#Europe will spend to the last american dollar

[godisarepublican]

Does anyone REALLY believe that the Ukraine wants peace? Well. Try this one on for size:

One of Zelensky's conditions for peace is that Russia's leadership agrees to stand trial for war crimes.

There can be no peace until Putin surrenders to Zelensky to stand trial, according to Zelensky.

That's among the conditions that Zelensky requires before he'll accept peace. And Joe Biden is paying for this guy to launch terrorism at Russia, risking nuclear war... because he's so reasonable, one presumes.

[sargeantposting]

ARTICLE: The Florida Man of Formula 1 (2023)

Source: Michael M. Grynbaum, The New York Times Series: F1, 2023

Logan Sargeant, the only American driver in Formula 1, is zipping around the narrow streets of Baku, Azerbaijan, at roughly 200 miles an hour. His head bounces inside the cockpit as a wheel shudders over a rumble strip. It’s hard to hear over the banshee shriek of his V6 engine, carrying three times the horsepower of a run-of-the-mill Porsche Carrera.

Then the noise stops, and Baku vanishes. We’re inside a low-slung brick building nestled in the Oxfordshire countryside. The track, projected onto a CinemaScope-sized wraparound screen, was a mirage, part of a sophisticated training simulator. (F1 rules prohibit driving the real cars between races.) Mr. Sargeant climbs out of a replica driver’s seat wearing athletic pants. He won’t need a fireproof suit until later.

In three weeks’ time, Mr. Sargeant will do this for real: wind whipping his visor, G-forces of up to six times his body weight pressing on his neck, the ever-present threat of a catastrophic crash as he is watched by roughly 70 million people around the world. For now, it’s time for lunch. “Is chili bad for you?” he asks, digging into a bowl at his team’s commissary. “I don’t think it’s that bad.”

Williams Racing, in Grove, England. It was founded in Oxfordshire in the 1970s, but it’s now an American subsidiary: a Manhattan private equity firm, Dorilton Capital, bought the company in 2020 for an estimated $200 million.

F1 teams employ hundreds of employees and spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing the world’s most sophisticated racecars.

Reaching Formula 1, the highest level of international motor sport, is a big step for Mr. Sargeant, 22, a South Florida native who began racing rudimentary cars known as karts at 6 years old and this year joined the Williams Racing team as the first full-time American F1 driver since 2007.

For Formula 1 itself, finding a hometown hero for American fans is a giant leap.

Although it is enormously popular in Europe, F1 struggled for decades to break into the United States. That began to change in 2016, when the sport was purchased for $4.4 billion by the Colorado-based Liberty Media, owned by the cable magnate John Malone. Liberty ramped up its social media — F1 had barely kept a YouTube page — and backed a popular Netflix documentary series, “Drive to Survive.” Once geared toward aging white men, F1 now has a younger and more diverse fan base. American TV viewership is up 220 percent from 2018, and the sport made $2.6 billion in revenue last year.

Still, a subset of F1 devotees complain about what they see as an overemphasis on entertainment and ginned-up drama. Under Liberty, they argue, pure racing is taking a back seat to cheap tricks to reel in casual viewers. And they often use a dirty word for it: Americanization. “It is becoming more and more like Formula Hollywood,” Bernie Ecclestone, the 92-year-old Briton who built F1 into a global business, griped last year. “F1 is being made more and more for the American market.”

The backlash reached a crescendo at last week’s Miami Grand Prix, which was added in 2022 as a showpiece for American fans. In a prizefight-style pre-race ceremony, the rapper LL Cool J introduced the 20 drivers one by one amid swirling smoke and a squad of cheerleaders. Nearby, Will.i.am conducted a live orchestra playing the rap song he recently recorded with Lil Wayne as part of a “global music collaboration” with Formula 1. (The lyrics rhyme “Max Verstappen,” the name of the sport’s top driver, with “your champion.”)

“Pandering to the American audience is killing @F1,” wrote one fan on Twitter, echoing criticism that bubbled up across numerous F1 websites. Even the racers complained: “None of the drivers like it,” groused Lando Norris, a Briton who drives for McLaren. Undeterred, Liberty announced that the bombastic pre-race sequence would be featured at several more grands prix this year.

In the United States, F1 has long been associated with a certain European mystique, most famously, the louche glamour of the Monaco Grand Prix.

In the United States, F1 has long been associated with a certain European mystique. Its drivers race across the Ardennes forest (Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps in Belgium), the plains of Lombardy (Italy’s Autodromo Nazionale di Monza) and, most famously, the louche glamour of the Monaco Grand Prix. The sport’s stateside image could be summed up by the 2006 comedy, “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby,” which featured Sacha Baron Cohen as a pretentious French F1 driver named Jean Girard, a snooty Eurotrash foil to Will Ferrell’s macho NASCAR cowboy.

In 2023, F1 can feel a bit more Ricky Bobby than Jean Girard. In Miami, drivers circled a track built in the parking lot of the Dolphins football stadium, past an artificial Monaco-style “harbor”: blue-painted asphalt topped with ersatz yachts. A new Las Vegas race in November will have cars zooming down the Strip past Caesars Palace. Meanwhile, traditional races in France and Germany are gone.

Katy Fairman, a journalist based in Brighton, England, who runs the F1 podcast “Small Torque,” said she was surprised by the spectacle when she attended a race in Austin, Texas. “There were girls with pompoms,” she said. “I remember watching it and thinking, Oh my gosh, this is so different from anything I’d seen F1 do in a long time.”

Ms. Fairman conceded that some Europeans find the American hullabaloo “tacky.” But she added: “When it’s something to do with America, I think Europeans are quite judgmental. I think it’s just a bit of lighthearted fun. You guys like to have a party.”

The arrival of Mr. Sargeant, who grew up about an hour’s drive from the Miami racetrack, has spurred new interest, including a profile and photo shoot in GQ, and he’s happy to play the part. “What’s up America, let’s bring that energy!” he shouted to the cameras after LL Cool J introduced him as “the local boy done good.”

But as with F1, there are growing pains. In Miami, Mr. Sargeant finished last, his race ruined on the first lap when he damaged a front wing. After the checkered flag, he apologized to his team, his voice barely a whisper: “I’m so sorry. I can’t believe it.”

Weeks earlier, in an interview in England, Mr. Sargeant had demurred about the pressure of wearing the stars and stripes. “I try not to get too caught up in the talk of the role of ‘first American,’” he said. “It’s still very early for me, and I have a lot to learn still.”

If Mr. Sargeant doesn’t perform, there are dozens of drivers eager to take his spot. “At the moment,” he said, “I just have to worry about staying here.”

For a globe-trotting athlete, Mr. Sargeant can be soft-spoken and endearingly self-conscious. 

‘I just want to get back in the gym.’

Before his tough Miami weekend, Mr. Sargeant was asked how he would celebrate a top 10 finish. “Honestly, it might sound lame, but probably just go back to my house and get in my bed for another night before I go back to London,” he replied. “That’s all I want to do.”

For a wealthy, handsome, globe-trotting athlete, Mr. Sargeant can be soft-spoken and endearingly self-conscious. It’s not unusual for someone who, like a tennis prodigy or Olympian gymnast, has devoted their life since childhood to a sole pursuit.

Mr. Sargeant was 6 when he and his brother Dalton got a kart from their parents for Christmas. “No one in the family was really even that much into racing,” Logan said. “We just picked it up as a hobby, something to do on the weekend.” He began winning junior races around the country — too easily. To reach the next level and pursue Formula 1, he’d have to leave behind his friends and beloved fishing excursions for life on a different continent: “We just needed a higher level of competition, and at the end of the day, that was in Europe.”

Mr. Sargeant left Florida before his 13th birthday, bouncing between Italy, Switzerland and Britain as he raced on the European junior circuit; in 2015, he became the first American to win the Karting World Championship since 1978. “As a kid, it was tough,” he recalled. “Coming from Florida, being outdoors all the time on the water, great weather — it was literally vice versa.” He eventually settled in London, where he spends most days working out with a trainer. “I get away from a race weekend, and I just want to get back in the gym,” he said. “I hate that feeling of leaving slack on the table.”

It is incredibly difficult to nab a seat in Formula 1. Today’s drivers are physical dynamos trained to optimize their reflexes and performance levels down to how well they can withstand jet lag — critical in a sport that this year will include 23 grands prix spread over five continents. F1 teams employ hundreds of employees and spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing the world’s most sophisticated racecars. But it’s ultimately up to the driver to execute.

It also helps to have money. Lewis Hamilton, the seven-time world champion and F1’s only Black driver, is an exception, having grown up on a London council estate. Many F1 competitors are the sons of multimillionaires (and some billionaires) who can bankroll pricey travel and high-tech cars.

Mr. Sargeant falls into the scion category. He hails from a wealthy Florida asphalt shipping family. His uncle, Harry Sargeant III, is a former fighter pilot and onetime finance chair of Florida’s Republican Party who has been sued by the brother-in-law of King Abdullah II of Jordan and whose name turned up, tangentially, in the 2020 impeachment of former President Donald J. Trump. (Harry was not accused of any wrongdoing.)

Logan’s father, Daniel Sargeant, worked alongside Harry until the brothers had a falling out. In a 2013 lawsuit, Harry accused Daniel of misdirecting $6.5 million in corporate funds “for the purpose of advancing the international cart racing activities” of his sons, Logan and Dalton; that litigation was eventually settled.

In 2019, Daniel Sargeant pleaded guilty in federal court in New York to foreign bribery and money laundering charges related to his business dealings abroad. He is free on a $5 million bond and is awaiting sentencing. A Williams spokesman said that Logan Sargeant was not “in a position to comment” on any of the legal matters involving his family.

In F1, none of this particularly stands out. The mother of Mr. Sargeant’s Williams teammate, Alexander Albon, was jailed in Britain for swindling millions of pounds in fraudulent sales of high-end cars. A Russian racer, Nikita Mazepin, was booted from the sport after his oligarch father, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin, was sanctioned following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

James Vowles, the Williams team principal, said in an interview that he hired Mr. Sargeant for his speed, not his U.S. passport. “I’m incredibly pleased that the sport is growing in America, but I think it would be anything but disingenuous to say that Logan’s here for any other reason than I think he’s got this pure talent,” he said.

In his F1 debut in Bahrain in March, Mr. Sargeant finished 12th, outpacing this year’s two other rookies. “He has this insatiable desire to be better, to want more,” Mr. Vowles said. “He’s a perfectionist, and I like that in him.”

Tooting around in a Vauxhall Astra

Britain, where Formula 1 originated in 1950, remains the sport’s spiritual home, where most of its 10 teams are based. Williams was founded in Oxfordshire in the 1970s, but it’s now an American subsidiary: a Manhattan private equity firm, Dorilton Capital, bought the company in 2020 for an estimated $200 million.

It was an important cash infusion for a team that had struggled to keep up with rivals. Manufacturers like Mercedes-Benz pour enormous resources into their F1 teams, which double as an elaborate global marketing campaign and an in-house innovation farm; tech developed for F1, like engines that recycle braking energy as an accelerant, can trickle into consumer vehicles.

Formula 1 car simulators at the Williams Racing factory.

Formula 1 drivers practice on sophisticated training simulators.

The Williams campus is a humdrum brick pile that could be mistaken for an office park — a far cry from McLaren’s space-age complex an hour’s drive away. Many F1 teams provide their drivers with a high-end sports car for personal use; Mr. Sargeant commutes in a Vauxhall Astra, a compact.

Even the team’s sponsors are relatively down-market; whereas the official watch of Ferrari is Richard Mille (starting price: $60,000), Williams has a deal with Bremont, whose timepieces retail for significantly less. (On a recent visit, a Williams press aide was quick to extract a spare Bremont watch from his pocket and ensure Mr. Sargeant was wearing it whenever a photographer hovered.)

Given the huge costs, corporate partnerships are crucial to F1, part of the reason the American market, with its abundance of affluent consumers and wealthy brands, has proved so tempting. Gerald Donaldson, a journalist who has covered F1 for 45 years, recalled how cars were gradually taken over by corporate logos starting in the late 1960s.

“Marlboro paid all the Ferrari bills, including the drivers, for many years,” he said in an interview. “There are eager companies who want the publicity.” Mr. Sargeant’s car features ads for Michelob Ultra beer and an American financial firm, Stephens. In Miami last weekend, beachgoers spotted an airborne banner reading “Go Logan!” alongside the image of a Duracell battery.

Last year, the Miami race was viewed on ABC by 2.6 million people, the biggest American audience for a live F1 telecast. Ratings for this year’s race fell about 25 percent, perhaps a result of a duller-than-usual season dominated by one team, Red Bull.

Still, viewing data show that F1 is expanding beyond affluent cities associated with elite sports: In 2022, its top five American TV markets included Asheville, N.C., and Tulsa, Okla. ESPN is clearly betting on more growth. When the sports network renewed its broadcast rights last year, it agreed to pay $90 million annually — up from the $5 million-a-year deal it signed in 2019.

Liam Parker, a former adviser to Boris Johnson who now leads communications at F1, said the sport was intent on rectifying past mistakes. “We were too arrogant,” he said. “We couldn’t understand why the American fan base wasn’t falling in love with us.” But he also pushed back on the complaints that Liberty’s efforts to raise the entertainment factor had stripped F1 of something essential.

“This whole argument of ‘Americanization,’ it’s a very crude way to describe things,” he said. “We shouldn’t ignore things that can improve things for new and core fans. It’s about giving people more choices in the modern era. It’s modernization of access to everyone.”

Mr. Hamilton, arguably the biggest celebrity of the current F1 lineup, has offered his own endorsement of Liberty’s approach. “I mean jeez, I grew up listening to LL Cool J,” he told reporters in Miami. “I thought it was cool, wasn’t an issue to me.”

For all the debates over elitism, good taste and corporate rap collaborations, the core appeal of F1, when you get right down to it, may be something simpler — something Mr. Sargeant got at when asked in the interview if he had loved cars as a kid.

“I absolutely love driving, as you can imagine,” he said. “But to be honest, I’m not one of those people who studies cars and, you know, likes to know every detail of every single car. It doesn’t really interest me.”

“The part that interests me,” he concluded, “is driving them as fast as I can go.”

Eliza Shapiro contributed reporting from Miami. Kitty Bennett contributed research. Michael M. Grynbaum is a media correspondent covering the intersection of business, culture and politics.  A version of this article appears in print on May 14, 2023, Section BU, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Florida Man Of Formula 1.

[mariacallous]

The United States is doubling down on its support for Ukraine with a new long-term security deal, to be unveiled at this week’s G-7 summit in Italy. The 10-year deal commits Washington to supporting the Ukrainian military long-term, according to U.S. officials, and comes ahead of a contentious U.S. presidential election that has unnerved European allies over the prospect of former President Donald Trump’s reelection.

As part of the deal, the United States will continue to help train Ukraine’s forces and provide them with weapons. Importantly, unlike NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause, the U.S.-Ukraine security pact does not require Washington to send U.S. forces to defend Ukraine in the event of a future attack; however, it does commit Washington to hold high-level consultations with Kyiv within 24 hours of any future attacks.

The agreement would also not be a formal binding treaty, which leaves the door open for Trump to potentially pull out of the deal if he returns to the White House.

The pact is one of at least 31 bilateral security agreements that various countries have signed or are slated to sign with Ukraine in the coming months. Western officials tout these agreements as a sign of their countries’ enduring commitment to help Ukraine in its war against Russia, but Ukraine’s strongest supporters say those bilateral arrangements can’t replace Kyiv’s ultimate goal of joining NATO.

The new arrangement is also part of a raft of measures that are aimed at “Trump-proofing” the NATO and Western commitment to Ukraine—including the alliance establishing a common defense fund for Ukraine worth billions of dollars—though it’s unclear how effective those arrangements would be if Trump regains office.

“No one really wants to be fighting Russia 10 years from now, but a sense of short-termism or an ephemeral commitment from the United States should be banished through the format of this agreement,” said Kristine Berzina, an expert on the U.S. security posture and U.S.-European Union strategic ties at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

It’s unclear what exactly Trump’s approach to Ukraine would be if he won. Trump hasn’t specified what his Ukraine strategy would look like, leaving room for doubts over U.S. commitments to what many NATO allies see as an existential war for European security. Trump has pushed Europe to take on more of the burden of defending Ukraine against Russia and said he would encourage the Russians to do “whatever the hell they want” if European NATO allies don’t meet their 2 percent defense spending targets. “Even a treaty doesn’t necessarily seem good enough as a guarantee in a Trump administration,” Berzina said.

However, Trump notably dropped his opposition to Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson’s effort to push through a major national security funding package that included billions of dollars of military aid to Ukraine—thereby allowing the package, which had been stalled for months due at least in part to his previous objections, to finally pass.

“While the loudest supporters of Trump in Congress and in the media are talking about ending American support for Ukraine, Trump has been notably silent on that,” said John Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine now at the Atlantic Council. “He essentially gave a yellow light, if not a green light, for Johnson to push the aid package through.”

The new security deal is also meant to send a few other messages. “It’s primarily a signaling effort to show Russia and China in particular that the G-7 remains united in its bid to stay in this for as long as it takes,” said Emily Benson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the director of its Project on Trade and Technology. It’s also partly an attempt by the Biden administration at “reaffirming leadership” in the wake of limited but impactful far-right party gains in last week’s European Parliament elections that could chip away at European support for Ukraine, she added. “So I think an additional effort to provide security guarantees is good and anticipated.”

Leaders at the G-7 summit are also expected to condemn the Kremlin’s growing ties with North Korea and warn Chinese banks that they will face more Western sanctions if they help Russia evade sanctions, as Foreign Policy reported.

Perhaps most notably, the G-7 will also announce a new initiative to grant $50 billion in loans to Ukraine, funded by the interest on seized Russian assets in Western banks. That loan agreement is likely to be more impactful and longer lasting, although several logistical and legal questions over its implementation still remain.

And though the new U.S.-Ukraine security agreement and those Kyiv has signed with other European countries fall well short of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s ultimate goal of joining NATO, they do seem like a step in that direction. “This agreement is part of what the administration has been calling Ukraine’s bridge to NATO,” Berzina said. “There are concrete steps that when put together will make Ukraine ready to join NATO.”

[aroundtheworldwithphillyfogg]

December 3rd: San Francisco, where Verne really has it for Americans

(warning for the N word)

on the 3rd of December, the “General Grant” entered the bay of the Golden Gate, and reached San Francisco.

Mr. Fogg had neither gained nor lost a single day.

It was seven in the morning when Mr. Fogg, Aouda, and Passepartout set foot upon the American continent, if this name can be given to the floating quay upon which they disembarked. These quays, rising and falling with the tide, thus facilitate the loading and unloading of vessels. Alongside them were clippers of all sizes, steamers of all nationalities, and the steamboats, with several decks rising one above the other, which ply on the Sacramento and its tributaries. There were also heaped up the products of a commerce which extends to Mexico, Chili, Peru, Brazil, Europe, Asia, and all the Pacific islands.

Passepartout, in his joy on reaching at last the American continent, thought he would manifest it by executing a perilous vault in fine style; but, tumbling upon some worm-eaten planks, he fell through them. Put out of countenance by the manner in which he thus “set foot” upon the New World, he uttered a loud cry, which so frightened the innumerable cormorants and pelicans that are always perched upon these movable quays, that they flew noisily away.

Mr. Fogg, on reaching shore, proceeded to find out at what hour the first train left for New York, and learned that this was at six o’clock p.m.; he had, therefore, an entire day to spend in the Californian capital. Taking a carriage at a charge of three dollars, he and Aouda entered it, while Passepartout mounted the box beside the driver, and they set out for the International Hotel.

From his exalted position Passepartout observed with much curiosity the wide streets, the low, evenly ranged houses, the Anglo-Saxon Gothic churches, the great docks, the palatial wooden and brick warehouses, the numerous conveyances, omnibuses, horse-cars, and upon the side-walks, not only Americans and Europeans, but Chinese and Indians. Passepartout was surprised at all he saw. San Francisco was no longer the legendary city of 1849—a city of banditti, assassins, and incendiaries, who had flocked hither in crowds in pursuit of plunder; a paradise of outlaws, where they gambled with gold-dust, a revolver in one hand and a bowie-knife in the other: it was now a great commercial emporium.

The lofty tower of its City Hall overlooked the whole panorama of the streets and avenues, which cut each other at right-angles, and in the midst of which appeared pleasant, verdant squares, while beyond appeared the Chinese quarter, seemingly imported from the Celestial Empire in a toy-box. Sombreros and red shirts and plumed Indians were rarely to be seen; but there were silk hats and black coats everywhere worn by a multitude of nervously active, gentlemanly-looking men. Some of the streets—especially Montgomery Street, which is to San Francisco what Regent Street is to London, the Boulevard des Italiens to Paris, and Broadway to New York—were lined with splendid and spacious stores, which exposed in their windows the products of the entire world.

When Passepartout reached the International Hotel, it did not seem to him as if he had left England at all.

The ground floor of the hotel was occupied by a large bar, a sort of restaurant freely open to all passers-by, who might partake of dried beef, oyster soup, biscuits, and cheese, without taking out their purses. Payment was made only for the ale, porter, or sherry which was drunk. This seemed “very American” to Passepartout. The hotel refreshment-rooms were comfortable, and Mr. Fogg and Aouda, installing themselves at a table, were abundantly served on diminutive plates by negroes of darkest hue.

After breakfast, Mr. Fogg, accompanied by Aouda, started for the English consulate to have his passport visaed. As he was going out, he met Passepartout, who asked him if it would not be well, before taking the train, to purchase some dozens of Enfield rifles and Colt’s revolvers. He had been listening to stories of attacks upon the trains by the Sioux and Pawnees. Mr. Fogg thought it a useless precaution, but told him to do as he thought best, and went on to the consulate.

He had not proceeded two hundred steps, however, when, “by the greatest chance in the world,” he met Fix. The detective seemed wholly taken by surprise. What! Had Mr. Fogg and himself crossed the Pacific together, and not met on the steamer! At least Fix felt honoured to behold once more the gentleman to whom he owed so much, and, as his business recalled him to Europe, he should be delighted to continue the journey in such pleasant company.

Mr. Fogg replied that the honour would be his; and the detective—who was determined not to lose sight of him—begged permission to accompany them in their walk about San Francisco—a request which Mr. Fogg readily granted.

They soon found themselves in Montgomery Street, where a great crowd was collected; the side-walks, street, horsecar rails, the shop-doors, the windows of the houses, and even the roofs, were full of people. Men were going about carrying large posters, and flags and streamers were floating in the wind; while loud cries were heard on every hand.

“Hurrah for Camerfield!”

“Hurrah for Mandiboy!”

It was a political meeting; at least so Fix conjectured, who said to Mr. Fogg, “Perhaps we had better not mingle with the crowd. There may be danger in it.”

“Yes,” returned Mr. Fogg; “and blows, even if they are political, are still blows.”

Fix smiled at this remark; and, in order to be able to see without being jostled about, the party took up a position on the top of a flight of steps situated at the upper end of Montgomery Street. Opposite them, on the other side of the street, between a coal wharf and a petroleum warehouse, a large platform had been erected in the open air, towards which the current of the crowd seemed to be directed.

For what purpose was this meeting? What was the occasion of this excited assemblage? Phileas Fogg could not imagine. Was it to nominate some high official—a governor or member of Congress? It was not improbable, so agitated was the multitude before them.

Just at this moment there was an unusual stir in the human mass. All the hands were raised in the air. Some, tightly closed, seemed to disappear suddenly in the midst of the cries—an energetic way, no doubt, of casting a vote. The crowd swayed back, the banners and flags wavered, disappeared an instant, then reappeared in tatters. The undulations of the human surge reached the steps, while all the heads floundered on the surface like a sea agitated by a squall. Many of the black hats disappeared, and the greater part of the crowd seemed to have diminished in height.

“It is evidently a meeting,” said Fix, “and its object must be an exciting one. I should not wonder if it were about the ‘Alabama,’ despite the fact that that question is settled.”

“Perhaps,” replied Mr. Fogg, simply.

“At least, there are two champions in presence of each other, the Honourable Mr. Camerfield and the Honourable Mr. Mandiboy.”

Aouda, leaning upon Mr. Fogg’s arm, observed the tumultuous scene with surprise, while Fix asked a man near him what the cause of it all was. Before the man could reply, a fresh agitation arose; hurrahs and excited shouts were heard; the staffs of the banners began to be used as offensive weapons; and fists flew about in every direction. Thumps were exchanged from the tops of the carriages and omnibuses which had been blocked up in the crowd. Boots and shoes went whirling through the air, and Mr. Fogg thought he even heard the crack of revolvers mingling in the din, the rout approached the stairway, and flowed over the lower step. One of the parties had evidently been repulsed; but the mere lookers-on could not tell whether Mandiboy or Camerfield had gained the upper hand.

“It would be prudent for us to retire,” said Fix, who was anxious that Mr. Fogg should not receive any injury, at least until they got back to London. “If there is any question about England in all this, and we were recognised, I fear it would go hard with us.”

“An English subject—” began Mr. Fogg.

He did not finish his sentence; for a terrific hubbub now arose on the terrace behind the flight of steps where they stood, and there were frantic shouts of, “Hurrah for Mandiboy! Hip, hip, hurrah!”

It was a band of voters coming to the rescue of their allies, and taking the Camerfield forces in flank. Mr. Fogg, Aouda, and Fix found themselves between two fires; it was too late to escape. The torrent of men, armed with loaded canes and sticks, was irresistible. Phileas Fogg and Fix were roughly hustled in their attempts to protect their fair companion; the former, as cool as ever, tried to defend himself with the weapons which nature has placed at the end of every Englishman’s arm, but in vain. A big brawny fellow with a red beard, flushed face, and broad shoulders, who seemed to be the chief of the band, raised his clenched fist to strike Mr. Fogg, whom he would have given a crushing blow, had not Fix rushed in and received it in his stead. An enormous bruise immediately made its appearance under the detective’s silk hat, which was completely smashed in.

“Yankee!” exclaimed Mr. Fogg, darting a contemptuous look at the ruffian.

“Englishman!” returned the other. “We will meet again!”

“When you please.”

“What is your name?”

“Phileas Fogg. And yours?”

“Colonel Stamp Proctor.”

The human tide now swept by, after overturning Fix, who speedily got upon his feet again, though with tattered clothes. Happily, he was not seriously hurt. His travelling overcoat was divided into two unequal parts, and his trousers resembled those of certain Indians, which fit less compactly than they are easy to put on. Aouda had escaped unharmed, and Fix alone bore marks of the fray in his black and blue bruise.

“Thanks,” said Mr. Fogg to the detective, as soon as they were out of the crowd.

“No thanks are necessary,” replied Fix; “but let us go.”

“Where?”

“To a tailor’s.”

Such a visit was, indeed, opportune. The clothing of both Mr. Fogg and Fix was in rags, as if they had themselves been actively engaged in the contest between Camerfield and Mandiboy. An hour after, they were once more suitably attired, and with Aouda returned to the International Hotel.

Passepartout was waiting for his master, armed with half a dozen six-barrelled revolvers. When he perceived Fix, he knit his brows; but Aouda having, in a few words, told him of their adventure, his countenance resumed its placid expression. Fix evidently was no longer an enemy, but an ally; he was faithfully keeping his word.

Dinner over, the coach which was to convey the passengers and their luggage to the station drew up to the door. As he was getting in, Mr. Fogg said to Fix, “You have not seen this Colonel Proctor again?”

“No.”

“I will come back to America to find him,” said Phileas Fogg calmly. “It would not be right for an Englishman to permit himself to be treated in that way, without retaliating.”

The detective smiled, but did not reply. It was clear that Mr. Fogg was one of those Englishmen who, while they do not tolerate duelling at home, fight abroad when their honour is attacked.

At a quarter before six the travellers reached the station, and found the train ready to depart. As he was about to enter it, Mr. Fogg called a porter, and said to him: “My friend, was there not some trouble to-day in San Francisco?”

“It was a political meeting, sir,” replied the porter.

“But I thought there was a great deal of disturbance in the streets.”

“It was only a meeting assembled for an election.”

“The election of a general-in-chief, no doubt?” asked Mr. Fogg.

“No, sir; of a justice of the peace.”

Phileas Fogg got into the train, which started off at full speed.

[darkmaga-retard]

by Alan MacLeod | Sep 19, 2024

To “counter Russia’s nuclear blackmail,” the Atlantic Council confidently asserted, “NATO must adapt its nuclear sharing program.” This includes moving B-61 atomic bombs to Eastern Europe and building a network of medium-range missile bases across the continent. The think tank praised Washington’s recent decision to send Tomahawk and SM-6 missiles to Germany as a “good start” but insisted that it “does not impose a high enough price” on Russia.

What the Atlantic Council does not divulge at any time is that not only would this drastically increase the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear war, but that the weapons they specifically recommend come directly from manufacturers that fund them in the first place.

The B-61 bombs are assembled by Boeing, who, according to its most recent financial reports, gave tens of thousands of dollars to the organization. And the Tomahawk and SM-6 are produced by Raytheon, who recently supplied the Atlantic Council with a six-figure sum.

Thus, their recommendations not only put the world at risk but also directly benefit their funders.

Unfortunately, this gigantic conflict of interest that affects us all is par for the course among foreign policy think tanks. A MintPress News investigation into the funding sources of U.S. foreign policy think tanks has found that they are sponsored to the tune of millions of dollars every year by weapons contractors. Arms manufacturing companies donated at least $7.8 million last year to the top fifty U.S. think tanks, who, in turn, pump out reports demanding more war and higher military spending, which significantly increase their sponsors’ profits. The only losers in this closed, circular system are the American public, saddled with higher taxes, and the tens of millions of people around the world who are victims of the U.S. war machine.

[futuristicpaintercat]

Pet Furniture Industry: Furniture Market Insights Trends, Growth, and Future Perspectives

Pet owners around the world are increasingly spending more on their furry friends. The global pet furniture industry has seen tremendous growth over the past decade to cater to pet parents who want to provide their pets with comfortable and stylish spaces in the home. Let's take a look at some key aspects of this growing industry. Trends in Pet Ownership In many parts of the developed world like North America, Europe and Australia, pet ownership rates have risen steadily over the past 20 years. According to recent surveys, nearly 70% of households in the United States and over 50% of households in countries like the UK and Australia own a pet. Dogs and cats remain the most popular pet choices globally, though other small pets like rabbits, hamsters and birds are also gaining popularity in some markets. This growth in pet adoption has been a major driver for increasing pet expenditures. Pet owners today are more willing to spend on high-quality food, grooming products, toys and other accessories that can improve the lives of their pets. Pet Furniture falls under this last category as animal parents want their dogs and cats to have comfortable beds, caves, trees and other structures for resting, playing and overall well-being. Major Global Brands A few corporations have come to dominate the global commercial pet furniture industry with varied product lines tailored for specific regions. MidWest Homes for Pets: This American company holds leading market shares in North America with affordable yet durable dog houses, cat trees, crates and beds. Their classic wire-framed designs are popular amongst value-conscious pet owners. Petsfit: China-based Petsfit has rapidly expanded globally through e-commerce platforms with a wide selection of inexpensive yet stylish options. Their specialty is innovative cat condos that combine towers, furniture and toys. Acte2ou: Acte2ou from France supplies high-end modern and designer pet products to furniture stores and boutiques across Europe and Americas priced towards premium customers. Goldencat: Growing brand Goldencat from Japan is investing in innovative tech-enabled beds, feeders and toys but concentrating sales in Asian markets initially. While these large brands lead global supply chains, local and niche craft brands focusing on sustainability, customization or therapeutic seating are gaining ground through targeted marketing. The diverse and growing industry is benefiting small businesses as well. Consumer Trends - Online Purchases and Customization In the digital era, pet owners increasingly rely on online shopping for convenience, reviews and discounts from retailers like Amazon, Chewy and individual brand sites. This e-commerce dominance presents opportunities for data analytics helping customize products to consumer tastes down to the neighborhood level. Value-addition features tapping artificial intelligence, phone connectivity and video streaming are being introduced for enhanced safety, play and bonding. On-demand 3D printing could make mass customization based on pet size, fur patterns or owner selfies a mainstream reality. These innovative consumer-driven trends will take the industry to new frontiers in coming years. In conclusion, the global pet furniture industry has flourished steadily but consistently over the last decade due to growing pet ownership, humanization of animals and new product options. With rising populations in developing nations projected to push even more owners into the premium pet care market, multi-billion dollar valuations.

Get more insights on Pet Furniture

About Author:

Ravina Pandya, Content Writer, has a strong foothold in the market research industry. She specializes in writing well-researched articles from different industries, including food and beverages, information and technology, healthcare, chemical and materials, etc. (https://www.linkedin.com/in/ravina-pandya-1a3984191)

[recentlyheardcom]

'It's not arrogance, it's math': An Alabama man asked Dave Ramsey if he should be worried about the US dollar collapsing — and the celeb's response was cutting. Here's whyEver read the story about Chicken Little and the sky falling? Americans may be feeling in a similar situation right now when reading about the “de-dollarization” of the American dollar.Don't missThe reports were concerning enough to spur Zack from Alabama to call into finance personality Dave Ramsey's show to ask how worried he should be as countries attempt to move away from the dollar.Ramsey gave him a response, but it was delivered in his usual style — naturally.“You’re spending too much time on the Internet,” Ramsey said during the episode. “China, Brazil and Russia are the three main players here. They already don’t use the U.S. dollar as their basis of international trade.”Here’s what you need to know about de-dollarization and what it means for regular Americans.Not a new international currency to replace the USDWhile Zack may have felt embarrassed by Ramsey’s directness, the host went on to explain this means there really isn’t anything to fear. Granted, the goal of these three countries, as well as some countries potentially from the Middle East, is to create their own joint currency, Ramsey stated.Such an idea has brought about the interest of some countries, including Saudi Arabia’s Finance Minister, Mohammed Al-Jadaan who has stated the country would be open to the idea.Two more countries recently agreed settle trade in their local currencies to cut transaction costs and eliminate dollar conversions. The Indian government recently announced that the country’s leading petroleum refiner, Indian Oil Corp. bought one million barrels of oil from the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company using the local rupee for the first time.Story continuesBut for a new currency to replace the dollar, it would need significant international uptake. The dollar was on one side of nearly 90% of all foreign exchange trades in April 2022, according to the Bank for International Settlements. And estimates from the Fed show that between 1999 and 2019, 96% of trade invoicing in the Americas, 74% in the Asian-Pacific region and 79% of the rest of the world were carried out in USD.Meanwhile, global trust in the dollar remains high. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said no currency currently exists that could displace the greenback.The same Fed report found that the dollar made up 60% of globally disclosed official foreign reserves as of 2021 — which the analysts say signifies the currency is expected to hold onto its value in the future without losing too much of its purchasing power.Read more: Jeff Bezos and Oprah Winfrey invest in this asset to keep their wealth safe — you may want to do the same in 2023Will this combined dollar devalue the U.S. dollar?While the dollar has reigned supreme over the better part of the last century, other countries have accused the U.S. of weaponizing that power. And countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and China are keen to claw back some of that power.Ramsey points out that similar worries popped up when the European Union put the Euro in place: “We had this exact same crap when France did away with their own currency, Brexit was the big deal when the U.K. was going to get involved or not, and the Euro is now traded all over Europe,” said Ramsey.He went on to state that just as with the Euro, any new currency would still simply convert to the U.S. dollar. And while these countries may be large, they don’t take up a lot of the gross domestic product on a global scale.Ramsey goes on to point out that the GDP of Texas alone is higher than that of Brazil — coming in at $2.4 trillion against Brazil’s $1.6 trillion, according World Bank data.And while China certainly has a large GDP (currently at $17.73 trillion) stacked up to the $23.32 trillion the U.S. accounts for, there’s still a large amount of catching up to do on China’s part.“When you put them all together, they don’t have the muscle to take down the dollar.

They just don’t,” Ramsey said. “Whatever little currency you create in your fantasy world you’ve created over there, you’re still going to trade it for dollars.”Fear sellsUnfortunately, Ramsey and his team believe this kind of fear over dedollarisation is merely meant to get views for online news outlets. It's happened before and it'll happen again, they say.But as for the second part of the caller’s question: “Should I be concerned about how I’m saving and investing?” the hosts reassured Zack that there’s no need to change his strategy over this potential new currency.“It’s not arrogance, it’s math. It’s not that I’m blinded by the flag or patriotism,” Ramsey said. “It’s asinine.”*— with files from Bethan MoorcraftWhat to read nextThis article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

[loyaltyexpert]

Bank Loyalty Programs: 5 Successful Examples

The banking industry has witnessed a lot of change in the last few years due to the global pandemic, a series of lockdowns, the resulting supply chain crisis and economic slowdown, the Russia-Ukraine war, as well as the rise of automation and AI.

This is where well-designed bank loyalty programs can be extremely useful in retaining customers and minimizing customer attrition rates. Some loyalty programs that are suitable for other sectors may not be appropriate for banks and financial institutions due to regulatory, ethical, or practical reasons.

Every company that operates in the dynamic and rapidly growing industry—be it a public or a privately-owned bank, non-banking financial corporation (NBFC), or a fintech company—must leverage effective bank loyalty programs to their advantage.

What is a Bank Loyalty Program?

A bank loyalty program is a marketing strategy to encourage customer loyalty. It Offers rewards to valued customers as a way to acknowledge their ongoing business and interaction with the bank

Loyalty programs can help banks to improve customer relationships, understand customer needs, and offer personalized products and services.

Based on the information above, The rise of financial technology is putting pressure on traditional banks to innovate and improve their customer service in order to retain customers.

Top 5 Examples of Bank Loyalty Programs

1. Bank of America’s ‘Preferred Rewards program

Founded in San Francisco in 1998, Bank of America serves more than 66 million customers in over 4,300 branches across the U.S. The lender has a loyalty program christened ‘Preferred Rewards,’ which has three levels and members get attractive rewards as they climb their way up through the tiers.

Bank of America’s Premium Rewards provides its members with enhanced rewards and travel benefits in exchange for an annual fee of $95. The minimum credit limit for the loyalty program is $5,000 and some members have received higher credit limits to the tune of $50,000. The program offers a sign-up bonus of 60,000 online points (worth $600) after a member spends a minimum of $4,000 in the first 90 days of account opening.

2. Citibank’s Citi ThankYou Rewards

Citibank, which was founded as the City Bank of New York in 1812 and later renamed as First National City Bank of Europe, is one of the largest international financial services companies in the world. The bank has more than 100 million customers and 2,649 branches in 98 countries. In 2019, the bank registered revenue of USD 74 billion.

3. JP Morgan’s One Card

When it comes to banking loyalty programs how can the largest American bank by assets be left behind? New York-headquartered JP Morgan also has a points-based bank loyalty rewards program named ‘One Card.’

In the program, every reward point is equal to a dollar spent. The program requires customers to use a JP Morgan card to collect points and use it in a wide range of ways such as gift cards, travel cards, cash credit, and merchandise.

The loyalty program also provides big businesses with the option to reward their employees with points as well as reinvest the points into the business. Members can earn unlimited points and the points are extremely easy to manage and don’t expire.

The best part is, that members get 25,000 bonus points if they spend at least $50,000 within three months of account opening. The loyalty program is designed to minimize the risk of misuse of points and fraud. Real-time reporting makes it extremely easy to keep track of the points.

4. Wells Fargo Rewards 

San Francisco-based Wells Fargo is one of the leading banks in the U.S. with a customer base of 70 million, a market share of USD 97 billion, and a total asset of USD 1.97 trillion. The bank’s loyalty program is named ‘Wells Fargo Rewards,’ which is available to all eligible rewards-based credit card holders.

5. Capital One Venture Rewards

Capital One, which was founded in 1994 in Richmond, Virginia, is a bank that’s known for specializing in savings accounts, credit cards, and car financing options. The bank offers accounts for individuals and businesses and it enables parents to open savings accounts for their children with no minimum balance requirements or monthly fees.

To sum it all up,

At LoyaltyXpert, we have a solid track record and years of experience when it comes to creating successful loyalty programs. If you are looking for a loyalty solution partner that will not just help you design and run effective bank loyalty programs but stand firmly by your side throughout each stage, then look no further. Contact us today to book a free demo and experience how we can help you realize your dreams.

This blog is already posted here.

[nbmsports]

How you can save $500 or more on a flight to Europe this year

Jose A. Bernat Bacete | Moment | Getty ImagesAirfare to Europe hit an all-time high this summer. But those dissuaded by the sticker shock can still travel overseas in coming months and cut costs by perhaps hundreds of dollars a ticket.Flying to Europe from the U.S. during the fall "shoulder season" — in September and October — instead of in the summer will save the average traveler $500 per round-trip ticket, according to data from Hopper, a travel app.Europe is the most popular overseas destination for U.S. tourists this summer. But travelers to top European cities would save 34%, on average, by going in the fall instead of June, July or August, Hopper found.More from Personal Finance: Canceled or delayed flight? What to know about your rights U.S. passport delays may be months long Travel to Europe is no longer a 'screaming, bargain-basement' dealConsider these examples: Airfare to Rome is $1,284, on average, this summer. It's $736 this fall, a 43% reduction, or $548 of savings per ticket.Likewise, those venturing to London would pay $693 in the fall, 32% less than summer's $1,025. In Barcelona, visitors would fly for $757 in the fall versus $1,193 in summer, a 37% savings."There is some good news in sight," Hayley Berg, Hopper's lead economist, said of prices.

Shoulder season travel is typically less expensive

Shoulder season is generally a less expensive time to travel. But the savings may be especially noteworthy to prospective buyers due to recent nosebleed costs, experts said.The price dynamic is guided by supply and demand: Fewer people typically travel in the fall, as kids return to school, for example.That also means not everyone — like families with kids, or workers like teachers whose vacations revolve around summer months — may be able to take advantage of a bargain.  But those who can travel during the shoulder season would likely get a better overall experience due to milder weather and reduced crowds, said Sally French, a travel expert at NerdWallet.

Why international travel costs are so high

Tourists and locals at the crowded El Postiguet Beach in Alicante, Spain, on July 9, 2023.Marcos Del Mazo | Lightrocket | Getty ImagesCosts to travel abroad have soared in 2023 as people who put off international trips during the pandemic indulge their pent-up wanderlust. There's been historic demand for passports and applications for federal travel programs like Global Entry.Many Covid-era restrictions have eased, making it easier to go overseas. For example, the U.S. ended a testing requirement for international travelers in June 2022.Some countries' borders were still closed last summer, especially those in Asia. Now, just seven nations have some kind of travel restriction in place for vaccinated American travelers, according to Kayak. (For the unvaccinated, the number rises to 23.)"This is the first year people don't have many Covid requirements at all," French said.The Coliseum at sunrise in Rome, Italy.Alexander Spatari | Moment | Getty ImagesAs a result, summer 2023 is the most expensive time on record to travel to Europe, Hopper said. The average ticket costs about $1,200 — eclipsing the previous high in 2018 by $50 a ticket.In Asia, the No. 2 most-popular destination for Americans, average prices are 64% higher than pre-pandemic levels, Berg said.And it's not just airfare: Staying at a European hotel this summer costs $205 a night, a 37% increase from last year. Cities like Rome and Madrid have seen prices jump by 63% and 41%, respectively, over last year, Hopper said.

Price doesn't seem to have dissuaded travelers, in the aggregate, from travel abroad, however.That makes sense from a money standpoint: The typical American tourist going abroad tends to be wealthier (with an average household income of $110,000 relative to $83,000 for all travelers) and much more optimistic about their personal finances — spilling over into a greater willingness to spend on leisure travel, according to a recent poll by Destination Analysts, a tourism market research firm.

Other travel tips to scout a good deal

Senja island, Norway.Roberto Moiola / Sysaworld | Moment | Getty ImagesAside from traveling during the off season, here are some general tips from travel experts on finding a good deal.- Be flexible. Travel mid-week (e.g., Tuesday and Wednesday) instead of during the weekend. Consider alternate locations — perhaps a destination like Scandinavia instead of the most popular cities like Paris and Rome. Play around with dates and locations using tools like Google Flights and Explore. - Don't book flights at the last minute. Book an international flight a few months ahead, if possible. - Use rewards. Now is a good time to use — and not hoard — any frequent flier miles or other benefits. - Leverage credit card benefits. Your credit card may have perks for travel or rental-car insurance (or another benefit). Purchase part or all of a vacation with that card, and you may not need to buy separate insurance. - Keep other costs in mind. If you find a good deal on airfare, don't overlook other costs like lodging before booking. They may amount to a bigger cost than airfare, depending on the length of stay and destination. Source link Read the full article

[jim-fetter-illustrations]

We are entering a period of feudalism similar to the Dark Ages!!

Ya know,.... when ya think about it, and know your world history,.... Democracy is just repackaged feudalism that use to be the reality, and then they started to call it Democracy with more human rights so people would think they had a say in things, but it's still basically still feudalism capitalism.

It's when "Have-it-alls" and "Well-to-doers" don’t want to share any of it,...... feudalism!

Ya see, and don’t we see what is going on around us?

The 'have-it-alls' and the 'well-to-doers' don’t give a damn what is happening in society…This is the way they want things now. It could be the end of the world for human and civil rights of the individual, but to the likes of them, they aren’t bothered by any of that, because they got theirs and they want to keep it, so they are making sure you don't get yours is what's going on.

Anyway that's the way I see things unfolding.

The world "we all made" is being gentrified by billionaires so they have the upper hand while we the people pay Homage to these feudal lords of power and wealth,... I mean look around, everything keeps going up, costing more, and our wages are kept at a minimum so we can just barely get by and remain literal slaves of finance so we can just pay our bills and little more.

Billionaires are keeping that scenario going so they remain in power.

I mean,.....the feudal system of government came about in France in the 8th Century when a number of weak kings had to buy loyalty from nobles. They bought loyalty with land they just took from whomever they had to kill to get it. When the Duke of Normandy conquered England in 1066 he confiscated all lands and then distributed them to about 200 elite barons and nobles who had supported his invasion.

Each elite kept between 200 to 350 knights to defend his land and possessions, along with the help of about 10,000 peasants living as “sharecroppers” and renters on their land. Peasants could not freely move from one elite owner to another. Knights were often given land and supervision of peasants to maintain their loyalty. Huge castles and Downton Abbey-like homes were the courthouses of the “counties” owned by the elites of the century.

That system lasted until revolutions in England, Europe, and America destroyed the remnants of feudalism and brought some aspects of democracy to government. The absolute authority of kings was finally challenged and defeated by the New Americans, who killed off and enslaved the native indians to get their own nation,.... just like the kings of Europe did.

Now FAST FORWARD, The United States, because of income inequality, is entering a period of feudalism similar to the Dark Ages. The bottom 80% can no longer afford to live in or close to many cities decently. The top 20% have to spend more for security as desperate people succumb to drug addiction and theft to support a habit and themselves in a feudalism created society.

And most just try to ignore it, hoping it will go away on it's own, ......... and it won't, it isn't!

Sooooo,... Just who are the kings, barons, knights, and peasants now?

The Best Congress Money Can Buy has been bought since a Republican Supreme Court decided in the Citizens United case that money equals “free” speech, thus unleashing a tsunami of political campaign money.

My rent and cost to live goes up every year, and yet the government tells me the economy is doing so well my Social Security cost of living increase will be LOW this year?!?!

In essence,....The king telling the peasant to be thankful that he's not punished for his insolence towards the governing barons..........Lol

I can only guess that the rest of you are doing just great financially, because you keep voting to keep this Democratic repackaged feudalism to continue by continuing to vote for the two party corruption, which is Democratic and Republican Barons.

That's the gist of my conjecture anyway, and with it and $6 dollars you can buy a cup of coffee!

Like

Comment

Share

[godisarepublican]

U.K. Willing to Spend to the Last American Dollar, Fight to the Last American Life:

So the British P.M. is all gung-ho over a war in the Ukraine that he isn't paying for, and he expects the Americans to fight for him. I say let's cut off all U.S. funding and U.S. military assurances then see how brave our so called "Friends" and "Allies" really are.

When Europe has to fight their own wars themselves, "Peace" will suddenly become an option...

[pionia-milly]

Watch "A Challenge Aimed at Developing Hanok" on YouTube

Korean traditional house. Korea traditional house has good worming system and summer is cool because materials are natural like wood-soil and rock and even when Japanese attacked Korea burn so many houses and people stayed like shelters and finally poor situation display to the western world but forget about Korea was ruined and they don't walk solo or individual style like Tyokyo lot a people marching solo except pressure drinking ares but koreans are opposite with Japanese. Korean are hate individual but socialize is very important and this style groups are spending money too. Korean's DNA is socialize naturally and that energy are power. Individual are famous new way style since Japanese attacked Korea but they couldn't changed Korean life DNA just they lost country governing 35 years because long history system like when gangs attacked peaceful country killed and queen-king no military for protect country that was Korean history because japan scamed Korea with gang about Chinese attacking Korea and Japan so that needed morden army so korean old army sent home and Japanese new morden army in was Korean tradgy begun and country had no protection so lost country until Korean War to now. So I think now japanes hang made chinese attacked Korea made reason to Korea by Japanese they were one team, chinese - pirates - japan and world was change were Ming dynasty to end of America vs Japanese War so Korean had hard time last Goryeo to Choseon dynasty to now. China's Ming dynasty helped Korea with their African soldiers but this reason Qing dynasty in by Pirates and japanesevmade event so chines try wiped off Korea and Japan and Japan had morder guns and they couldn't controlled Korean nation so bring policemen and young peoples took their war so this was scam their population couldn't control Korean and Koreans were pure population not diversity like them and today too that education Korean never forget even enemy change with new method like 100% kindness sweet action they can't cheat Korean anymore japan's power is dollar(their currency change with dollar since early 80s)and media and old arms are not work anymore and they asking to power group revenge for barefoot island who knows I think this peoples think when America is die everthing belong to us haha everyday create problems and Americans and world take care their shit over and over ~ so brain is important and no brains have to out from human society. People can control their own life and take care your problem? Look at Europe young people and old people? Who destroyed them? They don't know calm and military style manner ordering by government every month is not human manner haha

[mariacallous]

A handful of NATO countries are pushing to raise the alliance’s defense spending benchmark from 2 percent to 2.5 percent or even 3 percent of member countries’ GDP, according to six current and former European and U.S. officials familiar with the matter, a move that could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in new defense spending if approved.

The initiative, pushed in diplomatic circles by Poland and Estonia, is a long shot and may face significant pushback from Western European powers already struggling to meet the existing NATO defense spending benchmark of 2 percent of GDP. But it reflects a mounting concern among NATO members on the alliance’s eastern flank that Europe is ill-equipped for a long-term military showdown with Russia in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine last year.

“We do expect that against the backdrop of everything that’s going on, the NATO commonly agreed level should be higher than 2 percent,” Estonia’s ambassador to the United States, Kristjan Prikk, told Foreign Policy in a message, noting that discussions were still ongoing as to what the proposed new benchmark should be.

Discussions around the proposal are still in the early stages and a concrete figure has yet to be agreed upon, according to an Estonian defense official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, adding that the matter is expected to be raised at the upcoming meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels on Feb. 14. Proponents of the plan are laying the groundwork to raise it as a policy proposal for NATO’s next major leaders summit, scheduled for July in Vilnius, Lithuania, according to four of the officials familiar with the matter.

While some NATO leaders have voiced support for making the 2 percent benchmark a floor and not a ceiling for NATO allies, this new initiative would mark the first concrete proposal to raise the floor of defense spending and add pressure to NATO countries that have let their own military and defense industrial spending atrophy for decades since the end of the Cold War.

“NATO needs strengthening, and since Poland is spending 4 percent of our GDP, we would expect other allies to increase their spending as well,” said Radoslaw Fogiel, chairman of the Polish Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.

U.S. defense spending is more than 3 percent of GDP, making the United States one of just nine out of the alliance’s 30 members to reach the NATO defense target in 2022, despite Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The discrepancy has been a long-standing source of frustration between Washington and European capitals.

The debate over defense spending became a flashpoint between the United States and its allies during the Trump administration, when President Donald Trump repeatedly bashed NATO allies for outsourcing their security from the U.S. military without properly investing in their own defense capabilities. But despite Trump’s harsh rhetoric that at times raised concerns about American commitment to the alliance, the warnings from U.S. officials that NATO spending is not commensurate with growing national security threats date back decades, including then-outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s famous 2011 parting shot to allies in Brussels that the bloc risked “collective military irrelevance” unless countries sharply increased their military budgets.

The 2 percent benchmark was agreed upon at the NATO summit in Wales in 2014, as Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine prompted a reexamination of Europe’s security architecture. At the time, three of the alliance’s members were already spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense.

The spending pledge made in 2014 was agreed upon for a decade. As its expiration date approaches next year, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has spoken publicly about the need for a more ambitious target. “I expect that we will make a new pledge on defense spending when we meet in Vilnius at the NATO summit in July this year,” he said in an interview with Die Welt last month. “I cannot tell you exactly what allies will agree, but I expect there to be a more ambitious pledge because everyone sees that we need to invest more,” he said.

In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February last year, over a dozen members of the alliance pledged to increase their defense spending, with several laggards, including Spain, the Netherlands, and Italy, promising to meet the 2 percent goal, although none of the nations have hit the target so far. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has pledged to spend more than $100 billion to revamp Berlin’s under-armed military but has reportedly lagged on defense purchases and procurement programs to begin revamping the military and defense industrial output.

Other NATO nations have found it more challenging to move past the 2 percent mark. Despite being a prolific supporter of Ukraine and the home of one of the war-torn country’s largest diaspora communities, Canada’s defense spending has sunk since 2020, topping out at just under 1.5 percent of GDP. Belgium, the home of NATO’s headquarters, plans to get to 1.54 percent—by 2030.

Defense hawks in Europe are hoping that NATO’s upcoming summit in Vilnius will be a potential turning point. Nearly 10 years after NATO members agreed to meet the 2 percent benchmark within a decade, some of the top defense spenders within the alliance are using the anniversary to try to sustain the momentum on building military muscle.

But beyond the Baltic states, the paradigm shift is also being driven by some of NATO’s largest members. France, which has been hovering just below NATO’s 2 percent mark for years, is set to boost military spending by more than 7 percent in 2023 and has pledged to spend more than $400 billion to revamp its military over the next six years, boosting spending on nuclear weapons and adding a new aircraft carrier. The British government is in the midst of a defense spending review that is likely to put it well beyond the 2 percent mark for the long term, though London has delayed a planned spending boost that was likely to raise the target to 3 percent of GDP.

It was not immediately clear if calls for a renewed NATO spending pledge would be accompanied by other military goals. The 2014 Wales pledge came with a commitment from members to invest 20 percent of their budgets on research and development of new weapons. But former officials are worried that some NATO members may not follow through on their promises without a firm new pledge.

“The bottom line is that the water level is rising,” said Fabrice Pothier, a former NATO director of policy planning who is now CEO of the Rasmussen Global political consultancy. “I think there is still a debate on whether it should be 2.5 or 3 [percent]. The question in Vilnius is, will that be put in black and white or will that be put as more of an aspiration?” Pothier added that a clear target would help send a signal to arms manufacturers that NATO members will keep ramping up their military budgets for the long term, no small matter as Western countries struggle to restock their supplies, especially artillery tubes and shells and tanks.

“At the end, you need to have a black-and-white number, because if not, the secretary-general and the whole NATO machine cannot exert sharp enough pressure and keep allies’ feet to the fire,” he said. “We are in a brave new world, and in anticipation, the defense industry should scale up.”

Jim Townsend, who served for eight years as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy during the Obama administration, said that the idea of raising the defense spending target beyond 2 percent was not entirely a nonstarter, noting that in the United States, 2 percent has increasingly come to be seen as the floor, not the ceiling, of defense spending commitments. One possibility, Townsend said, would be to include language about a boost in defense spending in the joint communique issued at the Vilnius summit to give governments something to sell to parliaments and publics back home, while couching it in non-binding terms to provide an “escape hatch” for countries that are unable to meet the new proposals.

Whether allies meet their 2 percent benchmark or not has become a proxy for the political debate of whether that country takes its commitment to NATO and collective defense seriously—though some security experts lament that the fixation on 2 percent clouds more important discussions of how each country is spending its defense budget and whether enough is being invested in research and development for new weapons systems.

“What I would certainly hope to see from the pledge is the sustainability of the effort,” said Camille Grand, a former NATO assistant secretary-general for defense investment and now a distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “This is where we keep our edge, rather than simply, let’s have a bushfire of money spent and then discover that it was not spent that wisely: That we don’t have the money to support the new equipment, that we don’t have enough money to train the crews of the thousands of [new] tanks.”

The plans, which had long been in the works as Baltic nations redoubled their defense spending ahead of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, have crystallized as a political push after a recent meeting of high-level Polish and Baltic officials in Riga. The Baltic countries will also be seeking progress reports on NATO plans to deploy a brigade-level presence to countries in the region, firmed up at the alliance’s summit in Madrid last summer, as well as changes to NATO’s defense planning and spending, as European countries have run through their ammunition stockpiles to help Ukraine, and the military industry hasn’t been moving quickly enough to keep up.

“It’s clear that, at this moment, 2 percent is not enough,” said Artis Pabriks, who was Latvia’s defense minister and deputy prime minister until December and now serves as director of the Northern Europe Policy Center, a Riga-based think tank. “I think all nations will support this 2.5 percent for everybody, because we are already there. We are the front-line countries and we see the danger, and we know the danger will persist for a decade. We see the problems with industry, we see the problems with supply.”

“With 2 percent, many European nations cannot manage what they have to manage to make the continent safer and resist the Russians,” he said.

[grenade-maid]

The thing that fucks me up about North American city planning is not just that it's ugly or that it sucks, but the knowledge of what it took to seize the land and seize the money to build it in the first place. The US enslaved millions, committed genocide against an entire continent to take the land from people who had lived there for millennia, committed coups and invaded nations on every other continent, destabilizing governments and fanning the flames of war and destruction worldwide, threatened to engulf the globe and nuclear hellfire and boil the oceans, all in the name of profit. And after all of that, it was for this?

All of that blood spilled for strip malls and cookie cutter suburbs, entire belts of the country of which are now empty and rotting because everybody left? So much unspeakable violence to halt anyone from challenging the shape of society and the hierarchy of domination, and of all things it was done in the name of, it was this? A way of living that people aren't even happy with? So many cultures and languages, thousands of years of history passed from one generation to another, were uprooted and tried to extinguish, for shopping malls that didn't last even a single lifetime? There is nothing that would have been worth what imperialism has done to the world, but it's spaces like these which, to me, are even more emblematic of the structural myopic selfishness of capitalism that spurred on all of that violence than the tacky opulence of any billionaire.

Even at home, that these endless suburbs were built for white Americans fleeing from having to share cities with non-white neighbors. All the billions of tax dollars spent to employ white supremacist cops to surveil, harass, kill, cram into overcrowded prisons and immigrant concentration camps, so many countless people of color, spurred on by racist fear that they might somehow threaten this.

All of that to create and maintain a society of alienated and isolated would-be monarchs living in flimsy little plywood and plaster castles filled with an endless stream of toys that will be shortly forgotten and thrown away, surrounded by miles and miles of empty featureless places which only exist to give them warehouse sized concrete boxes full of collections of shelves from which to select from ten dozen nearly identical types of bland home goods to spend their money on.

Make no mistake, no individual or even large group of individuals in the suburbs caused this on their own. It is not the vague specter of consumerism or personal spending habits that created this. It is the product of the way our whole society was built and shaped by capitalist white supremacy. The same fundamental logic is true of Europe and every other imperialist project, too, even if it hides it better behind a prettier facade or a better set of social welfare options. This is just the naked face of it laid stark and bare.

[suratan-zir]

Just some of my unrequested thoughts in bad English about doing business with Russia. Long post.

I know that over time, Ukraine will be perceived by many people from other countries as an inconvenience. Even now, with half-assed sanctions imposed on Russia, gas and oil prices are rising. If a full embargo is imposed, prices will skyrocket. And it's easy to be "for all good and against all evil" when it doesn't require you to actually pay a real price for it. If you are one of those amazing people who is willing to pay that price no matter what, I am eternally grateful to you. However, I know there will be many people who aren't ready. And the longer it goes, the more people will be angry with this whole situation.

I know what it's like to be poor, to count every penny. Both me and my husband came from poor families, and only the last couple of years we have a decent income. At some point, we were so out of money that instead of sugar in our tea, we had to use old hard candies "Барбарис" found in the depths of the kitchen cabinet. Because we couldn't afford to buy sugar. We sometimes laugh about it now.

Only when you know the true value of money in a human's life can you really understand that there are still other things that are worth much more. But it is still your choice - to support cutting off all trade with Russia, or to put your own and your family's well-being above the lives of some foreigners from Eastern Europe. Either way, I don't blame you.

I blame European and American leaders almost as much as I blame Russia. Not even because they still didn't close the sky or given us fighter jets. Year after year, they turned a blind eye to the crimes committed by Russia, by Putin's regime. Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia… Nothing was done. It was too convenient to trade with Russia. After all, the troops of modern Russia didn't shell Berlin or London. Russian oligarchs invested billions and billions of dollars in the UN ans US economy, despite powerful anti-Western propaganda in Russia itself. So now it's funny to watch how they arrest those yachts and bank accounts of Putin's henchmen as if they just now found out about it all.

Putin realized that he remains unpunished for his crimes. Then he annexed Crimea and turned part of eastern Ukraine in a warzone with some lame excuses about infringement of the Russian-speaking population. Nobody in their right mind bought it, yet Russia still remained unpunished. Thousand of lives taken and hundreds of thousand of people who lost their home and everything they had. People had to flee from their homeland, leaving behind all their belongings. Others couldn't flee and were forced to live under Russian occupation, in a war zone, without any human rights.

Yet for the world this wasn't enough to cut ties with Russia. Putin punished Ukraine for our pro-Western, pro-European choice, for our desire for freedom and independense. Europe and US were "deeply concerned." Some useless sanctions were introduced, but Putin clearly won more that he lost.

His men happily continued committing war crimes in Syria and Ukraine, his propaganda continued dehumanizing certain population groups. Ukrainians = khokhols worthy of elimination or at least training on how to be a proper russian. LGBTQ = sick people who have to be ashamed of their very existence, officially illegal, in some Russian regions (like Chechnya) they are kidnapped, tortured and killed on a regular basis.

The opposition and the free press completely wiped out. And I'm not talking about Navalny now. Anna Politkovskaya and Boris Nemtsov are the most famous examples, but there are many more.

The West kept fueling his killing and propaganda machine with cash. Putin's war games and ass-licking "journalists" cost HUGE money. The money he makes by selling Russian natural resources to the west. And the west gladly buys it. Why bother actively switching to renewable energy sources, why spend so much money on it when you can just buy everything from the fascist Russian regime without any problems? Besides, Russia is a pretty good export market. Why not export weapons to a country that is actively invading other sovereign states? Sounds like a damn good deal!

The world hand-fed this monster that is Russia we see today. Not their mentality, of course, it has been that way for centuries. But they couldn't afford to act on it if they didn't have the money for that. Everything could have been different not only for Ukraine, but also for Russia. If only Russians were forced to face the consequences of their imperialist actions back in the USSR days, maybe now they would live a happy rich life on their own land without stealing it from others.

I don't know what to conclude here. I don't know why the world needs to see the deepest depths of horror inflicted on my people in order to do something. Humanity really fucked up.

[gatheringbones]

["The only "special right" that the United States gives its minorities is the right to be the target of genocidal policies. We have only to look at AIDS policy to confirm this truth. Just as we do not want people of color buying the Right's homophobic argument that we are after "special rights," not civil rights, it is also vital that our movement does not buy the racist backlash to affirmative action propagated over the last two decades by the same Republican forces. When we put both parts of their strategy together, it's clear that, to them, all civil rights are "special rights" that victimize privileged white men. When any "minority," whether racial, ethnic, gendered, or sexual, buys into these wedge strategies, we play ourselves for fools and disrupt the possibility of a transformative political majority in the next century.

It's my belief that racism shapes all political movements in the United States, for better and for worse, but because white people so seldom talk about how we are affected by racism, we don't understand how to counter it. We just act it out. In the lesbian and gay movement, much of our analysis had flowed from an understanding of gender, leaving race and class at two removes from our analysis. But approaches to racism have shaped the debates within our own community on issues such as passing and assimilation, radical transformation versus reform, and legal strategies versus empowerment of the grassroots. One of the dominant paradigms for dealing with race in the twentieth century emerged from the University of Chicago in the 1920s. It was called the ethnicity model, and it theorized that immigrants to the United States go through cycles of contact and conflict, then assimilation. Now, on the one hand, this theory was an improvement over the dominant paradigm it replaced, which was the biological approach to race, that saw racial differences as inherited and that justified slavery and colonialism. (This context should make us beware of the biological theories of homosexuality now being advanced.)

But the ethnic paradigm was based on European experience, not the experiences of people of color. At the same time that European immigrants were being assimilated— if painfully— into our economy, Jim Crow reigned in the South for African Americans, Asians were kept out of the country altogether by immigration quotas, Native Americans were suffering record rates of poverty on a land base once again decimated by white theft, and Chicanas were forming their own mutualistas in the Southwest in the face of racist white unions. So this business of assimilation operates differently above and below the color lines, as do most manifestations of American "democracy." If we generic gay and lesbian white folks set as our movement's goal being assimilated into American culture, getting "our piece of the pie," we ignore or deny the reality that gay and lesbian people of color will never be assimilated in the same way within this system because it was constituted to exclude them. And, as Derrick Bell has argued in reference to African American, and as Colorado proved in regard to gay civil rights, wherever assimilation goals may become enshrined in law, they can just as easily be overturned.

If we follow the ethnicity theory, we perpetuate the belief that the issue of "homophobia" is mainly a matter of personal prejudice, which contact with us will diffuse. We ignore the extent to which the most powerful political and economic forces in this country have an investment in our degradation. Literally, right-wing groups invest millions in slandering us, knowing that these efforts will build up their grassroots base and their funding chests. In the Oregon Citizens Alliance campaign, they put back into their vicious homophobic ballot initiative campaign one dollar out of every three raised. The rest of the money, according to the Task Force's "Fight the Right" organizer Scot Nakagawa, went to a range of regressive causes. Such campaigns also distract people from the corporate theft that may beggar us all.

The assimilation model leads us to try to smooth the rough edges of our community, putting limits on visible leadership by people of color, working-class white gay men and lesbians, and anyone else who doesn't look and act like most lobbyists. It leads to "outing" powerful, rich people to show that they, too, are gay. It leads to surveys that tout the marketing power of the gay dollar and position us as a movement of the middle to upper class, with higher-than-average spending power. This dynamic sets us up to be a "buffer class" in a way similar to how Jews were portrayed in Europe, to draw off class anger from the economic elite who are really making the decisions and reaping the rewards in a period of national crisis and decline. It makes us appear narrow and selfish (which I do not think we are) and cuts us off from allies, increasing our vulnerability to insurgent right-wing populist movements agitated by economic unrest. This is classic fascism and its foundation has already been laid in our time and our nation."]

Mab Segrest, Memoir of a Race Traitor, The New Press, 1994