When I sailed into New York on the 4^th of July 1992 the first thing I saw was the Statue Of Liberty. It was a big moment. I was 21 and would finally get to see this city where the buildings touch the clouds and anything is possible. At least that was how people back in Germany believed the city to be.

About half an hour later we passed by the World Trade Center. It was a humid day. The tops of the towers were hidden in the clouds.

“Lady Liberty” is throughout the world a symbol for freedom and democracy. But for me she has an even deeper meaning. She is a symbol for my liberation.

On the 4^th of July 1992 I might have looked to an outsider like a normal shy 21 year old guy who still has to figure out a couple of things. The truth was that I was doomed. I had lots of emotional problems. I was living in emotional and mental hell. I had no self-confidence and no self worth. I believed that the world is a dark place full of suffering and that I have to live with that for the rest of my life.

My experiences confirmed my beliefs. On the ship I worked like a dog with sometimes as little as two hours of sleep. Officers would scream at me all day long and they would use any opportunity to tell us how worthless and how replaceable we are. I did not mind that treatment. It only confirmed what I believed to deserve.

There was another side in me as well though. The part that believed that there was a place for me in the world, that I am talented and able to show it. That there is some hope. But the feeling of unworthiness always got the upper hand.

When I saw the Statue Of Liberty that day I had no idea what freedom was. I was locked up on this ship with 200 other guys and not allowed to leave, at least as long as I did not want to end up in prison. At home all that was waiting for me was to be pushed around by my family at their will and my job in a bank that I hated. Working there made me feel particularly imprisoned. I was stuck at work wearing tie and suit from 8 to 5, outside life was happening and I was not a part of it. I was in such a wrong place but had no idea how to escape.

Mentally I was not free either. I was very shy because I had no self-confidence. At age 21 I was not only still a virgin I had not even French kissed a girl or had had a girlfriend.

When I say I was doomed I mean that I was in the process of becoming a carbon copy of my father. In part because of the mental programming I received at a very young age and in part because of my mother torturing me as much as the had tortured him before they got divorced.

I was about to turn into a Zombie, a walking dead at a very young age. This is what my parents and millions of other people are. They have died emotionally a long time ago but they are still waiting for their physical death.

Many years have passed by since then. I quit working in the bank, became a photographer and moved to New York City. I met my spiritual teacher and did a lot of work.

Today I sometimes have a hard time to believe how free I am. How was I able to accomplish that?

By letting go of all the ideas I had about myself, letting go of my family, letting go of my cultural background, letting go of what I was told to do, by letting go of my mind.

I am looking up to the “Statue Of Liberty” on this beautiful summer day standing on the deck of the “Half Moon” while loud rock music is blasting more then 16 years after I had seen her the first time. I smile and it feels like she is smiling back to me.

Today we both know what freedom is.

"Liberty" Manhattan/New York City/Liberty Island/Statue Of Liberty 08/28/08 at 09:18 PM

I was curiously interested by the amount of response I have received from my last posting regarding the non-political decisions of Gov. Palin, and the effects I forsaw as fallout. I have written in the past about homosexuality, Iran, American Hubris, abortion, Oil and the ridiculous pandering of American media. But never had I received so many explicitly angry responses (of which I erased all, as we don’t need such language on this site) and some well thought out frustrated responses as well (of which I am grateful for).

So I desired to write an editorial regarding my audacity at examining a shortsighted choice, in which I felt I saw several immediate problems. But instead, I am going to provide a link to an apology in POLITICO by Roger Simon. He states

“On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.

On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.

We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.

We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?

Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.

It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn’t be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols.

Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head Wednesday night (and several in the audience wish she had hit some reporters on the head instead) when she said: “I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.”

But where did we go wrong with Sarah Palin? Let me count the ways:

First, we should have stuck to the warm, human interest stuff like how she likes mooseburgers and hit an important free throw at her high school basketball tournament even though she had a stress fracture.

Second, we should have stuck to the press release stuff like how she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere (after she supported it).

Third, we should never have strayed into the other stuff. Like when The Washington Post recently wrote: “Palin is under investigation by a bipartisan state legislative body. … Palin had promised to cooperate with the legislative inquiry, but this week she hired a lawyer to fight to move the case to the jurisdiction of the state personnel board, which Palin appoints.”

Why go there? What trees does that plant?

Fourth, we should stop making with all the questions already. She gave a really good speech. And why go beyond that? As we all know, speeches cannot be written by others and rehearsed for days. They are true windows to the soul.

Unless they are delivered by Barack Obama, that is. In which case, as Palin said Wednesday, speeches are just a “cloud of rhetoric.”

Fifth, we should stop reporting on the families of the candidates. Unless the candidates want us to.

Sarah Palin wanted the media to report on her teenage son, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007, and soon will deploy to Iraq.

Sarah Palin did not want the media to report on her teenage daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and unmarried.

Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign. That is our job, and that is our duty. If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.)

The official theme of the convention’s third day was “prosperity,” but the unofficial theme was “the media are really, really awful.”

Even Mike Huckabee, who campaigned for president this year by saying “I am a conservative, but I am not mad at anybody,” discovered Wednesday night that he is mad at somebody.

“I’d like to thank the elite media for doing something,” Huckabee said, “that, quite frankly, I didn’t think could be done: unify the Republican party and all of America in support of John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

And could that be the real point of the attacks on the media? To unify the Republican Party?

No, that is simply the cynical, media view.

Though as Lily Tomlin says, “No matter how cynical I get, it’s just never enough to keep up.”

I couldn’t resist that. For which I am sorry.”

How dare the media actually question the qualification of an individual? FOX news is justifiably upset with the “Liberal Media”. Those horrible Liberal minded sissies are not catering to the whims of the Congressional Republicans. Shame.

And this leads back to the Republican Party, and the Bush strategy of attacking rational media (i.e., not FOX, CNN, MSNBC). In fact, it can be argued that this indeed is McCain's "new" strategy. Not so different then the past eight years.

DIVISIVE

The recent Russia: Georgia conflict has created a debate that could hardly be more polarised in terms of opinions expressed. The plethora of opinions of the rights and wrongs of Russia's actions and intentions has triggered, though, a common denominator on which, surely, there appears wide agreement: an ideal opportunity for the European Union to have shown its diplomatic mettle and courage. Throughout the world, countries have been calling for the EU in taking a more mediatory role. South Ossetia, whilst highly precarious and dangerous, could have been an area in which the EU could have mediated much more than it did.

As far as international responses go, the EU's first moves were encouraging: Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President of the EU, along with France's foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, reacted promptly in the name of Europe. Within days of the French involvement a six point plan had been agreed, validated by the signatures of both sides. Interventionist politicians such as M Sarkozy were able to bring activist diplomacy, as well as a realistic awareness of what was possible on the ground. The French understand better than most that further deterioration in relations with Russia could affect European trade and energy links. It wants to see, as does Angela Merkel of Germany, peaceful reconciliation, as relations were before the South Ossetia war.

Behind the rhetoric of the French, steam was building-up. Collapse in negotiations, in hindsight, seemed inevitable, as hostility against Russia progressively drowned-out M Sarkozy by a different and more diffuse argument: not of how to solve the problem of the tiny mountain enclave within South Ossetia, but a bigger question of what to do with Russia.

The focus shifted because those countries that became full members of the European Union in 2004, namely those throughout east and central Europe, could only see the Georgian conflict through the prism of their own bitter experiences. For them, it was ample evidence of Soviet-style Russian intimidation and a red flag they could wave at old Europe to illustrate the justice of their fears.

TRUE LIBERATION?

The liberation of east and central Europe stemmed from the fall of the Berlin Wall which led to the death-knell of soviet communism. These ‘new' European countries are now deemed fully-fledged, autonomous states with a reclaimed sense of identity of their own. Given the political history and geography throughout east and central Europe, their preoccupation with a new perceived threat from Russia is understood. For many of the ascendant countries to the EU, NATO membership also appears an attractive proposition in defending interests and loyalties as they see them. Single-mindedness in the future will be as important as it has been in the past.

But, in recent weeks, a new problem appears to have emerged. Whilst it is accepted that the ‘old' Europeans left past enmities and hostilities at the door when they joined the EU, too many of them in becoming the ‘new' Europeans saw the EU, rather like NATO, as a means of pursuing old arguments from a new position of strength. For instance, recriminations still continue in ‘new' Europe about who did what under communist rule demonstrating how much is still unresolved. The new incumbents to Europe consider the prospects of a new Cold War as being ever-present because, the pain of Soviet-style communism, previously, is still not yet at an end.

CONDESCENSION

During 2000, Jacques Chirac's fears about expanding the European Union drew reproaches of condescension. But, the US and British view became preferred, in that acceding countries would form a "bridge" with Russia. Over the course of time, though, it looks as if M Chirac has been more right than wrong. ‘Popular European opposition' to the war in Iraq, for example, became less effective than it might have been because of how the United States easily exploited the divisions between ‘old' and ‘new' Europe. As Iraq fades, efforts by the EU in reaching a mutually beneficial relationship are continually being thwarted by a chorus of ‘new' Europeans warning of the worst possible scenarios.

Yet, there are several reasons, too, why the EU should review relations with Russia, most of which actually predate the South Ossetia conflict. Mutual interests such as securing reliable energy supplies; Moscow's relations with ethnic Russian populations living within the EU; and the permanent demarcation of post-Soviet borders to resolve the so-called "frozen conflicts" (like South Ossetia).

Experiences of the ‘new' Europeans are a good part of the reason as to why no viable solution has been reached. Has that failure become more of a block than the ‘Bridge' to which the US and Britain first envisaged?

© Mark Dowe 2008: all rights protected

- Copyright is the currency by which information can be exchanged in certain circumstances.

However, several days later, as the news of Gov. Palin’s teenage daughters pregnancy were divulged to the public, controversy began to develop. I was relived to see that the media, by and large, respected the privacy of her daughter, and left the family affairs as a private matter, to be dealt with within the confines of their own home, and not something to be smeared across the nation. Nevertheless, although completely ignorant of Palin’s voting record or capabilities of leadership, had reason to question her common sense as she exposed a very private (and political hot button issue, something I do not feel it should be, but nonetheless is) matter and wellbeing of her daughter to the scrutiny and ridicule of the media. Nevertheless, once again, besides the poor judgment exhibited by Palin, I felt that this issue had no bearing on the politics at hand.

But today reports have been made public concerning her voting record, which is totally at odds with the current situation she finds herself in. Palin had voted with McCain in the past to oppose sex-education in the public school system, an education that seeks to encourage and prepare young men and women for the difficulties and dangers of intimate relationships. As a stanch supporter of abstinence, Palin refused to acknowledge the good sex-education could achieve in the public sector, and further successfully blocked funds to help teenage mothers in Alaska. Allow me to repeat this. Palin blocked funds to help teenage mothers.

As much as I attempted to not allow the very private and personal matters of Gov. Palin affect how I would evaluate her political leadership, she has, through her own actions, forced me to become critical and wary of her political capital. Such glaring omissions of rational judgment cause me question her appointment at all, and places yet another nail in the coffin of the Republican Party, as a political self-serving entity that is completely out of touch with any form of actual reality. This truly is a party composed of individuals who have allowed their ideology to overrule any form of common sense, dignity or rationality. Unfortunately, Palin’s image as a possible leader is already seriously in doubt.

Ed. Note,

Several interesting add-ons, since this mornings writing have surfaced today. See bellow for links

Palin's religious views cause controversy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

McCain angry over media's examination and questioning of Palin http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7596225.stm

Report claims US has worst teen pregnancy rate in developed world http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7593735.stm

Palin "just a heartbeat from the presidency" http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13096.html

"you may say that I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one"

Life is...you fill in the blanks - today I choose to end that with ...."how you perceive it"  Reality kicks in, focus leads to clarity and in some ways clairvoyance.  Anger turns to preparation, acceptance is a historical thought andgetting thru this as unscathed as I can is the primary purpose at the moment.

I have always been an idealist in part, but always tempered with some sort of inate pragmatism...I am no prince among princes, this I know - but truth be told the spirit is awakening in me - as if the lack of balance and understanding of my past offer me the wisdom and insight to achieve balance in my present.  Alot of my character flaws of my past I attribute to lack of introspection, today they are strong character traits tat are helping me to navigate this world in which I live.

I am not sure where I have heard this in the past but I will say, that the true warrior prepares for battle in hopes of not going thru it - that anaology is approrpiate.  I maintaion the integrity of my current life - I have no desire to go to war and truth be told I know it is pointless to do so, but they eyes, as they level in concentration have a much wider view of the battleground in which I find myself.

Finally, the oxygen mask analogy heard on airlines around the world make perfect sense.  I have to take care of me first, for me and for the ones I have been put on this earth to care for.  On this note, the lineage of my past comes rushing to my present, all in a well architechted manner - making sense of both yesterday and today simultaneously. 

The cleansing is well underway and the stage is set for a brite future, time is my only adversary, but also remains my true friend.

"Syphilitic

"Given the AWL’s position of not condemning Israel were it to launch an attack on Iran, I was interested to see what they would have to say about Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia and the Russian response.

"After all, this is an organisation that advocates the right of self-determination for Tibet and for Kosovo without regard for what the consequences of that might be for workers’ unity in these areas, and which puts forward no programme based on proletarian internationalism as a means of resolving these issues. It is an organisation that in the case of Kosovo considered the issue was so important that it thought that the bombing and cruise missile attacks on Belgrade by US imperialism were “good” in trying to bring an end to them. Surely, an organisation that tells us it is one of “consistent democrats” would be consistently democratic in condemning Georgia’s ethnic cleansing of South Ossetia, and would tell us that the Russian response was “good” to stop it, wouldn’t it?

"Well, actually, no. Almost a week went by before the AWL could find words to give us a “provisional” response. In the meantime, long-time AWL cadre Jim Denham did come out with a response fairly quickly in his Shiraz Socialist blog. But rather than condemning Georgia’s murderous attacks on South Ossetia, which the United Nations now says have created around 150,000 refugees or about half the South Ossetian population, he quotes from an article by David Clark in The Guardian, which says: “By any reasonable measure, the impact of Russian policy has been uniquely destructive in generating political divisions in the Caucasus ... Whatever his faults, [Georgian president] Saakashvili is no Milosevic - and wild Russian allegations of genocide have no independent support.”

"Denham tells us that he finds this argument “a lot more convincing than the crazed anti-American conspiracy theories and pro-Putin triumphalism”. In other words, it is a blatant attempt to minimise the murderous attacks by Georgia on South Ossetia. Worse, even after TV had been showing pictures of the devastation in South Ossetia caused by the Georgian action, and the vast number of refugees forced to seek refuge in Russia, Denham argued with me: “Arthur: all your last statement is just bullshit and bluster (as I suspect, you know full well): even if (as I don’t, in fact, believe) what you say about Georgia’s role in South Ossetia is true, it still doesn’t justify Russia’s actions ...”

"But the incident is a good example of AWL politics. Denham later suggested that I was in some way afraid to reply to him. When I pointed out that the reason I had only just then replied was that that was the first I had seen of his posts, Denham accused me of lying. This was followed by the now usual AWL bureaucratic tactic of suppressing an argument if you can’t defeat it, and a threat to ban me from the site - I’d only ever posted a handful of posts there anyway - in addition to the AWL’s previous decision to delete my posts from their website.

"This is now clearly a very degenerate Stalinist organisation. Trotsky called Stalinism “the syphilis of the labour movement”. We should treat the AWL accordingly.

"Arthur Bough".

Jim D replies: At risk of opening up another futile row with this lunatic, I repeat: where and when have I (or anyone else on the left) ever defended Georgian actions in South Ossetia? The liar Bough cannot produce one single shred of evidence.

Bough: I defy you - once again -  to find a single quote. Chapter and verse, please.

You are, quite simply a liar. Or a lunatic. Or both.

PS: What do you think about reports of Russian-inspired ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia?

I saw an ad for a "seasonal birth control pill" for women, which allows women to have only 4 menstrual periods per year.  As some of you know the birth control pill has been around since 1960, though there are now many variations on the original,the one I am outlining is such a one.

It struck me as incredible that women actually want to take these pills to prevent pregnancy so much so that they would risk the company's listed warnings or "adverse reactions". I'm not even sure doctors know what all of these things are:

• Thrombophebitis
• Arterial Thromboembolism
• Pulmonary Embolism
• Myocardial Infarction
• Cebrebral Hemmorhage
• Cerebral Thrombosis
• Hypertension
• Gallbladder Disease
• Hepatic adenomas or Begnign Liver tumors
• Mesenteric Thrombosis
• Retinal Thrombosis
• Nausea
• Vomiting
• Gastrointesinal Symptoms (abdominal cramps and bloating)
• Breatkthrough Bleeding
• Spotting
• Change in Menstrual Flow
• Amenorrhea
• Temporary Infertility after discontinuation
• Edema/ Fluid Retention
• Melasma/ Cholasma (which may persist)
• Breast Changes (Tenderness, Enlargement, and Secretions)
• Change in Weight or Appetite (increase or decrease)
• Change in Cervical ectropion and secretion
• Possible dimunition in laction when given post-partum
• Cholestatic Jaundice
• Migraine Headache
• Rash (allergic)
• Mood Changes (including depression)
• Vaginitis (including candidiasis)
• Change in Corneal curvature (steepening)
• Intolerance to contact lenses
• Decrease in Serum Folate levels
• Exacerbation of Systemic Lupus Erythamatosis
• Exacerbation of Porphyria
• Exacerbation of Chorea
• Aggrevation of Varicose Veins
• Anaphylactic/ Anaphylactoid reaction (including Uticaria, Angioedema, and sever reactions with respiratory and circulatory reactions)

"The following adverse reactions have been reported in users of contraceptives and the association has neither been confirmed or refuted:"

• Cataracts
• Optic Neuritis (which may lead to partial or complete loss of vision)
• Cystitis-like syndrome
• Headache
• Nervousness
• Dizziness
• Hirsutism
• Loss of scalp hair
• Erythema multiforme
• Erythema nodosum
• Hemmorhagic eruption
• Impaired Renal Function
• Hemolytic Uremic syndrome
• Budd-Chiari syndrome
• Acne
• Changes in Libido
• Colitis
• Pancreatitis
• Dysmenorrhea

So you say "that's all?"  just 50 possible life-threatening and possibly permanently damaging medical reactions that could happen. Well, I wonder is it really worth it?  Who takes these drugs? I wonder?  Well lots and lots of women take them. I was one...

Yes, I used to take birth control pills when I was younger so that I could "sleep with" (actually fornicate with my boyfriend(s). I wanted to do something wrong and I did not want to suffer any of the consequences, though,later I did and still do to some extent. I think that the laundry list above is only a partial list of what can happen to a woman (her body) when she uses means such as birth control to avoid consequences of sex (and often sex outside of marriage).

What is not mentioned here are the immense Spiritual Consequences to having sex outside of Marriage-which is God's plan for sex. When two people "join" in such and intimate way there are ties that are formed. These ties are there whether they are acknowledged or understood by the parties involved. These soul-ties are something that cannot be erased easily. The Bible speaks to this when it talks about what results when a man joins himself with a harlot- essentially the two become one.  1 Cor.6:16 " What? Know you not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, says the Lord, shall be one flesh."

So Ladies, Girls, and Women, please do not allow yourselves to play the harlot. I know our culture makes it seem okay, even glamorous to do so. But I can tell you from personal experience you will get hurt from it, one way or the other. Maybe you will contract one of the health problems listed above, maybe you will get your heart broken when your relationship ends, maybe you will end up with an unplanned pregnancy, and maybe you will lose your soul, forever.

There is an answer and a hope. It is found in the Bible and in the person of Jesus Christ. I pray you can know Him like I do. And if you have sins, you can be forgiven, and cleansed. It's not too late until you are dead.

Please, take a tiny-mustard seed amount of faith and call out and ask Jesus to become your Savior and Lord. He is only waiting for you to do so. He will not force you! He loves you and wants to to come to Him freely. That is why He gave us each a free will. He does not desire robotic automatons to follow him. He wants you, and He will receive you just as you are!

On August 29th 1984, I met and walked into a relationship that was to have the most apocalyptic consequences.

On August 29th 1987, I married into that terrible relationship for all sorts of insane and nonsensical reasons, that even now I can not begin to understand, WHY I was prepared to sacrifice myself to a life that only became more and more of a nightmare with each passing day.

On May 6th 1991, I left that relationship quietly, like a "normal day" as if anything then about my life could ever be considered normal. Taken to work with me was an apple, underwear and a toothbrush, knowing I was probably going to be homeless that night; knowing I was leaving that nightmare forever. It was very calm, no hint of anything wrong to raise or alert suspicion that I was leaving. It felt like the great escape. I remember turning to look at the back of the house, as I backed out of the drive in my car, and with a deep breath knew nothing was going to be the same again. My stomach turned over and hy heart missed a beat: Can still feel it now.

 I knew my christian evangelical church would try and drive me back, divorce was never an option I thought only death. The problem was I could not kill myself either, something that had crossed my mind, because sucide was a sin and an automatic exclusion from heaven. I had asked God on several ocassions to just let me die but the problem was I just kept being alive and he wasn't answering my prayers. I asked God to take my husband from me, then feeling so wickard about my feelings, but God wasn't doing that either. I knew my family would be shocked and hoping me not to cause them worry and agro, that I would just return and carry on, so I was no bother to anyone. But I could not let my life go this way at just age 27. It had to be different. I changed my course of history, of destiny and my life took a different journey.

Yesterday, I realised that if I had stayed I would have been married to a nightmare for 21 yrs. Then it hit me. I had spared myself 17 yrs of that situation. What would have become of me if I had stayed? Well, probably death or insanity. Either that or I could have killed him, in a shere freezy of mental torture and I would now be in prison doing time for manslaughter on grounds of diminshed responsibility or tried for murder. I do understand how this can happen. I really, really do mean that. My career would have long since gone, it was close to collapse as it was when I left. My health would be in pieces, it was all but in pieces anyway then. My nerves long since gone, they were already shattered. No children and an old face. A hatred of God, that would have been certain. A bitter twisted piece of humanity, that fact is also certain. That day when I left was certainly the best days work I will ever do in my life. The prospect of that life being real is something that haunts me, to a point, even now and send shivers down my spine thinking about it.

I had a lucky escape. My life has not been without its problems since, and my second marriage has certainly faced many low points. BUT I do have a normal life, a child and a family. I have my health and strength, a career I love and now with family growing up starting to really take off again. I am two modules away from a higher education Diploma qualification and working towards a degree. I take pictures, write, have my blog and walk in peace and quiet. I am not a prisoner in my own home. I no longer take on a carer's role which was all I did in my first marriage. In many ways my life is just normal, like many others facing ups and downs. I have things to hope and to look foreword to and to worry about. My christian faith is all but dust, though I cling onto it in the hope that it still may be relevant and true.

The 29th August, once again has come and gone and I am still here, in one piece and for that I am thankful. I saved myself from a terrible and dreadful life, that would never have got any better. I am the lucky one. For anyone facing a similar situation, I would say one thing. Whether you believe in a heaven or a hell, one thing is for certain. You have only one life on this earth and only one. Don't look back and wish the clock could be turned back because it can't. Only you can walk away as I did then and change the way the time goes, as the clock of life ticks on.

Leaving a relationship can be the hardest thing, the bravest thing but the best thing you can do for your life. It certainly was in my case. I have not an atom of shame or regret, only relieve in my heart.

As of August 28th 2008 Georgia considers South Ossetia to be a Russian-occupied territory.

A South Ossetian official has also released statements that South Ossetia would join the Russian Federation. Tarzan Kokoity, the province’s Deputy Speaker of parliament, made the point that South Ossetia would rejoin North Ossetia in "one united Russian state.” Seeing as the USA and Israel has, and will most like continue to, support the Georgian government this would seem to be an apt measure for defence purposes.

Firmaware Required: 3.62+

In Game Screenshot:

File Size: (25.40mb)

If you need help installing or downloading this demo then please contact us, If the download link is dead then also please feel free to contact us!

By Charlotte Pudlowski

The French press is clear : Hillary's speech has been a great success. On Road 44 (Le Figaro's web blog on the American elections), Julie Connan writes "We can't stop Hillary!" She quotes the New York senator's speech, asking for delegates' vote to be stopped and for Barack Obama to be elected right away.

On Libération.fr , Arnaud Vaulerin explains that the former candidate "has delivered a strongely uniting speech" and "does everything to burry the hatchet".

In Le Monde, Corine Lesnes underlines : "Hillary Clinton may not have gained Democrat's investiture but she may have reached what she was aiming at : a real popularity"

However Guillemette Faure, from the French website Rue 89, evokes a "smokescreen reconciliation" and wonders : "Hillary has made a speech to support Barack Obama, but can we believe her?" Whereas most articles tell about the bursts of applause at Clinton's speech, Guillemette Faure asks : "Were they applause or sighs of relief? "

Her tone is quite pessimistic indeed. She adds : "No matter what the polls say, one third of Clinton's supporters have no intention to vote for Barack Obama in november, and contrary to what Obama's supporters were hoping for, this figure doesn't  decrease. It's even the opposite. "

But why the Clintons should not be sincere? Guillaumette Faure gives several reasons. According to her, their support is due to their refusal to bear responsability if Obama fails. However, this support does not eradicate American Press's suspicion : "Whenever Hillary Clinton gives a speech, American press counts how many times she pronounces Obama's name. And Bill Clinton's intervention on Wednesday shall be also dissected, with probably even more skepticism. Because between the two Clintons, he is said to be the one who has accumulated the more resentment"

The French journalist stresses all the elements for Bill's bitterness : the fact that he did not appreciate to be called a racist, the fact that Obama does not ask him enough for advice, the fact that the couple has not been helped enough by Obama's staff to have their campaign's expenses to be paid off.

"Is this the reason why, according to CNN, Bill Clinton won't attend Obama's speech on Thursday? Terry McAuliffe, Hillary's campaign director, and several other advisers won't be there either. It is hard to build up a schedule" she adds, ironically.

A sarcastic anecdote concludes her bright article : "Unity is not that simple. In the center of the roo, while Hillary is finishing her speech, in the stairs, voluntary workers are distributing double-face signs. On one side, the word unity is printed on it, on the other side, either Obama or Clinton's name. People shall agitate them with enthusiasm. A member of the audience, who got one with Obama's name, gives it back : "Can I have one with Hillary instead?" The two faces of unity."

In Part 1 of my little *series* I shared my thoughts on:

1. The origins of the word - Impossible.

2. The prevalence - of - and fascination - with - the word impossible.

Summary from Part 1 :

1. Impossible = Hard = Not easy - Hence - rare.

2. Impossible is associated with things that lack evidence and hence to a certain degree - belief.

3. Impossible: The external environment has become so much permeated in our skin, that we have forgotten - where it originated from - to begin with. i.e. - from the external environment

Now, External Environment = Our Culture = How we do things.

Have you ever stopped and thought of the following?

1. If things impossible have a bearing on our culture -and culture = our environment. Then to make the imposssible possible, we will HAVE TO QUESTION THE CULTURE ITSSELF?
2. Is 1 - above - not logical? Is there any other option left? Sorry NO> There is no other option left

Hence IF we want to make the impossible possible -> we MUST change our environment.

Our culture. And Culture = How we do things.

Its not easy - and well, we already proved that not easy = hard.

1. Changing our culture = Hard.  Because Culture = How we do things.
2. How we do things = How we have been used to doing things = our history
3. We often take pride in our history... ( ever heard - Its Matzo Ball, and its hard, but its OUR Matzo Ball)..

This Our = I + me + mine .. = Our Biggest Enemy - our enemy in the path ofour LIBERATION.

Liberation from our past

So in light of this weeks Democratic National Convention I will highlight what I feel is my defining question for each the candidates.  So this week it is John McCain's turn.  And I have a great youtube that epitomizes my question.

My question is this.  Is John McCain too hawkish?  Does John McCain like war too much?  Will he stomp out evil wherever it pops up and by doing that inflict greater evils on the countries and the greater world that we are meant to be liberating?  Or maybe even the greater questions is, does the world need liberating?  And if it does, to whose definition of liberation shall we be wed to?

So get your popcorn and soda, kick back and watch this short clip...  Tell me your thoughts.

I'll ask this again:  what does it possibly TAKE to outlaw marital rape?

And then the question remains once marital rape is outlawed - can governments around the world please live up to their promise? 

Upon reading the recent upheavals due to the Russia-Georgia military conflict,  I couldn't help but notice that Georgia as a country (among many other countries), have had a long history of remaining silent while women of all ages have had to endure decades of their lives to husbands who physically and sexually abuse them.  The government there are by far not the only fuckwits in this world who don't see this as an atrocity that needs to be erased from the world....we have stonings that still go on in Iran of women who are merely accused of adultery.  Papua, New Guinea along with countries in the southern region of Africa see women who are not able to receive HIV treatment from doctors for fear that their husbands will beat them or kill them. 

The list goes on and on - "Comfort women" in WWII Japan who were forced to be made available to Japanese military troops, Hungarian women who are raped in their homes,  rapes of women who already are devastated in the Darfur region, Mexican women who still see their justice system ignore their pleads for help because of still-pervasive marital rape in their homes, the sex-trafficking in Paraguay.....

And we're still as a whole more concerned about rising gas prices and wondering if that fresh tomato at the store is OK to eat? 

When you have sexual and physical violence against women from the direct or indirect action (or inaction) of governments around the world, and if this violence is still largely ignored despite the fact that women make up half of the world's population, you have a large frickin' problem.   It's already bad enough that a woman might feel afraid because she went outside by herself to the market and dared to show the smooth skin of her forearm.  It's shockingly unconscionable to have a woman who cannot feel safe anywhere - a police station, a doctor's office, and especially in her own home.

Misogyny is a rampant and silent disease that continues to kill women all around the world.  It's a fear and hatred of a person entirely because of her gender and because of her unique female characteristics and contributions.  Because of this deluded fear and hatred, "woman" must be made a property and treated as such.....of course, for her own good, right?  *rolls eyes*

So, yeah - if you didn't hear me before......FUCK YOU, MISOGYNY!!

Haute couture contre fast fashion
12 AOUT 2008
PHOTOS: Audoin Desforges
TEXTE: Françoise-Marie Santucci
Avec la démocratisation du luxe, la frontière entre haute couture et "fast fashion" s'effiloche un peu plus à chaque saison. Pour le plus grand bonheur des modeux.

Dans son tube "DJ," Diam’s chante qu’on va "toutes se ruiner chez H & M", "l’empire suédois qui travailla avec Karl Lagerfeld, quand le rappeur américain Kanye West préférait, lui, vanter les mérites de Louis Vuitton, à l’instar de son pote Pharrell Williams qui vient de créer une ligne de bijoux pour la marque de luxe. Sans queue ni tête ? Et pourtant…

Avant, la mode ressemblait à une pyramide très pointue. Tout en haut régnait la haute couture, en dessous de laquelle s’étageaient le prêt-à-porter de luxe, puis les marques plus ou moins chic puis, tout en bas, le commerce de masse. La pyramide, depuis élargie et rabotée, s’est transformée en un grand bazar où une bonne partie de la population pioche allègrement du chic et du cheap. Fini le temps où la mode était un signe extérieur de statut social selon qu’on portait un tailleur Chanel ou une tunique achetée par correspondance . Désormais, la "fast fashion" et le luxe bataillent en vitrine de milliers de magasins collés les uns aux autres, où les narcissiques de la planète peuvent contempler leur reflet.

Grand flou

Le jeu est forcément déséquilibré, les partisans de chaque camp n’ayant pas vraiment le même compte en banque. Mais le match se déroule néanmoins, au cours duquel le Petit Poucet chipe la balle à l’ogre et où le public, jouisseur et oublieux, soutient l’une ou l’autre équipe au gré de la partie. Les enseignes comme H & M, hier fréquentées par nécessité, attirent aussi les riches et les moins riches pour qui c’est une folle aventure d’y dénicher un trench "à la Balenciaga", quinze fois moins cher que l’original. Lorsque Karl Lagerfeld lança sa collection pour la marque suédoise, fin 2004, on frôla l’émeute, notamment à Paris où bourgeoises du XVIe arrondissement et minettes de banlieue s’y disputèrent les créations du maître de Chanel.

Si certains n’hésitent plus à acheter "cheap", les nouveaux riches ont, au contraire, à cœur de s’approprier les griffes les plus luxueuses ; qu’ils viennent de Russie ou des ghettos d’Atlanta, ils dépensent sans compter avenue Montaigne et popularisent de par le monde, via l’embrasement people qui les porte au pinacle, une /dolce vita /clinquante. La journaliste américaine Dana Thomas, dans son excellent livre "Luxe and Co "(1), rappelle les propos du magnat américain du hip-hop Russell Simmons - en substance : "Oui nous voulons ces marques-là qui nous font rêver, car elles établissent notre statut de stars." De là naquit le bling-bling, qui fait fureur depuis sous d’autres cieux et en d’autres milieux ; de là naquit aussi, en partie, cet engouement mondial des plus jeunes pour la "fashion" - les moins jeunes, effrayés de ne plus l’être autant, suivant quand même le mouvement.

Cette envie effrénée de mode, attisée par l’individualisme et l’hédonisme fin de siècle, a trouvé à s’épanouir avec la "fast fashion."
Qui n’est pas chère, qui est branchée à mort et qui, à l’instar du fast-food ayant bouleversé notre rapport à la nourriture dans les années 70, a changé notre lien à la mode. Pour Serge Carreira, professeur de marketing luxe et mode à Sciences Po à Paris, "les marques de la "fast fashion" occupent les mêmes registres que les marques de luxe : des égéries, des grands photographes pour les campagnes publicitaires, des boutiques dans des emplacements stratégiques. La "fast fashion " est sortie du centre commercial pour gagner le centre-ville, répondant également à cette aspiration à la nouveauté et au bien-être des consommateurs, et rendant plus floue encore la frontière entre le "bas" et le "haut" de gamme»".

Plaisir

Et les clients sont les mêmes, qui passent d’une enseigne à l’autre ; cette versatilité récente est en partie due, selon Dana Thomas, au fait que les marques chic rognent de plus en plus sur la qualité. Dès lors, pourquoi leur être fidèles ? "Si arborer telle ou telle griffe est toujours le signe d’un statut social précis," poursuit Serge Carreira, "les clients se sont affranchis de la contrainte de loyauté, surtout s’ils considèrent que le prix à payer n’est pas en rapport avec le plaisir qu’ils en retirent." Et cela, Topshop, H & M, mais aussi les Espagnols Inditex (Zara, Bershka) et Mango l’ont bien compris. Ils savent qu’à cette faune de consommateurs affamés, il faut offrir beaucoup, et souvent. A défaut du luxe des matières, ce sera le luxe des nouveautés qui arrivent chaque semaine en petites quantités, pour donner à chaque acheteur l’impression d’exclusivité ; pour lui donner aussi de quoi participer à l’amusement des coquets mondains - le grand mélange. En terrasse de chez Julien, le restaurant parisien où les fashionistas se claquent moult baisers, il est d’usage de porter une chemise Paul Smith sous un blouson Mango, un jean Cheap Monday et un sac Stéphane Verdino - et si possible faire en sorte que ça ne se devine pas, même si la devinette fait partie du jeu. "Magnifique ta veste ! Une Prada ? Une Margiela ?" Dans le brouhaha qui entoure les défilés de mode, ce genre de question revient fréquemment puisque, plus que le show stricto sensu, le meilleur spectacle est encore de s’observer les uns les autres. La réponse, hier aisée (soit Prada, soit Margiela), devient ardue, surtout quand le curieux s’entend répondre par une quille fière comme un coq : "Non, c’est une Zara." (ou une H & M, ou une Mango).

Conglomérats

Ce flou est aussi géographique. A New York, l’inauguration du premier magasin américain de Topshop, le groupe anglais avec lequel collabore Kate Moss, est annoncée pour l’automne en plein Soho, à cent pas des grands noms du prêt-à-porter. Sur les Champs-Elysées, la boutique géante Vuitton n’est qu’à quelques centaines de mètres des magasins Gap ou Adidas. Et dans le Marais devrait ouvrir à l’automne, non loin de Zadig & Voltaire et de l’Eclaireur, une nouvelle enseigne de H & M baptisée COS ("Collection of Style"), plus stylée, plus chic et plus chère.

Outre Karl Lagerfeld, H & M fit travailler Viktor & Rolf, Roberto Cavalli et Stella McCartney. Cette dernière, dont la griffe appartient à PPR, collabore aussi avec Adidas. Une traîtresse à la cause luxe ? "Pas du tout," explique-t-elle. "C’est qu’à force d’entendre des femmes me dirent qu’elles adoraient ma mode mais ne pouvaient se l’offrir, j’ai eu envie d’aller vers elles." Une sorte d’hameçon qui conduira un jour, qui sait, ces femmes vers Stella McCartney la "vraie" marque, bien plus chère.

Ainsi s’organisent les flux de la pyramide : ceux d’en bas cherchent à «monter en gamme» quand ceux d’en haut veulent «descendre» à la recherche du plus grand nombre de clients. A l’époque - disons à la fin du siècle dernier - où de vieilles maisons sont passées sous la coupe de conglomérats tels LVMH ou PPR, la mode est devenue affaire de financiers. Au même moment, l’aspiration au luxe a saisi des pays comme la Chine, l’Inde et le Moyen Orient, alors que dans l’Union européenne des Vingt-Sept, le premier marché de l’habillement au monde - avec 308 milliards d’euros en 2006, devant les Etats-Unis et l’Asie -, se multipliait les désirs de mode. Pour satisfaire la demande et augmenter leur chiffre, les financiers ont changé de vitesse, copié les cycles de la "fast fashion." Oubliée l’ère où les maisons ne proposaient que deux collections par an ; désormais, entre les précollections, les collections, les «flashs» et les "croisières", c’est six à huit nouvelles gammes dans l’année qui se télescopent ; sans compter les déclinaisons plus abordables, ces lignes "bis" aux prix moins élevés - Etoile pour Isabel Marant, McQ pour Alexander McQueen, D & G pour Dolce & Gabbana, Just Cavalli pour Cavalli, etc.

L’équation impossible

Tout à leur frénésie, des marques haut de gamme sont parfois allées trop loin : trousses de toilette en nylon, jeans, tee-shirts siglés.
Quelques-unes redressent aujourd’hui la barre, ayant compris que "la stratégie de vulgarisation avait ses limites", comme l’explique Serge Carreira : "L’exemple de Dior est remarquable ; ses dirigeants sont revenus aux codes initiaux du luxe : pérenniser l’enseigne plutôt que la galvauder avec des produits inadéquats comme les fameux tee-shirts "J’adore Dior" qui avaient envahi les rues." Vendre en masse tout en restant rare, cher et enviable : une équation impossible.

Entre luxe et "fast fashion", les consommateurs joueront à coup sûr le rôle d’arbitre. Selon l’institut de sondage Nielsen qui a demandé à 25 000 personnes dans 48 pays d’élire la marque le plus désirable si l’argent n’était pas un problème (premier Gucci, deuxième Chanel, troisième Calvin Klein), ce sont les pays où l’opulence est récente (Emirats arabes, Amérique latine, Asie) qui sont les plus sensibles au luxe comme marqueur d’ascension sociale. Aux Etats-Unis, en revanche, ces marques-là ne font plus partie du rêve américain : 35 % des sondés n’achèteraient rien, même avec un portefeuille bien garni. Un début de consommation responsable ? Un retour au "No Logo" de Naomi Klein ? Ont déjà énormément de succès le troc, l’achat sur Internet ou les marques équitables, qu’elles produisent bio ou qu’elles aient une solide éthique, comme American Apparel avec ses prix élevés mais ses travailleurs - californiens - bien payés. Qui sait si demain, hormis les irrécupérables qui continueront à dépenser follement, le système ne s’effondrera pas ? Un autre édifice naîtra alors, qu’on contemplera en jupette, toge et sandales, au pied de la pyramide.

(1) "Luxe § Co, comment les marques ont tué le luxe" de Dana Thomas, éditions les Arènes 2008.

Accès direct à l'article ici.

08.12.2008
Zero Anon

This work by Zero Anon is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Life is going to be a bit more of a roller coaster, after December this year.

Technorati Tags: buddha, liberation, office, politics, train, peak, immune