[the soothsayer] and the greed of the senators

A certain curmudgeonly soothsayer was known for his crazy predictions which caused all and sundry to label him as mad.

Day after day, he could be found on the steps of the Senate and as Senators climbed the steps to the forum, the soothsayer would predict some dire thing or other which was sure to pass.

“Oh, Cashius Minimus,” he would say, “do not leave the city tomorrow for your wife will entertain one of your colleagues of the populist persuasion.”

Now the tall, spare Cashius, afflicted with his dandruff trouble, knew better than to physically rough up an old man on the steps of the Senate so he just grunted and went up to the forum, making a mental note to have his luscious wife watched, in order to prove the soothsayer wrong, to publicly label him a charlatan, a humbug.

Needless to say, his two henchmen had occasion, the next afternoon, to put both Cashius’ s wife and her lover to the sword, on their master’s express orders. When one of them brought the gory news to the steps of the Senate, the soothsayer could be heard cackling: “I told you so, I told you so.”

Yon Cashius kept his peace.

On another occasion, the egregious Maximus Flatulus, who had just been appointed princeps senatus and was surrounded on the steps by sycophantic admirers, was advised by the soothsayer that a plague of locusts was coming to devour all the produce in his fields east of the city.

He laughed the soothsayer to scorn, as nothing so ridiculous had ever happened in those parts before. In Egypt, maybe but here in the Golden City? And why only the east of the city anyway?

Flatulus swept past the crumpled old figure on the steps, pausing only to live up to his name and immediately put the matter out of mind. Needless to say, in three days time, a plague such as had never been seen swarmed through the countryside, eating everything in its path and leaving Flatulus stony broke and without either property or senatorial appointment.

...........

Now, it would be wrong to suggest that the soothsayer never took a break – he did – and his favourite place to meditate was close to the Tarpeian Rock. Being a soothsayer, of course, he knew beforehand that a group of very disgruntled landed gentlemen were approaching him from the Capitoline Hill and he could also glean their intentions.

“Welcome, kind sirs,” he croaked, as they gathered behind him in malevolent silence.

Flatulus spoke for all. “I suppose you know, Painus Arsus, why we are here?”

“Of course, your honours. You wish me to desist from my irritating predictions of doom and gloom. Otherwise you will throw me from the Tarpeian Rock.”

A wicked gleam sparkled in all eyes but Arsus went on. “However, that would be to your disadvantage, gentlemen,” he fawned. “I can predict wondrous things as well as evil. It’s just not as much fun, that's all.”

“Well start predicting now,” growled Hypocrises, who shouldn’t be in this tale anyway but these things happen.

“Well, your lordships,” murmured the gnarled and balding Arsus, standing and facing them both bravely and obsequiously, from long practice, “if you were willing to lay down the most valuable things you possess, one item apiece and if you were to return to the Senate henceforth, riches beyond your wildest dreams await you there.”

The landed gentry looked from one to the other. They’d actually come to end the life of this pestilential creature before them but business is business and each, in turn, laid the most precious possession he happened to be carrying before the soothsayer – a few aureii here, a few sistertii there, a picture of Arnius Gropus’s concubine, a season ticket to the corporate box at the Colissei, until the social isolate with the protruding front teeth, Flagellus Logus, was the last.

“I … er .. came out without my wallet, I’m afraid,” he shuffled awkwardly in the dust.

“Never mind,” replied Arsus. “Each will be rewarded in kind.”

With that, he stood aside, as a herd of wilderbeast came charging at the cliff, taking the Senators with them over the edge in one fell swoop, arms flailing and togas failing to act sufficiently parachutie to prevent their untimely deaths on the jagged rocks below.

Arsus nodded, gathered the booty into one toga which had got caught on a sharp boulder, then made his long, painstaking way back to the Senate steps, stumbling here, dropping a note to Mondo Lecherus there, a note from a fellow Senator’s wife for an assignation that night but now he had no need for such youthful diversions; he was a rich man and within two weeks he was appointed princeps senatus, a title he graciously accepted, before trading it in for an Emperorship and the Divine right to rule.

But that’s another story.


This cautionary tale is dedicated to Jams O'Donnell [but does not refer to him]. :)

[memorable lines] actor and film

For five points - the actors. For the other five points - the films.

1. "I vont to be alone."

2. "Where's the rest of me?"

3. "Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

4. "You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off !"

5. "Speak English to me, I thought this country spawned the f---in' language and so far nobody seems to speak it."

Answers

Greta Garbo, Grand Hotel; Ronald Reagan, King's Row; Peter Sellers, Dr. Strangelove; Michael Caine, The Italian Job; Dennis Farina, Snatch

[greenbacks] will gordon issue a uk version

In 1862, the bankers secured the passage of an Act which provided for the issue and circulation of private bank notes of a less denomination than $5.00 in the District of Columbia. On June 23rd, 1862, Lincoln exercised his power to veto the Bill:

"This bill seems to contemplate no end which cannot be otherwise more certainly and beneficially attained. During the existing war it is peculiarly the duty of the National Government to secure to the people a sound circulating medium. This duty has been, under existing circumstances, satisfactorily performed, in part at least, by authorizing the issue of United States notes, receivable for all government dues except customs, and made a legal tender for all debts, public and private, except interest on public debt.

…Entertaining these objections to the bill, I feel myself constrained to withhold from it my approval, and return it for the further consideration and action of Congress. [Abraham Lincoln, June 23, 1862.]

Lincoln backed the greenback to counter the bankers and in his letter to Colonel E.D. Taylor says:

"...we finally accomplished it, and gave to the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they ever had ...It is due to you, (Col. Taylor) the father of the present greenback, that the people should know it, and I take great pleasure in making it known..."

The problem was in the codicil:

"This note is legal tender for all debts public and private... except duties on imports and interest on the public debt…"

Near the end of his term, Lincoln was despairing of having lost the battle with the financiers:

"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . . It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.

As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless." [letter from Lincoln to Col. Wm. F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.]

… whilst Europe was despairing of the greenbacks policy:

"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." [Hazard Circular - London Times 1865]

The idea of a National Currency controlled by the government itself remained persistent for a long time. In response to the 1877 riots, the American Bankers Association secretary James Buel wrote:

"It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money.

To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your congressman at once and engage him to support our interest that we may control legislation."

Now let’s cut to 1963, with:

Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289

AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-

By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):

(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption

and --

By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made. [John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4, 1963]

Executive Order 11,110 called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than through the traditional Federal Reserve System.

From The Final Call, Vol. 15, No.6, On January 17, 1996

U.S. notes were fiat money but free of interest, not based on debt and not monopolistic. Federal Reserve notes are fiat money, not based on anything solid but on debt and the issuance is monopolistic. Lincoln and Kennedy were both killed.

Will Gordo be brave enough and love his people enough to issue a non-interest bearing currency which will secure his suffering people sustenance in their time of trouble?

[dealey plaza] eliminating disinformation

Click for zoom

Intro

I'd always been for the grassy knoll and the Dal-Tex building because of the man who'd been found in there during the shooting. Then I read a couple of quite cogent pieces on why Oswald could have done all three shots and now believed the One Gunman theory.

A glance at the map above and pics below shows that he could have made the shots but it would have been damned difficult from that window. Why wouldn't he have been from the window at the other end of the 6th floor [where witnesses said they saw someone anyway]?

The thing is, even expert investigators can't agree so the only thing is to go through it all again, viewing as much primary evidence as possible, e.g. Zapruder. I have to say, after last evening, that it now seems clearer.

You make your own judgements, after viewing this material:

Dealey Plaza and the Book Depository

Dealey plaza gif.
Dealey plaza shots [click on them for zoom].

Motorcade

Garrison appears to be wrong, as the maps were indeed printed with the correct route but the next day, the Morning News printed the wrong route yet again. The Times-Herald kept it as Elm right through:

Dallas Morning News Wednesday, November 20, 1963 ~ page 1

Yarborough Invited To Travel With JFK by Carl Freund

"A security car will lead the motorcade which will travel on Mockingbird Lane, Lemmon Avenue, Turtle Creek Boulevard, Cedar Springs, Harwood, Main and Stemmons Freeway."

Dallas Morning News.
Dallas Times-Herald.
Here is the description in the Dallas Morning News.
Here is the description in the Dallas Times-Herald.
Check parts 1 to 4 for the altered security arrangements.
Select Committee report [1979] on arrangements, inc. motorcade [104-106].

Notes: Obviously confusion over the route but by November 19th, it had been cleared up. Lack of security for Kennedy in that section quite unusual. Buildings not checked beforehand either.

The Assassination

Version 1, showing the two shots.

First time Zapruder was shown in 1975.

Closeup of the second head shot and Jackie Kennedy's reaction.

Notes: Some have stated the head goes forward a micro-second before going back. Some have said the bulge at the back of the head was painted onto the Zapruder film later. You decide if the head went back or forward as well as the angle of the shot. Also, there is some evidence the Zapruder film was doctored.

Why did Jacquie crawl back over the trunk? Check the right arm movement. Also the crack in the windscreen [not on film]. Check the Dealey Plaza map at the top of the post again. Work out what angle the bullet would have come in at.

Possible snipers

Badgeman.

The storm drain/sewer theory. This youtube no longer appears to be up. However, I found this wmv. Damn because the original vid showed a man actually taking the cover off and climbing down, then exiting from a place a hundred metres or so away. It was reenacted. In the wmv, the car's going way too fast - Kennedy's was almost stopped at the time after the first shot. The shot is difficult but possible from down low and easy enough if the cover had been taken off.

Notes: Also check Dealey Plaza map again. For Badgeman - it does seem a human head. Against - the angle seems wrong for where the limo was, past the Freeway sign. For - someone wrote that for Badgeman to have done that damage on JFK, the recoil of the weapon would have been too much. Badgeman seems to have fired [judging by police and crowd reaction] but perhaps not the fatal shot.

On the other hand, for Sewer Man, it would have been almost point blank, plus the angles match. I don't think he would have been half out of the manhole, as the film contends - he would have entered the same way as he exited - through the drain and fired through the gap at street level. It may have been that he was just the last resort shooter if all else failed.

Teague

Teague testimony.
Teague and the echoes.

Notes: Teague was certain hit by debris [check map again] and that indicates either a shot from the Dal-Tex or by Oswald [check Dealey Plaza pics again].

Witnesses

The Bell film, showing witnesses running up the grassy knoll.

Notes: This one is a puzzle. Over half said that the shots came from the TSBD but that includes people not near the grassy knoll. The crowd behaviour was strange. An anti-knoll theorist said that the crowd only ran up on to the knoll a full minute after the shooting and were following a policeman who'd arrived late and had run up there. I say, "Well?"

Look at it this way. If you were in that crowd and the shot that hit Kennedy seemed to come from behind and up [the TSBD], what would your reaction have been? Hit the deck? Hide behind a tree? Run away from the scene? If the shot had come from the grassy knoll or the drain, would you have run towards the gunman?

Also, look at the scene again. Some people are just walking on by, quite casually.

The security men

Here is driver Greer's view.
Here is Kellerman's statement.
Security man called away.

Conclusion: Oswald could well have fired the back of the neck shot, the Teague shot may have been from Oswald or Dal-Tex, the Connally shot I don't know, the windscreen I don't know, Sewer Man probably for the fatal shot but as the wmv shows, the side of the car is high and Kennedy was leaning slightly inwards.

The thing is, the shot had to have come from somewhere. The limo seemed to have passed Badgeman so it had to have come from somewhere front and side, and fairly low down. If we can't accept Sewer Man, then from somewhere else in the drain. The Moorman polaroid seems a bit early for the fatal shot.

Finally, any ideas why?

[december 21st] auspicious day

Today is December 21st, one of the two shortest days of the year. It was significant, in 1971, for another reason.

Richard Nixon's major priority, in late 1971, was that nothing occur to derail his re-election. He had come to Washington deeply suspicious of a Democrat dominated town of liberal tendencies and thus a siege mentality began to define the White House [according to Colson later].

Two very interesting themes came out which did not feature in the received wisdom about Watergate, but in the light of the release of classified documents, explain a lot. They're of interest today in the way they show the workings of the presidency and the oval office.

The Moorer-Radford spy ring

Nixon's secretive manner, the way he scrutinized things before acting on information [or not], the way he bi-passed his official utilities from the Secretary of State to the Joint Chiefs, even down to sending in warships on his own say so, can be taken two ways.

It meant that the military industrial complex Eisenhower had mentioned would now have little say in policy on major issues, except through their man Kissinger, a complex character in himself [click for a clearer view]:



On the other hand, almost like throwing a dog a bone, what these official organs did receive was a "backchannel", a way to indirectly access the President through Kissinger, whom many feared, even Nixon. Why such a man was kept on when he clearly made all and sundry uncomfortable is another story. For his part, Kissinger revealed, in Nixon, a man who shied away from disciplining subordinates or enemies but rather "getting something on them", to bring them into line:



These very "extraordinary procedures" convinced the Joint Chiefs of Staff that they were being circumvented:




So the JCSs set up a spy ring within the White House and in particular, within Kissinger's baby, the NSC, which had not been used since the Kennedy days but was a clear ploy to bring national policy firmly inside the purview of the White House itself.

The method was to use a naval yeoman, Radford, who acted as PA to Kissinger and Haig on foreign trips, to actually rifle through their briefcases and copy sensitive material of use to his military superiors. He was shocked when some of that material appeared in Jack Anderson's news column, high grade material at that and then more appeared over and over.

Nixon was incensed about Anderson in particular but when he heard about the spy ring itself, he reacted seemingly strangely. This is part of the transcript from the tape of the meeting on December 21st, 1971:

EHRLICHMAN: Well Bob, it doesn't happen that way of course. [INAUDIBLE] He says, "He stated that this practice began with Admiral Robinson, who instructed him to 'keep his eyes open.' The subject construed this to mean that he should furnish Admiral Robinson whatever information might be an advantage to support the liaison's office and the Admiral."

NIXON: Now, wait a minute. Now, wait a minute. [PAUSE] I'm suggesting that it was Moorer who must take responsibility for this Anderson's column. It's possible, right?

Later they discuss whom they can trust:

NIXON: I mean, uh, and particularly Henry. Henry is, uh, is not a good security risk.

MITCHELL: He's not a good security risk the way he runs that office.

NIXON: [INAUDIBLE] he stole . . . so indiscreetly. The main thing is that, the main thing is that, it's to me that reason that [POUNDING OF DESK WITH EACH WORD] He—had—to—know—that he was getting stuff from Kissinger's and Haig's briefcase. That—is—wrong! Understand? I'm just saying that's wrong. Do you agree?

MITCHELL: No question about it, that the whole concept of having this yeoman get into this affair and start to get this stuff into the Joint Chiefs of Staff is just like coming in and robbing your desk.

NIXON: Yes it is.

HALDEMAN: The thing that disgusts me about this is, if they'll do that—

NIXON: Yeah.

HALDEMAN: - What else are they doing?

EHRLICHMAN: You know, military drivers, military gals, military everything around here.

NIXON: Yup, yup, yup, yup.

HALDEMAN: Christ. We've all used this office. [INAUDIBLE]

One of the key chiefs, Welander, was brought in for questioning and he made a confession:



Rather than hit the key JCSs, Nixon decided to tread carefully and in particular, he didn't want Haig touched. There's been much speculation on Nixon's reaction, especially that his prime motivation was to keep the backchannel open:



Of even more interest was Haig's and Kissinger's relationship, given that Kissinger was the public hawk and Haig the dove:




The Watergate key

The general consensus accepted at the Senate hearings was that the burglars had gone in to wire tap and dig up the dirt on the Democrats for political advantage.

Another story which emerged but was never pursued, for some reason, stemmed from the point where the burglars were lined up along a wall with their hands on that wall and then the bugging equipment was found. The investigative officer noticed that one of them at the far end of the line, Martinez, kept moving his hand to his chest so many times that when the officer reached into his coat, he found this:



Much was made of the contents of the book but the key, surprisingly, did not feature al that much in subsequent testimony. In fact, the focus became how much Nixon knew and when but not on the burglary itself, which had enough holes in it to drive a bus through. It was too incompetent to be true.

The obvious question was:

"Why would a Watergate burglar have a key to a DNC secretary, Maxine Wells's desk in his possession and what items of possible interest to a Watergate burglar were maintained in Wells's locked desk drawer?"

Into this came a character called Bailley:

According to Silent Coup Bailley was eventually arrested and indicted for violations of the Mann Act (transporting under-age females across state lines for immoral purposes), extortion, blackmail, pandering, and procuring. As a result, Bailley's address books were seized. Silent Coup also notes that Maureen Biner's name appeared in Bailley's address books.

Maureen Biner was John Dean's wife:

The implication of Colodny and Gettlin's narrative is that the June 17, 1972, the Watergate break-in was ordered by Dean so that he could determine whether the Democrats had information linking Maureen Biner to the Bailley/Rikan call-girl ring and whether they planned to use such information to embarrass him.

Why would no one wish to pursue that line, apart form G Gordon Liddy? The allegation was that that key opened a desk at the DNC HQ and that inside that desk were the photos and contact details of girls, many underaged.

It's long been maintained by both pundits and leaks from the establishment that the higher echelons of Washington operate not unlike Salon Kitty was supposed to have, way beyond mere call girls and involving some very sick stuff. Now, if the DNC ran a show like that for visiting VIPs, would the GOP have been any different?

The effect on 1971 America would have been devastating, had that come out.

[resort quiz] five hours from london

There are many things to do at this resort

1. Hire a Playa de las Americas car and go exploring:

2. Visit Loro Parque, refuge for wildlife in danger;

3. Leave the heat of the coast and drive, drive, drive up above the clouds, like an aeroplane;

4. Visit one of the nearby islands;

5. Practise the language on the locals.

No free clues this time.

[reclaim democracy] before it's too late

Enough has been written about the enormous war going on behind the scenes. The latest skirmish is banning beach parties in Goa. It's quite clear that a massive and sustained assault is on, worldwide, to suppress people's freedom to speak, associate, to generally enjoy life.

Disillusioning us is a key ploy in all this and to repaint everything from festivities to history is straight out of the Goldstein handbook. Not to put too fine a point on it, we are being pushed around and dictated to. Aiding this has been, over two generations:

1. Driving wedges between people and their traditional support structures:

a. In the west, the Judaeo-Christian ethic, Calvinistic hard work, the notion of hope, faith and charity, tolerance of good and intolerance of evil, the concept of loyalty given and returned, even by an institution, leading to a sense of identity and self-worth and the concept of decency.

A generation ago, people were by no means saints but there was at least a basic notion of what was acceptable and not acceptable, morally and ethically;

b. The family, with its traditional constraints and loyalties, duty towards the extended family, the idea of remaining a virgin until marriage, the leadership and teaching role of parents towards the children, the early instilling of values so that later in life, the child is equipped to face the world;

c. The state as a support structure for the less fortunate and a facilitator and supporter of free enterprise, with a goal of near full employment and an affordable home for each family. The idea of a sane unit cost to income ratio, so that a house cost five years’ gross wage. The notion of the state as our elected representatives who do our will;

d. Private property that one could work towards all one’s life, build up, enjoy in old age and then will to one’s family. The concept of inheritance from generation to generation;

e. A willingness to at least tolerate the other sex to the point where one compromised and showed respect, mostly, where one remained with one’s partner and worked out the problems, for the sake of the investment in family and in one’s children. Absence of misogyny and misandry for the most part;

The concept of chivalry, not to the point of knights on horseback and whiter than white damsels but in little things like giving up one’s seat, opening the door for the other and above all … listening to the other and trying to find common ground;

f. A sense of pleasure and joy in everyday pursuits, rather than a fear of losing everything, mass unemployment, mindless serfdom and disillusionment.

2. Gradually placing people in key positions in education, medicine, law, politics and the arts who would promote the restructuring of society, over two generations, to one such as we have today, where people are disenfranchised, dispossessed, disillusioned and anxious, less able to adequately cope, withdrawing back into the self and becoming infantilized and accepting of the nanny state.

And the blackest joke was that these people truly believed, were led to believe that they were promoting noble values and a fairer society.

3. Rewriting history so that the traditionally revered personages are now questioned, reviled in some cases and at the least, marginalized … and all for a political agenda. Re-educating the population to accept the new status quo.

4. Slowly tightening the noose and criminalizing the common man by the introduction of a plethora of new legislation and codicils to the point where it is almost impossible not to transgress. Removing the right to think for oneself and to self-determination, on the grounds that it is illegal. Creating a “checkpoint and militarized” atmosphere, accustoming people to the sight of armed officers herding them into this place or that.

5. Provoking a Franz Ferdinand incident at intervals to increase the command and control, the reduction of people to serfdom and creating the preconditions for war, the state of affairs desired by the state.

Fighting back

Through a combination of self-interest, the survival instinct and sheer weariness, people are just not going to combine to prevent the above process. Most of us are extremely slow to get off our butts and do anything vaguely political. We're just not interested.

Most of the above has already taken place anyway and a good test of this is how far people would disagree with the ideas in Point 1 above.

Two generations ago, they would have been the norm, the way people thought and felt. It would ahve been unnecessary to even mention them.

There are ways to fight back without ending up on a table with electrodes:

1. Silent disobedience, Gandhi like and putting a spoke in the wheel of state in little ways. If enough people do this, then the state becomes unworkable;

2. Creation of groups and solidarity, e.g. Lech Wałęsa in Poland;

3. Revolution – a last resort when all else has failed [just don't be a ringleader].

A small start is:

Roots - reclaim Europe

I'll add others as they come to hand. The thing is, if we don't act now, it really will be too late to prevent this process. Already they have removed the mechanism for change, for example, in Britain, where the only legal right of the people is to throw out Brown and put in a Blair clone. Here too.

That ain't democracy in my book.

[the host] synthesis of fragmented parts

Straight after watching The Host [2006] just now, South Korea's entry in the monster movie stakes, a film which which premiered at Cannes and was praised by North Korea, it was hard to evaluate. Some woeful acting, a 1950s production values monster, badder than bad baddies ... and yet ... and yet ...

Now, some hours further along, I'd like to post on it. First off, I realize I was wrong about the monster. This sums it up better:

Said monster is an interesting looking creature. About the size of a small bus and tadpole shaped, it has two massive frog-like legs, a long, whip-like prehensile tail and a half-dozen other little tails jutting off it’s hulking body. It’s impressively designed and even more impressively rendered on computer.

So, to the film itself and this is one of the better statements I've been able to find:

The opening attack is sensationally well directed, and if the rest of the film never quickens the pulse in the same accelerated fashion, it does give the story both its principal excuse (the monster grabs the granddaughter) and something just as satisfying if unexpected: a portrait of parents, children and the ties that bind, sometimes to the point of near-strangulation.

“The Host” may be born out of sociopolitical tensions, scares about SARS and the avian flu, or Mr. Bong’s imagination, but it’s also a snapshot of a modern South Korea bordering on social anarchy, one in which a fatalistically obedient old-timer and his three preternaturally immature adult children face down a rampaging beast along with clueless doctors, Keystone Kops, faithless friends and even hordes of paparazzi.

That it's a mish-mash of themes is a bit harsh - better to use the word pot-pourri and you know, it really does have some endearing elements to it. It's hard to know what to make of the lead character, Korea-famous actor Song Kang-ho but he turns out to be a hero indeed, in his clumsy, yet resilient way.

Perhaps the show stealer is the grandaughter, child actress Ko Ah-seong, who is eaten and then regurgitated into a sewer by the monster who uses it as a larder for later use. She displays a fragile maturity and at the same time lacks that brashness of today's kid actors, which makes her believable.

There are some great images in the film. The point where Song Kang-ho escapes from the hospital where he was being lobotomized, only to actually step outside a trailer into a red cross area and with U.S. troops about to spray Agent Yellow was both surreal and chilling, reminiscent of the Manchurian Candidate. The rain sequence also stuck in the memory.

To draw the threads together and sum the film up in a few words, this is as good as any:

What separates The Host from the traditional monster movie is not only the thrilling, high-quality special effects, but the absolutely hilarious interactions of the Park family; Imagine a Korean version of The Royal Tenenbaums trapped by the love child of Godzilla and Alien, you have an initial idea of the delights to be found in The Host.

If you haven't seen it already and you get a chance, it is worth it.

[priorities] thinking straight

[special relationships] will oceania turn out to be the bloc of choice

You've obviously read this:

The government has sold its last remaining shares in the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire to an American company. The move means Britain no longer has any stake in the production of its Trident nuclear warheads.

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said:

"The whole argument used for Britain having a separate weapons establishment is that this is required by the non-proliferation treaty, as technology sharing is not allowed."

Is this such a horrendous move? After all, the UK does not act in the foreign theatres in an independent fashion. More often than not, it is through NATO and the special alliances. On the nuclear issue:

The Amsterdam Treaty states in Article J.7 that "The policy of the Union in accordance with this article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defense policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realized in NATO, under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework."

There is, in fact, a deep rivalry between the EU and NATO:

The lack of cooperation is evident in Brussels, where NATO and the EU have separate headquarters eight kilometers apart. On the military level, the two organizations have competing rapid reaction forces. They compete on foreign aid missions, sometimes racing each other to the destination. They maintain separate military planning headquarters. Taxpayers foot the double bill.

The countries at the center of this competition, analysts say, are Britain, which wants to preserve and strengthen NATO, and France, which wants the EU to grow into a more robust defense institution, independent of NATO.

The construction of NATO:

Originally consisting of 12 countries, the organisation expanded to include Greece and Turkey in 1952 and West Germany in 1955. However, then, as now, the alliance was militarily dominated by the United States.

In April, 2008:

President Bush advanced his plans Thursday to build a controversial missile defense shield in Eastern Europe by winning the unanimous backing of NATO allies and sealing a deal with the Czech Republic to build a radar facility for the system on its soil.

This set the cat among the pigeons - there is a souring of relations which manifested itself in the Poettering snub of President Klaus in the European Parliament and in the Declan Ganley matter. Europe is divided between the power bases of the EU itself, NATO and the U.S.A., a major player in its own right within European member states.

Digressing for the moment, it's old news that the EU parliament wants to silence dissenting voices but I also read, in the last few days, a proposal to prevent the UK from legally opting out of the European Union, should they wish to. I can't find corroboration anywhere for that one but it seems that 19 Labour MEPs plan to vote for that.

If that were so, it is yet more evidence that the socialistic EU is more than a little paranoid about Britain's further shift towards the U.S. - the warheads stake which opened this post is testimony to Britain's comfort in seeing U.S. strategic interests as not greatly different from our own.

Britain's ties to Europe are geographical and through the royal bloodlines but its ties to America are more "family like". Family members do fight but ultimately, when faced with a common foe, do close ranks. The U.S./British relationship has had its moments:

The United States put heavy pressure on the United Kingdom to dissolve its Empire, and this dissolution took place (due to post-war economic exhaustion, British public opinion and other factors, rather than U.S. pressure) in the 1947-1960 period.

... but it has ultimately stood firm. This special relationship has come under scrutiny on both sides of the Atlantic:

The U.K. International Development Secretary has recently proposed a change in the current relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. He accentuated on the need for "new alliances, based on common values". He was verbal against "unilateralism" and called for an "international" and a "multilateralist" approach to global problems.

... and:

In candid comments that will embarrass Mr Bush and Mr Blair, [Kendall Myers, a leading State Department adviser, suggested] America "ignored" Britain [on Iraq], and he urged Britain to decouple itself from the U.S. He asserted that the "special relationship", a term coined by Sir Winston Churchill in 1946, gave Britain little or nothing.

"It has been, from the very beginning, very one-sided. There never really has been a special relationship, or at least not one we've noticed." The result of the Iraq war would be that any future British premier would be much less cosy with Washington than Mr Blair had been, and the Prime Minister's much vaunted view that Britain was "a transatlantic bridge" was now redundant.

Mr Myers said Donald Rumsfeld's comment before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 that America could go it alone without Britain had been a clarifying moment.

It remains to be seen how non-President-elect Obama redefines the relationship but such comments as the above are era specific and the overall history has been one of strong economic and undoubted cultural ties between the two, when all is said and done.

It was probably no accident that in Orwell's 1984, the blocs were:

The novel does not render the world's full history to 1984. Winston's recollections, and what he reads in The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism by Emmanuel Goldstein, reveal that after World War II, the United Kingdom fell to civil war, becoming part of Oceania. Simultaneously, the Soviet Union encompassed mainland Europe, forming the nation of Eurasia.

The third super-state, Eastasia, comprises the east Asian countries around China and Japan. Mentioned also is an atomic war, fought mainly in Europe, western Russia, and North America. It is unclear what occurred first: the civil war wherein the Party assumed power, the United States' annexation of the British Empire, or the war during which Colchester was bombed.

The hostility to the U.S. in Britain is as nothing to the hostility to the EU [read the comments as well]. There is life after the EU and Britain should look to re-integrating with its two strategic partners, the U.S. and the Commonwealth. Look at the trade figures alone and it's not as if we wouldn't trade, bilaterally with EU member states - it would go back to an EEC model in that respect.

Don't forget the Chinese in all of this:

[T]he news that CIC is putting $5 billion into Morgan Stanley gave a new perspective to Chinese involvement in the West’s largest financial institutions. The sheer scale of the Morgan Stanley deal was striking. And over the past few months, investment from the Far East has become almost commonplace. In contrast to the protectionist fervour that forced a Dubai company to sell several American ports that it acquired through the takeover of Britain’s P&O, there has been barely a murmur of opposition to this trend.

There is a definite unilateralist voice in America - this article decrying the financial ownership of the country by foreigners:

As www.economyincrisis.com notes, US Government statistics indicate the following percentages of foreign ownership of American industry:

* Sound recording industries - 97% * Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79% * Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75% * Metal ore mining - 65%

... and so on and don't forget the SPPNA, which is due to kick off in 2009.

All that having been written though, I'd still say that blood is thicker than water and the most natural allies for Britain are still the U.S. and the Commonwealth. Within the UK, the problem would be the Scots and Welsh, for whom EU supported devolution would suddenly lose one of its main funding sources - British contributions to the EU.

The Scots and Welsh would then have a clear choice - remain with an ailing EU or rejoin the UK. With 83% of the UK English, they'd be in a bit of a quandary.