger, in Kosovo, thousands of people were persecuted and killed, and that the conclusion of each crisis was substantially different. Obama, however, left out something essential and common to Washington and Moscow. That in both cases, the U.S. and Russia both do as they please and always act in accordance with their own geostrategic interests." EDITORIAL Translated By Brandi Miller March 28, 2014 Portugal - Diário de Notícias - Original Article (Portuguese) At the Palais Des Beaux Arts in Brussels, President Obama offers his strongest criticism of Russia's annexation of Crimea, countering the argument that America is hypocritical because of NATO's actions in Kosovo, or its own actions in Iraq, or Mar. 26. RUSSIA TODAY VIDEO: Say What? Obama Claims 'Iraq Invasion Not as Bad as Crimea', Mar. 26, 00:03:25 The U.S. president the other day responded to Russia's argument that if Kosovo was an exception, than Crimea is as well. Barack Obama noted that, contrary to Crimea, where the Russian-speaking population was not in danger, in Kosovo, thousands of people were persecuted and killed, and that the conclusion of each crisis was substantially different. The territory of Kosovo took almost a decade to achieve independence in a process that involved the United Nations. Posted By Worldmeets.US In Crimea, a parliament met in closed session and under the threat of arms, declared unilateral independence and immediately announced a referendum with the results known in advance: integration into Russia. Obama stressed that the resort to force is "proof of less influence, not more," particularly before neighbors of much smaller critical mass than Russia. Obama, however, left out something essential and common to Washington and Moscow. That in both cases, the U.S. and Russia both do as they please and always act in accordance with their own geostrategic interests. http://worldmeets.us/ http://worldmeets.us/diariodenoticias000013.shtml#.UzYgN5W9Kc1#ixzz2xJKBQIVB Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Crash of Malaysian jetliner

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/08/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane-missing/index.html?c=&page=0 Police in Italy said the man's passport was stolen last year. A U.S. intelligence official said authorities are aware of reporting about lost or stolen passports used by passengers on the missing flight. "No nexus to terrorism yet," the official said, "although that's by no means definitive. We're still tracking." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Dreyfus Another case of stolen passports http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Crash of Malaysian 777

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Murder in FL, again

Almost a year ago, I had a long discussion on "Woodrow Guthrie" page about murder. Actually it was a discussion about, if abortion is murder, I proposed that abortion can not be considered a Murder since we have not yet defined what a murder actually is. Not that I am taking a position here for or against abortion, all I want is a legal definition, clear as day definition of what is murder. In recent cases such as Amanda Knox, or Ethan Couch we have seen the disagreement as to what is murder. Then of course we have OJ, Zimmerman and Casey Anthony famously, so may want to read my discussion at the link to my blog. http://tombstone001.blogspot.com/2013/01/is-abortion-murder.html?m=0 Today another Florida jury refused to convict someone that had killed someone with his actions (notice I did not say murder), so what is murder? Or is it when a murder is a murder? Can we define murder. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Which way is Makkah?

A letter to ICNA

Please read this missive in whole before discarding. 

I am given to believe that many of you on this counsel are literate, some even really smart so I bring it to before I publish this to the public. 

Whatever my faith or beliefs I do not claim to be more knowledge than any other. I am only humbled by what I know, what I was given a chance to do in my life. I can speak read and write Arabic, I have read Quran, in Arabic, English and Urdu, Tafsir and Fikah, All volumes of Bukhari. I had the chance to perform Hajj twice and Umrah five times. I am not pious I was just at the right place, don't be overly impressed, I am not. 

Sura Yasin gives the example of peoples to whom two prophets were sent and the people refused to acknowledge, and so on, you know the story, is it you, the Muslims of today?

Then there in sura Bakra, it is told, " it matters not wether you face East or West, it goes on to say that it is not the saying of prayers but the life you live and the deeds you do that are your salvation, but who cares. Right! 

What brings me to write today is this question of which way is Kabba. It boggles the mind not just that after 1400 years, there is a question, but after 1400 years the great Muslim nation is still trying to explain what God intended and still coming up with new and creative BS.

If any of you are educated in basic geometry,  just a joke, I know you all are, then draw a triangle, any shape, now you know that this triangle will stay the same shape anywhere in the universe, the angles at the corner will be the same, unless of course you MOVE one of these points. You can bend it, roll it, tilt it whatever you like the triangle will NOT change unless you physically change it in some way. You can now cut out the triangle and paste it on a ball and roll the ball around, the triangle (the angles between point A, B and C do not change. 

This brings me to the point,  we consider North Pole the starting point, since angle from the US to Kabba can not be determined without an exterior reference point and we have used North pole, we could use any point anywhere in the universe. (I wonder why there ever was even a question, but I digress).

When the earth is tilted then everything on earth gets tilted thus the north pole tilts 22 degrees and everything else also gets tilted and the angle from the US to the Kabba stays the same, when we look at the globe, we are looking at an optical illusion that the Kabba has somehow shifted to the north by 22 degrees when it actually did not, we ignore the FACT that the triangle has remained the same. 

Instead of creating new problems where the problem does not exist, it will be better that we learn something from Islam and then practice it also. When it is said that " do not sell your faith for little value" the Koran admonishes the people against lying, cheating, bribery, or marrying ones sons and daughters for economic benefits or blaming the innocent for your crimes, or abusing your workers, but that is another topic  altogether. 

Do not address me as "brother" I shudder at the thought. 

Sent from my iPhone

Thank you Mr Mandela

http://m.news24.com/news24/SouthAfrica/News/Thank-you-for-the-gift-of-Madiba-20131206

The last century gave us many great leaders, as always and all through the history,  it also gave us really bad ones. There were some that fought for human rights and freedoms, some that wished to oppress humanity for their purposes and some that stood by and watched, only for their own selfish economic ( not to say racist too) interests. Where we go from here? At least Three "terrorists" won the Nobel peace prize in the 20th century. 

Economic oppression of the masses continues. And it is not the other races anymore. Thanks to globalization economic oppression is worldwide with " no nation left behind".  The bankers and the IMF cheer the austerity in the EU countries, in the thirties 25% unemployment was the "Great Depression",  South African blacks rose up against the whites for similar economic injustices. Today the masses in Europe in the Americas, in China and Russia and in Asia are being economically enslaved and their countries economically raped and there are no Mandelas, no Kings and no Gandhis. All we have is the likes of Reagan, Thatcher and Putin, it does not bode well for the future of humanity. While the masses are asleep at their ipads and cell phones the real dangers to the humanity are ignored. 

There are no great voices to warn us of unimpeded " progress", technological or economical,  there are dangers in both. World needs a leader that understands the consequences of our folly.

Sent from my iPhone

Careless Whispers

Careless Whispers

In the dark corners of my mind

Where you were the light once shone

In the dark corners of my life

There you were, a hope once born

Storms of life have come and gone

Feelings get lost, when the feeling's withdrawn

Pretend again, when nothing's there

We fear to walk, where we used to dare

Lies fill the gap

In what we used to feel

We search for love

That we used to steal

No longer welcome, where we used to live

Eyes misty, we didn't forgive 

(M.N.R.)

Sent from my iPhone

Answers???

Answers???

Life gives  you choices

Go ahead, worse or bad

Whatever the future holds

Happy or sad

You seek answers, 

Don't know what to ask

When it is all up to you

You are not up to the task

You don't  like dreaming

But you dream big

Want to row boat of this life here

All you bring is a twig

Love, it is all you have

Love, doesn't mean a thing

Love's bite, it is deadly

Love takes out the sting

What you want to know

And you have always known it all

When it is time to face the music

On your face you fall

(M.N.R.)

Sent from my iPhone

84

Corrections and suggestions only please!

84

Those days when you feel good
About feeling bad
Life can't always be happy
Some days you are happy,
just for being sad
Life it is not always,
about just having it all
You must climb higher and higher
Even just for that great fall
It is eighty four tonight on my mind
And not for the reasons you think
What good life in a bed of roses,
when those roses stink.
Sent from my iPhone

Fwd: WhatsApp video

Get WhatsApp for your iPhone, Android, Nokia, BlackBerry or Windows Phone today: http://www.whatsapp.com/download/