Monday, April 13, 2015

EVOLUTION: A Terrorist's Idea

An interesting perspective of terrorism in a modern world.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

She Isn't Skinny, She Is Sheik

Models are models and depending upon the desired model, they get traded in for different models, but it is still the same brand of Just that some are more expensive than others.

A Danish magazine has apologised for featuring an underweight teenage model in its latest issue.

Fashion magazine Cover this week published an image of 16-year-old model Lululeika Ravn Liep, which came under fire because the model appeared dangerously thin.

The hashtag #covergate took off on social media and spread quickly across the world after thousands joined a Reddit thread- Corpse or model?- to express outrage.

The magazine's founder Malene Malling made the following apology on Facebook, as reported by The Gloss:

"I have not lived up to my responsibility as a publisher, woman and mother and am truly sorry. At Cover we have, in all the years, worked to show an expanded beauty ideal, to show that you can be beautiful in various ages and various sizes. We have always sought to work with healthy girls. Just two months ago we had plus-size model Diana Graham on the front of the Cover, so it is certainly a subject we focus on."

Malling also told TV2 it was a "huge mistake" and the photo "should not have been published".

A Danish politician, the tax minister Benny Englebrecht, even jumped into the debate.

He wrote on Twitter "I seriously thought that the fashion industry had understood that anorexia is a problem that should be taken seriously," according to Danish news site The Local.

The model's agency Scoop, the Daily Mail reported, said the teenager was "in a bad time in her life after losing two members of her family... So we ask that all comments are made ​​with respect and without calling [her] sick, because it is not."

Cover magazine photo shoot in question.

Thursday, February 19, 2015






Monday, January 26, 2015


 HRH  The Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh who has been previously known as HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, HRH Sir Philip Mountbatten, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.

The Prince's full style is:
His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich, Royal Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Extra Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Grand Master and First and Principal Knight Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Additional Member of the Order of New Zealand, Extra Companion of the Queen's Service Order, Royal Chief of the Order of Logohu, Extraordinary Companion of the Order of Canada, Extraordinary Commander of the Order of Military Merit,[3] Canadian Forces Decoration, Lord of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Privy Councillor of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Personal Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty, Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom*

Now we can add Knight of Australia.

In the interests of community relations one Australian newspaper journalist has shortened his style to

 and his wise sayings:

    “The bastards murdered half my family.”  In 1967, speaking about the Russians.
    “If it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.” Said to a 1986 meeting of the World Wildlife Fund.

    “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?” Question to a Scottish driving instructor in 1995.

    “Do you still throw spears at each other?” Speaking to Aboriginal leader Ivan Brim in Cairns in 2002.

    “You managed not to get eaten then?” Question to a British student who had been trekking on the Kokoda Trail in Papua New Guinea in 1998.

    “Well, you’ll never fly in it, you’re too fat to be an astronaut.” Said to a 13-year-old while visiting the NOVA space craft at the University of Salford in Manchester in 2001.

    “Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed.” Commentary on the deep recession in Britain in the 1980s.

    “You are a women, aren’t you?” To a gift-bearing native in Kenya in 1984.

    “If it doesn’t fart or eat hay, she is not interested.” On Princess Anne’s love of horses.
    Oh no, I might catch some ghastly disease.” When asked to pat a koala in Australia in 1992.

    “If you stay here much longer, you’ll all be slitty-eyed.” Comment to British exchange students in Beijing in 1986.

    “What do you gargle with? Pebbles?” To Tom Jones after a Royal Variety Performance.

    In 1969 the duke was said to have annoyed Tom Jones after the Royal Variety Performance by asking: "What do you gargle with, pebbles?" He added the following day: "It is very difficult at all to see how it is possible to become immensely valuable by singing what I think are the most hideous songs."

    Yet some remarks may have been considered less controversial. Thirty years ago, Prince Philip said at a private lunch that he thought Adam Faith's singing was like bath water going down a plug hole.

    “Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf.” Talking to young deaf people in Wales about a steel band recital in 1999.

    “Do you know they have eating-dogs for the anorexic now?” Sharing a joke with a blind, wheelchair-bound woman accompanied by a guide dog in 2002.

    “It looks as if it was put in by an Indian.”Describing a fuse box at a factory in Scotland in 1999.

    And reported at News Limted Online

    To a tourist in Budapest: “You can’t have been here long, you haven’t got a pot belly.”

    At a party in 2004: “Bugger the table plan, give me my dinner!”

    To a nursing home resident in a wheelchair: “Do people trip over you?”

    To a penniless student: “Why don’t you go and live in a hostel to save cash?”

    On women in general: “I don’t think a prostitute is more moral than a wife, but they are doing the same thing.”

    * Wikipedia

    Tuesday, December 23, 2014



    A blinding flash of light – a blasting wind – and fallout. Consider, for a moment, the awful possibility that your hometown was forever wiped out. Can you imagine what future generations might find?

    Has it occurred to you that our noblest buildings today are scarcely more than facades supported by thin tendons of steel?

    Even with no disaster, our main cities would be little more than rubble in a thousand years. Our motorways would be crumpled pieces of hardness beneath vegetation. Our once complex railway network would be red dust blowing in the wind.

    Make no mistake about it. Few house chattels would survive the corrosion of time. Generally, paper books cannot last more than a few centuries (hence the need to recopy).Plastics will eventually disintegrate when exposed for long periods outside. The same goes for everything metallic.Yes, that’s right. Hair dryers, automobiles and carpets would be reduced to dust, along with photographic plates and film.

    What is more, all iron and steel buildings would rust and crumble to earth. Nothing would be left except a few stone structures downtown and maybe a few statues.Stone is the only indestructible material; it will survive a dead civilization. Isn’t it ironic? Nature allows dressed blocks of stone to survive, but not thick iron girders.Probably there would not be one item left in the suburbs to show that they even existed—except for the odd stone axe-head.In the event of a total catastrophe, the survivors would be driven to the countryside, to live primitively.They might, for a time, be able to salvage and use certain elements of their civilized technology.Eventually the last machine would break down, with nobody remembering how to repair it. The transistors, toasters and x-ray machines, though revered, would be useless.To the grandchildren and their descendants they would become legends.

    The "magic mirror" that could see events far away; the metal bird that could fly above the clouds; the room that could move up and down inside big houses — these would become "magical" myths of a people whose survival instinct would direct them back into the rapidly encroaching forests.Archaeologists 4,000 years later could claim that 21st century man was not yet familiar with iron.(If they found cassettes with tapes, these would be a meaningless puzzle to them.) What do you think of that?Texts speaking of gigantic cities with houses several hundred feet high would be classed as myths.Do you begin to see the picture? It is this very situation of meagre clues that confronts us in relation to the original super world.I can think of four reasons for this.


    Numerous ancient cities now lie below ground level; many are covered by desert sands or swallowed by dense jungle; while others still may lie intact under the mile-deep ice of Antarctica.

    On the other hand, exposed remains can disappear so fast. Take, for example, the 4,000-year-old ruins of iahuanaco, in Bolivia.As recently as the 16th century there still stood immense walls with massive rivets of silver in the stonework as well as lifelike statues of men and women in a thousand animated poses.

    Even until last century, travellers could admire and sketch imposing colonnades.Of these there is no trace today. The Spaniards and more recently the Bolivian government plundered them for building materials.

    Again, many scale replicas of ancient apparatuses probably perished when the Spanish conquistadors melted down all the gold artifacts they could find in Central and South America.The scale of destruction over the centuries will never be known.


    The destruction of printed records has been much greater than 
    was originally thought.

    The great library of Alexandria once contained one million volumes in which the entire science, philosophy and mysteries of the ancient world were recorded (including a complete catalogue of authors in 120 volumes, with a brief biography of each author).

    In a single act of vandalism, Julius Caesar destroyed 700,000 priceless scrolls.In the seventh century, the Arabs completed the wipeout. Do you know how they did it? They used the books as a fuel supply to heat the city’s 400 public baths for six months.

    Totally destroyed also were the papyri of the library of Ptah in Memphis.Carthage, with a library of 500,000 volumes, was razed in a seventeen-day fire by the Romans in 146 B.C.

    The library of Pergamos in Asia Minor (with 200,000 volumes) likewise perished.When the famous collection of Pisistratus in Athens was wiped out (in the 6th century), surprisingly Homer’s writings escaped.

    In the 8th century, Leo Isaurus burned 300,000 books in Constantinople.In China, Emperor Tam Shi Hwang-ti issued an edict (213 B.C.) to destroy innumerable books.Thousands of Druidic scrolls in Autun, France, on philosophy, medicine, astronomy and other sciences, were obliterated by Julius Caesar. Not one survived.Much classical literature was systematically destroyed by the papal Inquisition.

    Spanish conquerors searched out and destroyed the entire Mayan literature (except for four documents now in European museums).It was related that Mayan scholars screamed in agony as they saw their life’s purpose go up in flames. Some committed suicide.The Council of Lima (1583) decreed the burning of the knotted cords ("quipas") on which the Incas had recorded their history and that of their predecessors.What a story of carnage, in which the greatest 
    depositories of knowledge from the ancient world are lost forever!

    (Yet somehow the Indian books escaped.)

    Did you know that even of the Greek and Roman literature, less than 1 percent has come down to us? Is it any wonder we are ignorant of our early heritage?

    I agree with Andrew Tomas that "we have to depend on disconnected fragments, casual passages and meagre accounts."Our distant past is a vacuum filled at random with tablets, parchments, statues, paintings and various artifacts."The history of science would appear totally different were the book collection of Alexandria intact today."


    Undeciphered still are writings at Easter Island, tablets at Mohenjo-Daro in Pakistan, and Mayan scripts. Some finds will remain unsolved forever.There are no inscriptions awaiting us at Tiahuanaco or Machu Picchu.Then there are many museum relics, whose significance may have eluded us.A methodical reexamination of pieces labelled "art objects," "cult objects" and "unidentified objects" would yield much new data.So would a systematic exploration of museum vaults.

    It is a well-known fact that museums are in the habit of "burying" objects that do not coincide with current theories, or that are not beautiful to look at.The vaults of the Smithsonian Institution and the Museum of Prehistory of Saint Germain-en-Laye are full of crates of incomprehensible objects that nobody is studying.Could it be that many objects we have discovered had a purpose that we do not yet understand? The ancients may have achieved results similar to ours by quite different processes.

    (For instance, look at what happened to German technology.It diverged tremendously from that of other countries in just twelve years, from 1933 to 1945, when Germany was progressively isolated from the rest of the world.) Then again, is it possible that some of the antedeluvian artifacts we have found cannot yet be identified, simply because they are ahead of our technology?

    A point to remember. As any technology advances, its methods and equipment do not become more complex; they become simplified.(Take, for example, printed circuits, silicon chips. Nano technology.)Such equipment may not be recognizable to a civilization of inferior knowledge.The point is we may be looking at objects—quite exciting objects—without recognizing them.Who would have expected that items in Baghdad Museum, long labelled as "ritual objects," would prove to be components of batteries? Do you see what I mean?


    Here is a tantalizing thought. Some authentic and incredibly ancient documents are known to be safely locked away. We may never see them.These forbidden treasures are known to be concealed in four places:

    1. Catacombs beneath the Potala in Llasa, Tibet

    2. Vaults in the Vatican Library, to which even the pope does not have access

    3. Morocco, where Moslem leaders are fiercely opposed to making them public

    4. A secret place known to a few initiated rabbis (believed to be in Spain)

    But this is not all. There must be numerous lost cities undiscovered.Hold it, I hear you say. That’s overdoing things, isn’t it? An occasional ruin, maybe, but numerous lost cities? There aren’t any unknown areas in this day and age!On the contrary, there are many totally unexplored areas left about.Quite a lot of things occur in out-of-the-way corners of the world—and some not so out-of-the-way—that most persons never hear of.Still not explored from the ground are immense expanses of the interior of Central and South America, New Guinea, Asia and Australia.

    Although Europeans have lived and worked in India for some centuries, building bridges, railways and modern cities, the jungles have scarcely been investigated.There are remote villages that have never seen a white man.

    In the trackless Central Australian desert, a structure from an unknown civilization was discovered when vehicles from a nearby atomic test site drove into it purely by accident.

    The largest unexplored jungle area in the world is the Amazon Basin. This region is so little known that a river tributary 200 miles long was only recently discovered —and then only by satellite.

    The Amazon system comprises 50,000 miles of navigable "trunk rivers" and an estimated 16,000 tributaries.The jungle on each side of the rivers is almost totally impenetrable, at least for a European.I know of settlers who have lived on riverbank clearings for forty years and never ventured more than a mile back into the jungle.

    The Amazon contains some of the most solid jungles and hostile environments to be found anywhere.Surprisingly, this now mysterious region was once the center of a very intense and highly active population.Large cities flourished here, with high volume commercial traffic to the Andes.Despite satellite technology, we face almost insurmountable problems in locating any remains.A pilot over the Amazon may spy towers, villages or ruins, pinpoint them and report them. A few days later, someone setting out to verify the data will find they have already 
    vanished—swallowed again by the jungle since that forest fire or whim of weather that exposed them.

    Karl Brugger mentions that the "Transamazonica spur of the road between Manaus and Barcellos on the lower Rio Negro, built in 1971, was overgrown by tropical vegetation within a year.

    "The technicians even had difficulties locating the approximate direction of the road. It is not surprising therefore that there are no more signs of 'white cities.'"Again, there are vast stretches where the fog never lifts, and in others it doesn’t clear until late afternoon.There is an area in Eastern Ecuador from which natives have been carrying out thousands of artifacts belonging to what they describe as giant pyramids and immense deserted cities.

    But don’t get carried away. This is a forbidden region; local Indians still massacre inquisitive outsiders.Intruders in the Matto Grosso region of Brazil can expect a similar welcome. Yes, believe it! Documented accounts are numerous.Once an entire patrol of 1,400 vanished in the jungle without trace.This trackless, unexplored "green hell" swallows visitors. The ruins clasp their secret.Think of it. Five thousand years ago (when our forefathers were supposed to be existing in caves or crude settlements) a highly advanced culture reached over the whole globe — from Siberia to Antarctica, from Greenland to Africa.

    This super world vanished so completely we thought it never existed.It is not unlikely a whole empire could disappear like this. The more advanced the culture, the more easily it could vanish without a trace.If it were so advanced, then its powers of destruction must also have been enormous.

    What an epic! The wonder is that despite wholesale obliteration of evidence, many thousands of pieces do survive — written records, oral traditions and physical remains.In one book alone (Dead Men's Secrets) I was able to catalogue about one thousand of the more interesting exhibits.Yet these can never be more than a tantalizing peep at this astonishing, unknown world, shrouded in opaque clouds of mystery.

    If you appetite is sizzling for another sampling of these amazing wonders of our past, could I suggest you visit

    Thursday, December 18, 2014

    The War on Drugs Celebration

    The War on Drugs Was Born 100 Years Ago

    • Reefer
    DECEMBER 17, 2014

    When I went to the Oxford Union debates this past summer I was told by a veteran of the debates that I must have a joke in order to win over the audience. My attempt to win over the British audience was a success, but unfortunately my opening remarks are too close to the truth and in retrospect, are really not that funny:
    Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to debate the War on Drugs in this forum. Mr. Chairman, as you probably know, the War on Drugs was not a response to calls from experts, it was not in response to recommendations from the medical community, or even the law enforcement community. Mr. Chairman, the War on Drugs was started by the agitation of racists, bigots, religious fanatics, believers in eugenics, extremist politicians, and power hungry diplomats. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the average ordinary American.
    The War on Drugs was initiated by legislation that was passed not to help drug addicts and protect the innocent, but rather was designed to control and marginalize minority groups and to push the United States into a leadership role in world diplomatic affairs.
    The War on Drugs is 100 years old today. It kills thousands of people, destroys untold number of lives, and wastes hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Plus it prevents us from using three of the most miraculous plants on the planet, even for their “legitimate” uses.

    The Harrison Narcotics Act

    As written, the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 was legislation that established a tax and registration requirement on narcotics and cocaine. Politicians and journalists openly targeted Chinese immigrants, Southern blacks, and Mexicans with outrageous propaganda. The real priority of the legislation, however, was to comply with the first international drug control treaty, the International Opium Convention of 1912.
    As implemented, the legislation quickly evolved into an outright prohibition. Enforcement bureaucrats argued that doctors prescribing narcotics for drug addiction was an illegitimate medical practice. The courts ruled in their favor and addict-maintenance medical practices and addiction clinics were forced to close.
    Marijuana prohibition went national with the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. It too quickly changed from a measure to tax and regulate into an outright prohibition. Even hemp, the non-intoxicating form of cannabis was banned! When propaganda claiming that marijuana was deadly and caused insanity, violence, and criminal behavior was debunked (aka Reefer Madness), the “gateway theory” was born to fill the void. The gateway theory posits that while marijuana might not be addictive or dangerous, it would lead the user to try the hard drugs, such as heroin. This theory became the prevailing view in the second half of the twentieth century.

    Prohibition Encourages Drug Abuse

    In my dissertation, I showed that the gateway theory did not explain the movement toward harder drugs. This research was subsequently published in The Economics of Prohibition. I showed that it was actually prohibition enforcement itself that created incentives for suppliers to make drugs more potent e.g., more potent marijuana, and to switch to more potent drug types e.g., smuggling cocaine instead of marijuana.
    It was the case that the markets for narcotics, cocaine, and marijuana had problems and concerns, but as Mises Institute Summer Fellow Audrey Redford has shown, it was also the case that these markets were already impacted by numerous state and local regulations and prohibitions, by heavy tariffs, the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, and by a host of state and local alcohol prohibitions and restrictions.
    What history does reveal is that the initial legislation that became the War of Drugs was clearly the result of bigotry and the desire to suppress minorities, and the desire to become a big player in world diplomatic affairs, not a desire to help drug addicts.
    What has the War on Drugs accomplished? It has not reduced access to illegal drugs. It has not reduced illegal drug use or abuse. It has not reduced the rate of addiction. If anything, the rates of use, abuse, and addiction have increased over the past century. Prison population statistics clearly indicate that it has been used to suppress minorities.
    It has also greatly increased the powers of law enforcement and the legal system and reduced the legal rights and protections of citizens under the tradition of the rule of law. It has greatly increased the militarization of the police and the use of the military in police work. It has also led to a significant increase in US political and military intervention in foreign nations, particularly in the drug supply nations of Central and South America.
    The direct problems caused by the War on Drugs are too numerous to list, but they include crime, corruption, and violence of the black market. Indeed it is the number one cause of crime, corruption, and violence in the United States, as well as many of countries of Central and South America.

    Scaling Back the War on Drugs

    However, as we pass this miserable milestone, there is great cause for optimism. There is a rising ideological tide against the War on Drugs. Medical marijuana legalization has been passed in twenty states, recreational marijuana has been passed in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and the District of Columbia, several states and cities have decriminalized marijuana so that the majority of Americans can no longer be put in prison for marijuana consumption.
    Demographically, this rising tide is even stronger because only the Silent Generation (ages 69 to 86) strongly supports marijuana prohibition and they are dying off. More generally the “social mood” continues to move in the favorable direction from “government is the solution” to “government is the problem.” This positive change in ideology also seems to be improving in Central and South America, Europe, and elsewhere.
    The fact that more people see the solution for the drug addict as not illegal markets, high prices, and the threat of imprisonment, but in education, medical treatment, counseling, and social pressures means that it is possible that we could see the entire War on Drugs ended in our lifetimes.
    Image source: image - Image from Reefer Madness (1936).

    Note: The views expressed on are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

    Is God a Libertarian?

    Is God a Libertarian?
    How the Bible Established a Country Without an Executive Branch


    Ancient Egypt
    Many Christian writers on economics claim that the Bible endorses neither capitalism nor socialism. They cut off the heads of both systems and install their own, often referred to as a “third way,” in which they scavenge through the carcasses for the best parts of each and stitch them together into a new creature. Unfortunately, the creature resembles an economic Frankenstein more than the good doctors care to admit.

    Economic systems are nothing but laws concerning how people relate to each other about property. No society has ever existed without an economic system because the things we depend upon to survive are scarce, especially food, clothing, housing, and the land and resources needed to produce them. They are not like the air, of which everyone can have as much as they need. Because the necessities and pleasures of life are scarce, someone has to decide who controls them and uses them.

    The form of government and the laws regarding property determine the economic system. God has declared in the Torah the government and economic system he prefers. What God prefers is also what is best for mankind. It will not only encourage godliness and peace, but economic prosperity as well.
    The most striking thing about the Torah government is the degree to which it differs from that of ancient Egypt. Moses was raised in the pharaonic school and enjoyed an education in the Egyptian wisdom that awed the Greeks. The children of the pharaoh, nobility, and foreign vassals attended the boarding school that trained them in the knowledge and skills needed to run the country in the future while indoctrinating them in the worship of the pharaoh and Egyptian philosophy. The curriculum included reading and writing in the Egyptian language and Babylonian cuneiform, mathematics, music, and military strategy. It’s likely that Moses lived and went to school with the pharaoh who reigned during the exodus and died in the Red Sea.

    Egypt was a theocratic dictatorship. Pharaoh was not only king but a god and the single representative on earth of all the gods. He owned all of the wealth of Egypt, though he allowed citizens to use it. The bureaucracy was overbearing and expensive, as might be expected for projects as massive as the building of the pyramids. Today, the nation most like ancient Egypt might be North Korea where the supreme leader is virtually worshiped.

    Moses could have taken advantage of his training to create the Israeli government in the image of Egypt. But, Israel couldn’t have been more different. It had no king, pharaoh, Caesar, president, nor dictator. In other words, it had no executive branch except during war when the judges acted as supreme commander of the volunteer army. After the army had achieved victory, that leader usually became the chief justice and the army disbanded.

    When there was no prime minister, and there were no bureaucracies, cabinet heads, or ministers of trade, roads, defense, agriculture, health, environment or the hundreds of other agencies that multiply and clog the machinery of modern governments. Israel had no standing army, police, pentagon, FBI, ATF, NSA, CIA or any other of the alphabet soups of agencies. So Israelis didn’t pay taxes to fund an oppressive executive branch as did ancient Egyptians and US citizens today. Family members performed the police work of catching criminals while service in the military was voluntary, except for peer and family pressure.

    The Israel created by God had no legislature. Egypt’s legislative powers resided with the pharaoh as a god. God retained Israel’s legislative authority and only he could make or change laws. He gave the first law to Moses on Mount Sinai and again after the 40 years of wilderness wanderings just before Moses died and Joshua led the nation to conquer Canaan. The second issue of the law contained some minor additions and changes to the first, but from that point on no man could add to or subtract from the law. Moses needed to be a prophet as well as a judge in order for God to give Israel his laws, but he was unique even in that respect because no other prophet in Israel’s history added to the God-given law. One of the most important jobs of the priesthood was to teach the people God’s laws.