I was watching a conspiracy film, in which I forgot the name, which revealed interesting information about the Statue of Liberty. I dug further to see if there was some truth.

The Roman Empire was in decline after Julius Ceasar was assassinated.

Cicero, the great lawyer of the Roman Empire, went into hiding and founded the philosophy of natural law, in regards to the Creator's rule of law.

Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII of Egypt had a child Cleopatra Selene II. Around the time of the birth of Jesus Christ and in attempt to spare her children from violence, it is rumored that one child of Cleopatra Selene II was carted off by two servants, Mary and Joseph. That child was named after Julius Caesar and named Jesus Christ.

It is speculated that the Roman Empire was attempting to reclaim it's former glory by forming the Holy Roman Empire through a new religion at the dawn of a new age.

It is noted that the Statue of Liberty was created by the Free Masons of France and donated to the United States. The Free Masons are known to harbor secrets.

If you look carefully at the Statue of Liberty, you see facial features of Mark Antony and Cleopatra Selene II. You also notice that she is pregnant. Is the Statue of Liberty actually Cleopatra Selene II? Is the Statue of Liberty pregnant with Jesus Christ?

Something to think about.

--jeepndesert

The world looked on in awe as China outdid itself in the grand, magnificent, and very exhausting spectacle of closing the Olympic Games. A flood of acrobats, dancers, performers, singers, people were brought to the stage to bring to life tapestries both beautiful and terrifying. Looking and admiring the strenuous work of the performers led this blogger to ask himself whether-judging by their near-perfect synchronization-some of them belonged to the PLA (People's Liberation Army).

China, Ascendant

It was a climax punctuating the equally exhausting spectacle of the last two weeks, which saw the Games break records personal and international, and even overshadowing the homecoming of four years ago (back in Athens). As a blogger with a serious case of too much imagination and sense of history, he can almost see a spectacle a little more than seven decades ago: a country, regaining a sense of national pride and wanting to impress to the world a sense of superiority and awe, welcomed Olympiad athletes with martial marches, patriotic singing, and a display of the perfection of human form. Like their contemporary Chinese, they had the sense of need to prove the superiority of their athletes, as a martial, Spartan state would, by trying to win as many gold for their athletes as they could. (This Olympic Games even had a Jesse Owens-or two, in the Jamaican Bolt and the American Phelps, which merely added to the glory of the Games).

However, Hitler's Aryan state would still make for a poor parallel. For one thing, no European country-or any other host country, for that matter-could match the scale and opulence that China exhibited. The event holds no parallel in modern world, in terms of economics of scale. Terrifyingly, one has to look two thousands years or less further, to the days of the Roman Empire, and the ludi Romani. Beginning with gladiatorial games, the Roman emperors became extravagant, bringing exotic animals in the Colosseum, reenacting historic battles, and holding pagan pageantries especially during its millenarian celebrations. The Colosseum was even flooded repeatedly to reenact epic naval battles. These Chinese Games, therefore, do not belong in the same league as Hitler's Olympiad spectacle, and don't even begin to be paralleled with any ordinary Soviet May Day Parade; they were more in the style of the Imperial Romans, and had the stamp of imperial magnificence.

The Chinese, mind you, had to weather bad augurs just short of their Olympics: an earthquake shattering one of their provinces, the bloody suppression of a local Tibetan uprising (which continued on while the torch-bearer did his ceremonial run through the world), and the complaints of the journalists about the mass arrests, extensive censorship, and State-wide "clean-up". It almost led to certain public disaster, and international embarrassment.

Then, China opened the Olympic Games. The furor over the Tibetan uprising was tossed aside, the journalists stopped complaining and set cameras towards the spectacular light-and-people show, and the grief-stricken Chinese buried their sorrows and sought some momentary solace in national pride and glory.

With an international event set in an epic a scale as the later ludi Romani, the Chinese committed to and surpassed the Soviets and Nazis and accomplished what the two could only dream of doing: their athletes outmatched the world's gladiators in several events, ending at the top with the most gold medals. In the overall medal tally, however, they were beaten to a near second by the United States (Ironically, the United States bested them in mass volume of medals, while they defeated their American rivals in the quality of their medals). China must have gone to great lengths, and much blood from her countrymen, to prove a point to the world, which they have: the nations have come to grudgingly accept that Beijing is set to follow the footsteps of Rome, the Rome that was hated for its slavery, brutal measures, and pagan worship, yet remained the center of civilization and a melting pot of cultures.

Chinese officials could be annoyed, or at the very least slightly irritated, at the West's criticisms of how it conducted "irregularities" in these Games: the athletes might have been underaged, that little girl who was the poster-child for innocence and natural beauty, was actually lip-synching her song; and even that "little" stunt their old Communist rival pulled somewhere in Europe might have frayed their nerves somewhat.

That Caucasus episode

A far third in the final medal tally (and still farther in the gold one), Russia seemed to have lost the old athletic spark they once had in the heyday of the Soviet Union. But the Chinese "Bird's Nest" was not the stage they set to impress the international community; it was in the comparatively small country in the Caucasus, (and incidentally Stalin's home state), which they unceremoniously invaded. It was a drama involving geopolitics, breakaway provinces, and a lot of Soviet undertones.

For Georgia's part, theirs was a tragedy that many third-world countries suffer in the modern world obsessed with the particular definition of nationhood. Prior to the Second World War, there were smaller and smaller states being formed, some of which belonged to old empires that collapsed in the last war. There remained some form of idealistic unity between them, regardless of ethnicity or religion, as they identified themselves as part of the greater whole of the country. One of these great experiments was the Yugoslavian union, which had Croat, Serb, Albanian and other peoples under it. Following the end of the Second World War, the Western democracies began to give their former colonies self-determination, without any well-researched delineation of countries according to the people that lived there. Ethnic and religious wars erupted almost immediately: between the disenfranchised Muslims and Hindus in India and Pakistan, between the various ethnic tribes in Africa, and the Arab-Israeli wars.

With the Soviet Union's final collapse came the second mass exodus of nations: no longer did they identify nationhood in terms of patriotic identity or politico-religious affiliations, even mere ethnic division was an excuse to have a nation. Understandably, it was the Soviet "Union" that first broke apart-Ukraine, Byelorussia, the Central Asian states, the Caucasus states, and the Lapland states all turned from Russian union, even as the latter attempted to reconcile them to a loose federation. Farther west of the fragmenting Soviet Union, was the equally and tragically fracturing state of Yugoslavia, which needn't have happened had Tito's eventual successor, Slobodan Milosevic, had more finesse, and not asserted too much "Serbian-ism" of the multi-ethnic Yugoslavia. Almost immediately, everyone turned away from Yugoslavia, even Serbia's own province, Kosovo. Kosovo's desire for emancipation was ethno-religious in cause, as was Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's was for Georgia.

Nationhood had entered farcical scale, with small ethnic groups wanting to break away from the larger political unity, whether out of the need to escape the persecution of their mother country or to establish political self-determination. South Ossetia, however, cannot even rely on the latter, as its economy is heavily dependent either on illegal smuggling with Georgia or Russian aid. If this would go on, we would see even smaller states in Cyprus, Sri Lanka, some African states, and established Asian political unions, as in Indonesia, and China.

Russia's side of the conflict can't be confined in the official statement of "defense of the self-determination of South Ossetia". If we were to believe Georgia, what South Ossetia had been doing, at worst, would be equal to what Hezbollah has been doing to Israel in southern Lebanon, or (to drive the point harder), the Chechens were committing in Russian cities. At the least, South Ossetia's mass smuggling is engaging in small-scale, but voluminous economic attacks which are affecting Georgia. Georgia's act to invade South Ossetia was no different to Russia's invasion of then-independent Chechnya a decade before. South Ossetia was no better than Kosovo or Chechnya, yet it received the full support of the Russian government.

The answer lies in both geopolitics, and the Russian need to regain world-prestige. The breakup of Kosovo had a great impact in Russia: Serbia had long been the country's ally, and to be incapable of lending anything but an empty threat to those who would break it up into several pieces, exposed the weakened former Soviet power for what it was. It was shown all-too painfully clear that the Russian state was surrounded on all sides: to the west, Ukraine and Belarus were fully or gradually being absorbed to the NATO camp, the Caucasus state had the assurance of the Americans, and were organizing building an oil pipeline that would bypass Russia. The Central Asian states were being contested politically both by the Americans (who have bases in Kazakhstan), and China. Their old rival, China, had become far, far stronger, what with their own military exhaustion in both Afghanistan and Chechnya. The New World Order was being negotiated between Europe, China and the United States to the exclusion of Russia. A man of lesser fibre, watching the Russian economy tumble and tumble further down, or its army get humiliated or even downsized, and the staff of its notorious and internationally admired intelligence agency suddenly appear as new Mafia kingpins or rogue commanders, would have certainly collapsed. He would have consoled himself in vodka, while watching his country devolve to Third-World obsolescence and obscurity.

But the man Russia gained, in the millennium, was Vladimir Putin. A hard-liner, and a proud Chekist (i.e., among the ranks of the KGB), he would rather not see the former glory of the Soviet Union fade to oblivion. During Yeltsin's term, he inspired the bloody invasion of Chechnya. He intimidated Ukraine repeatedly, and economically. While the rest of the world watched, he slowly steered Russia from the decadent Western democracy back to authoritarian, guided, "Chekist Democracy". When the Russian elections neared, he transferred his title and position of power from President to Prime Minister, appointing a "Malenkov" to his former position. (Our own Czarina Arroyo must have been inspired by this move).

The Georgian invasion has so many historical parallels, though only two significant ones need be mentioned: militarily, it is the same as the United States' Gulf War, in the sense that their "blitzkrieg" seemed to vindicate their bloody humiliation in Afghanistan, and the demoralization in their struggle against the Chechens. Politically, this the merging of two events: the episode of Czechoslovakia, complete with a Munich episode, and the Nazi invasion of Poland. The Russian invasion was a gamble, as they were primarily invading a sovereign country. At any point, NATO or the United States could have found themselves in a "military exercise" somewhere in Georgia "accidentally" coming across Russian tanks. Instead, the United States gave a round of "slap-on-the-wrist" threats, and NATO created a "Western Shield Wall", reminiscent of France's Maginot Line during Germany's dismemberment of Poland.

And the French Sarkozy running to negotiate with President Medvedev, and forcing Georgian Saakashvili to accept the terms of a "territorial fait-accompli", was almost an exact reenactment of "Munich appeasement", with Sarkozy acting as a Neville Chamberlain. Russia, accomplished the same goals that Hitler tried and achieved in his Czechoslovakia bluff: to force the surrender of sovereign territory to Russia (or, to be more politically correct, "Russian influence"). The implications of the Georgian surrender parallel that of Czechoslovakia's fate: effectively cut in half, Georgia will eventually fall to Russian influence.

The Oft-Neglected Superpower

Russia's move was designed not only to expose raw the fact that they can still be-and are-a major player in the world stage, but also to gauge the current weakness of their other rival, the United States. The United States, militarily and politically, have been involved in a series of setbacks: the Iraq war, for all its strategic and tactical ups and downs, has become a psychological Vietnam; since Osama bin Laden's ascent to world infamy in 2001, al-Qaeda and its proxy organizations remain formidable; Iran and North Korea have called the American bluff, though they did eventually concede to the international community. American politics was also witnessing an upheaval: the Republicans have been succeeded by the rival Democrats, and have found a champion in the Illinois senator Barack Obama.

Incidentally, Barack Obama has been questioned in his lack of experience dealing in foreign policy. Among his early publicized-mistakes was his offhand comment of having to "take action in Pakistan" if Osama bin Laden is found hiding there. There was also his promise to take the United States out of the World Trade Organizations, as he deemed it unfair that good American jobs were being "outsourced" in such places as China, for example. He also took flak for suggesting dialogue with hard-line "anti-American" countries as Iran and Syria. Being the popular man to win in the next elections, the world began to glimpse at a "fading" America, no longer the hard-hitting superpower, but one at par with its European allies-Britain, for example.

Indeed, it seemed that America was becoming a necessary, but growing nuisance to the world: the Saudis no longer treat themselves with the United States as they would senior partners or bosses, but as equals; Hugo Chavez' posturing in Venezuela have inspired other Latin-American countries to an international community not necessarily under influence of the United States. Many noteworthy political analysts warn that the American foreign policy might need to reassert their position in the world stage, or face gradual "obsolescence". Democracy and capitalism was becoming a humdrum norm, and through all the American posturing they could do nothing while Myanmar was brutally suppressing the Lotus uprising by their local Buddhist clergy.

Hillary Clinton, Obama's Democratic rival, referred to this American need as the "3 a.m. moment". Basically, if a national emergency or an international event of critical importance occurs at an ungodly hour, can Obama be trustworthy enough to know to answer that 3 a.m. call? Barack sought to improve this bad publicity by choosing an experienced "old hand" as his Vice President: Joe Biden. Unfortunately for him, this might put him in another unforgiving light, seeing as how he promised that he would not let the "cadre of Washington" be part of his Presidential team.

From the Republican spectrum, John McCain seems to be the one capable of handling the "3 a.m. moment". Like John Kerry he has the military veteran credentials to prove he's had some experience with "foreign policy" in action. He has been once seen as the "political maverick" that seems to be outside the Republican or Democratic traditional line. He has also repeatedly pointed out that his support of the Iraqi "troop surge" was correct. However, two nagging flaws have come to light: his age, though it should not be the subject of prejudice, nevertheless puts his dynamism into question. Can he still have the same energy to make minute-based decisions? Obama fits the "new" category in his youth and in his being non-white, as the opposite of both representative the "old Conservatives" of Washington. McCain has also been seen associated with Bush, as Hillary was associated with her husband Bill. His maverick dynamism seems to be fade and be caught by his allegiances with the "uptight, hypocritical, war-mongering" Republican Right.

Both candidates have yet to make any sound foreign policy proposal, though God knows they have made publicity trips in Europe and the Middle East. Russia and China, and the lesser countries, for that part, are treating this "painful transition" in American politics like it was Christmas, and milking it for what it's worth. Therefore, Myanmar can do damn well it pleases, Russia can romp at Georgia at will (and revenge itself for Kosovo) and al-Qaeda can slowly reassert itself back as a political power.

The Ripple Effect

The one mistake that people in the millenarian age make is that they think that problems can be wished away. It had faded away from the headlines, it has been forgotten; it must have been fixed. There has not been any news of Chinese authoritarianism since the Falun Gong incident-surely the government is more democratic by now. Tibet comes as an unpleasant surprise, but most of the world soon shakes its head, refusing to believe. Cuba's Fidel Castro has grown old, and has passed the torch to his brother. Yet the Cuba remains a Castro Communism. The Buddhist Lotus uprising in Myanmar must be a crack in the junta government; surely they must concede to democratic change. They don't; and Myanmar remains a junta.

After all these years, surely Afghanistan must be a better country, al-Qaeda must have gone and disappeared, bin Laden is no longer a celebrity. Suddenly, explosions shake North Africa, and al-Qaeda claims as having orchestrated it. While they have not as yet matched their single-minded power as they once had in the high period of 2001-2005, it doesn't mean that they have faded to obscurity. There have been new generals, and possibly new plans (which can really say?). Their Taliban allies, rather than forced underground, and to obscurity, have returned to wreak new havoc in Afghanistan, and even in bordering Pakistan. The latter is an especially fragile country now, as Musharraf has left a power vacuum that would need to be filled soon, if to resist the pressure from the radicals and Taliban.

A thousand protests are pelted at Iraq; none are given to Afghanistan. Though Iraq's conflict is given more headlines, the chaos of the two countries is almost the same. Whereas the Iraqis nearly entered civil war before the surge, the Afghans have divided themselves to a virtual "federal-feudal" system, where the warlords rule much of the provinces, and President Karzai is to some circles no more than the "Mayor of Kabul". The insurgents in Iraq are fighting Americans, as much of the coalition have withdrawn, but the Taliban, growing in strength, have been successfully fending off NATO forces-French, British, and American. The Pakistanis aren't that good in handling Taliban in their borders. If the momentum builds up, there is no telling how far the Taliban can reach.

Back in the Philippine drama

A mishmash of all these tragedies seems to build up in the Philippines. Ah, the Philippines-the train wreck waiting to materialize. Not only is it in danger of falling to a Russian, Cuban or even Burmese "democracy", it is in danger of losing its Kosovo. When the Senate assumed "anti-Czarina" powers in 2007, and began to unveil the weapons by which they would slay "the Beast" in Malacañang, everyone thought it would be over. Then an explosion in a mall, the Congress, and a Spratlys scandal later, Lozada became yesterday's news. A lot of people still resisting her just threw in the towel, prayed for tickets out of the country, and Green Cards to stay out.

Meanwhile a new mess erupted in Mindanao. That long, awkward mess that existed ever since the Spanish colonized almost everywhere in the Philippines-except for Mindanao, and parts of Northern Luzon. It is complicated with religious context: the separatists would want to found their new republic on the tenets of Islam, which is a statist-religion, in the sense that it is ideally imposed by the State. The nightmare of it is encapsulated in the reality that not all of Mindanao is Muslim Mindanao... though the secessionists would want it all and Palawan to boot. If the government would acquiesce to them to avoid civil war, eventually there would be civil war-by the non-Muslims who would resist or be forced to adopt into Sha'ria law.

Further complicating the process is the presence of foreign entanglement: America has been noted by one senator as to having sent a representative to the signing by the government with the rebels. This is understandably the Americans being true to their foreign policy (interest-oriented), in this case, they would be able to establish bases within Mindanao itself without the awkward eventuality of going against Philippine laws (since by then Mindanao wouldn't be covered by them). Malaysia, however, is far more ominous: it is the home country of the MILF's Hashim Salamat, and the base of operations of the Abu Sayyaff. We also have a dormant claim to disputed Sabah. It is in their best interest to have the Philippines fracture under religious pressure.

Do we call the Philippines "guided Democracy" yet? We think that maybe, Czarina Arroyo will yet pull a proverbial "rabbit out of the hat" and stop the 2010 elections. It has become the stuff of nightmares. She has been, so far, been outdoing her own feats of insensitivity: when the potential eco-disaster of the MV Princess occurred, she imitated Bush and stayed to see how an ongoing Pacquiao match would end. Following that, she smiled from ear to ear while she talked about fantastic accomplishments in the economy and the country; no mention of the eco-disaster. Her State of the Nation Address, rather than soothe the nation's fears, merely magnified them to an ominous reality-with Spratly and a potential Chernobyl waiting to explode, she really could say nothing that would not aggravate the situation; which was exactly was she did, and that empty gesture was the point.

The luck of dictators and tyrants are that it takes their strong iron will to keep the nation together. Those who voted for her over FPJ (or any other candidate, for that matter) must have thought of this; but her recent actions, especially her willingness to throw away Mindanao, exposed the weakness of her position, or her personality. It is becoming more believable (and actually, more understandable), if the rumors that she no longer controls the reins of government are true. If there really are retired generals running the show.

This is the vision of the New World Order: an ascendant China, whose values are thus being mirrored in the despotic democracies still thriving in Africa and Asia, Venezuela and Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Russia, if it plays its cards right, can break the NATO alliance and get back the Ukraine, and even Byelorussia. Together with the loose al-Qaeda "umbrella", they can still demoralize and further weaken the NATO and the United States in victories in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They may not be coordinated, but merely having a common enemy is enough.

America, if it does not play its cards right, would shrink away from the world stage, and into a new era of isolationism. There are already plans to withdraw from Iraq, though these are as yet vague generalities. The one Pakistani ally America has is no longer in Pakistan, and soon much of the world will begun to turn away from the United States. This leaves the Philippines in a bad position, as if its plight was not enough. With no allies, surrounded by enemies, the country will most certainly devolve to civil war, or at least lose its one province. Meanwhile losing that province will spark a rising in Manila against Czarina Arroyo, and there will be intervals of power vacuum.

Dark, hard times ahead. And even if a third or half don't materialize in the next few years, its more critical problems will remain, and these can't simply be wished away.

LaHaye draws most of his theology from 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18:

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

The highlighted bits are the ones that he considers most important. It's fairly obvious why - taken at face value, it seems to say exactly what premillenialists say it means. However, I still disagree. I think the key to this comes from another letter of Paul on the same subject, that is, 1 Corinthians 15. Specifically:

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

Now, if one reads the rest of 1 Corinthians 15 (It's a long chapter, so I'll let you do that yourself), it seems pretty clear that they are speaking of the same event. This event involves resurrection, the return of the Lord, involves trumpet-playing, and perhaps other things. But they speak of this event in different terms - Thessalonians speaks of translation, or rapture in the latin, and Corinthians speaks of transformation, in respect to the same event.

An argument of translation is often a flimsy one, but in this case it is part of the reason why I choose the Corinthian transformation version of the event over the Thessalonian translation. The key word in describing Christ's return is parousia, translated in both these sections as 'come' with regards to Christ's return. However, the use of this word in contemporary greek texts is very specific, far more specific than the simple translation 'come'. It was the word used when a person of high rank - a king or a lord - made a visit to a province he ruled. It was also used in another context, that of the presence of a god, particularly when that presence was made manifest in healing.

This brings to mind Phillipians 3 which speaks of us as recipients of Citizenship of heaven in the context of resurrection:

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

Citizenship in the Roman empire was a very specific thing. As Rome conquered more and more of the ancient world, it became more and more difficult for it all to be controlled centrally. What's more, the huge numbers of native Romans who were trained as soldiers - and hence potentially violent - made retirement back to the capital a dangerous idea, not to mention overcrowding Rome further. The solution was to give Roman soldiers property in the provinces - this was the reward of citizenship that a soldier received at retirement. A Roman citizen was sent forth into the provinces, they didn't return to Rome. This way, the influence of Rome was extended. When a lord came (parousia) from Rome out to the provinces, the citizens didn't simply come go on with their business. It was a huge deal. The entire inhabitants of the area would go out to greet him, there'd be a great gathering in his honour, and they'd escort him back to their town or city.

We are citizens of heaven, our province is the earth; hence we are sent to spread heaven's influence on earth. Thessalonians speaks not of translation, but speaks metaphorically (as Paul does so many times) of what we as Christians will do when Christ comes: That is, go out to meet him and give him glory. The vertical theme is simply there due to the worldview at that time - they beleived in an underworld of the dead below, a firmament holding back the waters of the heavens above, and above that, the heavens where dwelt the Gods.

This is why I feel the LaHaye's understanding of 1 Thessalonians is not correct. Many will recognise this argument as Tom Wrights, and they'd be correct. I admit I haven't seen his parousia evidence, however considering his academic integrity in general, I'm inclined to believe him. The parts involving Roman culture, however, are well-known historically.

One thing that puzzles me is the placement of the resurrection pre-rapture. He explains that the renewal of our bodies as spoken in 1 Corinthians 15 is immediately followed by a rapture. Now, I know that, Jesus being the first fruits of resurrection, it's fair to assume ascension as well. This seems to be because he interprets verses 51 and 52 as being conditional for ascension. However, I think this is a little inconsistent, as there is biblical precedent (Elijah is 2 Kings 2 and Enoch in Genesis 5) for ascension without renewal of the body, which he uses as scriptural precedent himself.2 Corinthians 5:8 is a difficult verse, because it speaks of being 'at home with the Lord', which, taken at face value, is a very gnostic concept that I disagree with, which is that of the earth being dirty and something worthy only of escape, and that heaven is clean and something we with to return to, as if we came from heaven in the first place. Within LaHaye's eschatology, this is the only way to interpret this. However, given the use of the word 'home', and the context of the chapter as a whole, I think it refers instead to dealing with the difficulties of daily living and sin, and the fact that it is easier to live in Christ when struggling against sin. It doesn't seem to have an eschatological context at all, and even the next section, on the judgement seat of Christ, still focuses on current deeds and not on future events. I certainly don't believe it says anything significant about resurrection, renewal nor rapture.

LaHaye also uses a lot of other verses in less important parts of his argument. John 14:2 is one, which he misunderstands as meaning we have permanent residence in heaven rather than temporary rest there. This is something a look at the greek would correct. I think his use of 2 Peter 3:8/Psalm 90 to ascertain the precise date of the return of Christ according to the 'days' in of creation in Genesis is a little absurd, especially considering that verse 9 interprets the preceding verse as referring to God's timing and patience.

Finally, the larger amount of the book is spent on the Tribulation, based on Revelation's prophecies. It seems LaHaye wants to rub in the horrors of the Tribulation, to sell the concept that the church is absent through it. I don't deny the prophetic nature or Revelation, but by definition apocalyptic literature is cryptic, with vivid symbolic imagery that is not intended to be taken literally. Whilst I'm no expert on Revelation (I intend to buy a few good commentaries and spend time studying it, but unfortunately that's a time commitment that I can't commit to just yet), I find his interpretations a bit too literal to take seriously. What's more, he tends to ignore the more vivid symbolism (especially that of the tribulation, with dragons and apocalyptic horseman) whilst accepting at face value other symbols (especially lengths of time).

One thing he makes a very big deal of is the absence of the church in Revelation 4-18, and I have to admit I don't have an explanation for that. But I understand that in a cyclic reading of Revelation, this is simply one of a number of different ways of looking at an entire series of events. He says that this absence lends credence to rapture, because it is the removal of the church from trials (quoting Titus 2:13), and only Israel and the gentiles remain. He didn't refer to a verse when saying this, but I understand the church as grafted on to the tree of Israel, so from where I stand this infers that we indeed will be there, rather than excusing us. He also interprets many verses outside Revelation as referring to the tribulation and rapture (1 Thessalonians 10, and Titus 2:13 for example), when I think it's reasonable to assume they refer to the tribulations and hopes found in in daily life in Christ.

So, that's my look at the scriptural basis for (at least) LaHaye's rapture. It's basis is in three pieces of scripture - John 14, 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 - with the help of other smaller bible verses. I maintain flaws in his interpretations of these verses, and I feel most of the smaller verses don't speak about what he claims they do. His extended study of Revelation I admit is beyond my knowledge, but seems to be a literal interpretation of a symbolic genre, which to me is a fundamental error. I maintain my rejection of rapture theology.

The archaeological dig at Sagalassos in present-day southwestern Turkey is uncovering some real treasures.

Last year, a massive statue of Emperor Hadrian was uncovered. This week a colossal marble head of Faustina the Elder was found by archaeologists.

Sagalassos is in present-day southwestern Turkey

Some background on Sagalassos:

Sagalassos is an archaeological site in southwestern Turkey, about 100 km north of Antalya (ancient Attaleia), and 30 km from Burdur and Isparta. The ancient ruins of Sagalassos are 7 km from Ağlasun in the province of Burdur, on Mount Akdağ, in the Western Toros mountain range, at an altitude of 1450-1700 metres. In Roman Imperial times, the town was known as the 'first city of Pisidia', a region in the western Taurus mountains, currently known as the Turkish Lakes Region.

The Roman Empire absorbed Pisidia after the Attalids and it became part of province of Asia. In 39 BCE it was handed out to Galatian client king Amyntas but after he was killed in 25 BCE, Rome turned Pisidia into the province of Galatia. Under the Roman Empire, Sagalassos became the important urban center of Pisidia, particularly favoured by the Emperor Hadrian, who named it the "first city" of the province and the center of the imperial cult. Contemporary buildings have a fully Roman character.

Around 400 CE Sagalassos was fortified for defence. An earthquake devastated it in 518 and a plague circa 541-543 halved the local population. Arab raids threatened the town around 640 and after another earthquake destroyed the town in the middle of the seventh century, the site was abandoned. The populace probably resettled in the valley. Excavations have found only signs of a fortified monastery -- possibly a religious community, which was destroyed in the twelfth century. Sagalassos disappeared from the records.

In the following centuries, erosion covered the ruins of Sagalassos. It was not looted in significant extent, possibly because of its location.

On the current dig:

From 1990 Sagalassos, a major tourist site, has become a major excavation project led by Marc Waelkens of the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium. The monumental city center is now exposed; four major restoration projects are (nearly) completed. The project also undertakes an intensive urban and geophysical survey, excavations in the domestic and industrial areas, and an intensive survey of the territory. The first survey documents a thousand years of occupation -- from Alexander the Great to the seventh century -- while the latter has established the changing settlement patterns, the vegetation history and farming practices, the landscape formation and climatic changes during the last 10,000 years.

On August 9, 2007, the press reported the discovery of a finely detailed, colossal statue of the Emperor Hadrian, which is thought to have been stood 4-5m in height. The statue dates to the early part of Hadrian's reign, and depicts the emperor in military garb. It was carved in sections that were fitted together with marble tenons on the site, which was a thermae, a public bath. A major earthquake sometime between the late sixth and early seventh centuries CE brought the vaulting crashing down; the statue of Hadrian was felled, coming apart along the joins of its facture. The discovery of carved marble toes drilled with dowel holes to fasten them to the hem of a long mantle suggests the possibility of finding a companion sculpture of Sabina, the emperor's consort.

Here is the official website of the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project. You'll find a selection of photos from the dig.

Faustina the Elder (AD 100-141)

The marble bust of Faustina the Elder, uncovered at Sagalassos

Annia Galeria Faustina, more familiarly referred to as Faustina the Elder (Latin: Faustina Major; born September 21 about 100, died 141), was a Roman Empress and wife of Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius.

Faustina was the only daughter of consul and prefect Marcus Annius Verus and Rupilia Faustina. Her younger brothers were consul Marcus Annius Libo and praetor Marcus Annius Verus. Her maternal aunts were Matidia Minor, Roman Empress Vibia Sabina and Rupilia Annia. Her paternal grandfather had the same name as her father and her maternal grandparents were Salonina Matidia (niece of Roman Emperor Trajan) and consul Lucius Scribonius Libo Rupilio Frugi or Bonus. As far it is known, she seems to be the only known granddaughter to Salonina Matidia. Faustina was born and raised in Rome.

On July 10, 138, her uncle emperor Hadrian had died and her husband became the new emperor. Antoninus was Hadrian's adopted son and heir. Faustina became Roman Empress and the senate accorded her the title of Augusta. Faustina as an empress was well respected and this beautiful woman was renowned for her wisdom. The Augustan History impugned her character, criticizing her as having "excessive frankness" and "levity". However, this doesn’t appear to be the case with her character. Throughout her life, Faustina – as a private citizen and an empress – was involved in assisting with charities, assisting the poor, and sponsoring and assisting in the education of Roman children, particularly of Roman girls.

She can be viewed as one of the most moral, stable and respected empresses in the history of the Roman Empire. When Faustina died, Antoninus was in complete mourning for Faustina.

Emperor Hadrian (AD 76-138)

The Statue of Emperor Hadrian found in Sagalassos

Publius Aelius Hadrianus (January 24, 76 – July 10, 138), as emperor Imperator Caesar Divi Traiani filius Traianus Hadrianus Augustus, and Divus Hadrianus after his apotheosis, known as Hadrian in English, was emperor of Rome from 117 to 138 AD, as well as a Stoic and Epicurean philosopher. A member of the gens Aelia, Hadrian was the third of the Five Good Emperors, or the second of the recently proposed ulpio-aelian dynasty. His reign had a faltering beginning, a glorious middle, and a tragic conclusion.

click this link to read more about Emperor Hadrian.

For some years, the Roman Empire had been in decline, being constantly besieged by outside forces, repeatedly getting sacked by the Vandals, and under constant threat by the Visigoths, the Huns, and the Anabaptists.  But it was in early 476, with twelve-year-old Romulus Augustus still alive and drawing on the throne with permanent markers that the country's riled up eunuchs, as a group, and without prior discussion, threw off the straps of bondage and burst free from their masters, almost as a collective entity or organism, like the Redwood National Forest.

These eunuchs almost psychically agreed that they'd been taking it long enough, and after lifetimes full of rough treatment and hard servitude, revolted, lashing out with dreams fully engorged with the hope of a better tomorrow.

All were ultimately massacred, of course, but that's beside the point.

Immediately after shuffling off their albeit lax restraints of terrycloth sashes, the eunuchs erected a series of firmly shafted towers as outposts in the city, from where they were able to strategically coordinate their orgies of mayhem. 

Historians believe these eunuchs would harrass Roman soldiers with tactics including instigating minor skirmishes, only to flee before they reached a climax, and the more performance arty strategy of not getting up for squabble at all - instead just laying in the streets and fields until the soldiers lost interest.  The eunuchs common method of attack included rushing in the rear entrances of encampments with no warning, causing no little consternation and discomfort for the surprised soliders.

One particular tactic that aroused the soldiers bloodlust occurred on a day when the great viaduct was under repair.  The eunuchs again came upon the soldiers in a rush, startling them and driving them en masse under the ruptured waterway, where they were thoroughly doused, none having brought any protection by way of slicker or raincoat.  Many were laid low with head colds in subsequent days, and at least one perished of pneumonia (Confabulous the Wheezy).

The soldiers weren't about to just roll over and take it from these eunuchs, mind you.  Hundreds were slaughtered while the rest fled into the surrounding hills, hiding largely in the woods.  This gave the eunuchs a greater area to manuever in, undercover of the thick blanket of foliage as they were.  The location also gave them access to much greater supply of wood with which to craft their huge rod-like weapons of choice.

The eunuchs began invading and penetrating the army camps with these massive battering rams, pounding the soldiers into submission with repeated thrusts in the fortifications sensitive areas.  Once the eunuchs were well satisfied, however, they had a tendency to become complacent and overly relaxed, not defending their positions adequately, and were often taken advantage of in violent measure, to the tune of many eunuchs losing their upper heads.

Led by the fearsome castrato Tintius the Flaccid, a former wine servant and court entertainer to Emperor Julius Nepos himself, they were a brazen and spontaneous gang, these eunuchs, seemingly hell-bent on instant gratification and hasty getaways.  Quickly they spent their resources, losing load after load after load of supplies and arms through hasty retreats and unplanned for complications.

Tintius was, by all accounts, not your typical garden variety eunuch.  A sadistic pederast with a marvelous singing voice, Tintius would often torture captured soldiers by blasting them in the eyes with remnants of fiery ash while seranading them with Spanish arias of mirth and gaeity.  He also became reknowned for inserting live rodents into orifices unintended for the purpose of insertion, but it isn't known if this was done only to captives, or to friends as well. Tintius and his sidekick, Portico the Spacious, were known to double team soldiers with these cruelties until the victim begged for death, or at least a salve or lubricant to lessen the suffering.

This rampage of chaos continued for many months, the eunuchs invading every bush and hole in search of cowering Romans, creating such a distraction for the armed forces of the Empire that it progressively weakened the entire country, and by extent the world.  This was a primary factor in allowing Odoacer to ascend to power, as the guard was busy protecting the rear flanks while the Emperor played hopscotch and was killed.

These brave, perverse eunuchs were wiped out in the end, the fight taken out of them after Tintius died from suffocation in a plastic sheath in his tent one night (many believing at the hands of Portico) and their contribution was summarily forgotten from history.  But the role of the impotent warriors is undeniable in the collapse of the Roman Empire.  They are directly responsible for the mighty grasp of Rome going limp across the western world.

Never forget the Eunuch Uprising.

"Man, it reminds me of the Romans," Jon said, standing up and walking around to escape some mosquitoes. "Like when they'd have these armies of slaves to do their fighting. It's so wrong."

"Well to be fair, a for a few of them it actually works out," Jared chimed in with his steady pragmatism. "I mean, for some of them, they have a steady job, and they learn a trade. Plus they have an opportunity to get an education. I'm not saying that everybody does, but for a minute percentage, they actually do get more freedom."

I spoke my mind a bit more boldly than normal. Perhaps it was the New Castles. "Yeah but a minute percentage of slaves had sweet masters who set them free."

So there it is. Our current military-industrial complex is fuelled by "slave" labor in the new capitalist empire.

The Lowest Area on Earth

Allah, the Almighty, says: [Alif­Lam­Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after (these events) is only with Allah, (before the defeat of the Romans by the Persians, and after, i.e. the defeat of the Persians by the Romans). And on that Day, the believers (i.e. Muslims) will rejoice (at the victory given by Allah to the Romans against the Persians). With the help of Allah, He helps whom He wills, and He is the Almighty, the Most Merciful. (It is) a Promise of Allah (i.e. Allah will give victory to the Romans against the Persians), and Allah fails not in His Promise, but most of men know not.] (Ar-Rum: 1-6)

The Scientific Fact:

History books tell us about a battle between the Persian and the Byzantine empires – the latter signifies the eastern part of the Roman Empire - which was located in the area between Adhra`at and Basra, near the Dead Sea. The battle, which occurred in 619 A.C., ended with the victory of the Persians.

The Romans received a severe blow in that battle and everyone at that time expected their kingdom to fall. Surprisingly, they were engaged in another battle in 627 A.C. in the area of Nineveh where they defeated the Persians and occupied many areas. Some months later, the Byzantines signed an agreement with the Persians according to which they returned all previously occupied areas.

Geographical atlases show that the lowest spot on the surface of the earth is the area near the Dead Sea where the surface of the earth is as low as 395 meters below sea level. Photos taken by satellites support this fact.

Facets of Scientific Inimitability:

There are two miracles in these verses; 1) the Ever-Glorious Qur'an gave glad tidings of victory to the Romans in a course of three to nine years. After seven years, the prophecy of the Ever-Glorious Qur'an came true. This Roman victory coincided with the victory of the Muslims in the Battle of Badr. To the Arab disbelievers, the victory of the Romans seemed impossible and they started mocking the Muslims and ridiculing them about these Qura’nic words. When the prophecy came true, they were disappointed and humbled.

2) They told us about a geographical fact that was not known to anyone at that time. The verses said that the Romans would lose the battle in the lowest area of land which means that it is the nearest place to the Arabian Peninsula and is the lowest spot on earth; it is 1,312 feet (around 400 meters) below sea level. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, satellites have recorded that it is indeed the lowest spot on earth. Historical facts testify that the battle took place at the lowest spot on earth; near to the Dead Sea. At that time, it was impossible for anyone to know this was the lowest area on earth. Does this not provide even more evidence that the Ever-Glorious Qur'an is the word of Allah? Almighty Allah says: [And say [(O Muhammad) to these polytheists and pagans etc.]: All the praises and thanks be to Allah. He will show you His Ayat (signs, in yourselves, and in the universe or punishments, etc.), and you shall recognize them. And your Lord is not unaware of what you do.] (An-Naml: 93)

Source:  http://www.nooran.org/en

Parents, teachers, and students who will be tracing the history and connectivity of peoples and places from ancient through medieval and modern times will find the following two books very intriguing. They will definitely help your students to understand how the past still influences and is visible in the present.

The first title is A Street Through Time, by Dr. Anne Millard and Steve Noon. It is billed as a 12,000-year walk through history. The book focuses on a location somewhere in the island of Britain, along a river and presents a detailed over-sized two-page spread which depicts what the place looked like at fourteen key periods of history. The first picture is labeled 10,000 BC. We can pass lightly over this one, since it's largely guess-work. The second scene is 2,000 BC and shows farmers who have constructed a simple village. By 600 BC, this village has passed into the iron age and grown in population. On a nearby hilltop is an iron-age fort similar to those found throughout southern Britain. In AD 100 our village has become an outpost of the Roman Empire. There is a Roman bath, a Roman temple, and a Roman market. In AD 600, things have slipped backwards. The Romans are gone, their buildings are in ruins. But the place by the river is still inhabited. In 900 AD things have gotten both better and worse. There is a stone church and new thatched residences, but there is also the threat of Viking raids. Our scene shows such a raid in progress. In 1208 AD, we have reached the high middle ages. The village has grown a bit. There is a castle on the hill now. In 1400 AD the village has turned into a town. There is a new stone church, new town walls, and a new stone bridge. The townsmen are prospering. In 1500 AD, the plague strikes. It's not a pretty scene. The next scene is labeled 1600's finds our town caught in the conflict between King and Parliament – civil war in fact. Some of the houses are burning, the castle on the hill is under siege, and there are soldiers marching in the fields outside the town walls. The 1700s are much more prosperous, even elegant. The residences along the river have been rebuilt. The castle is in ruins, but there is a Georgian estate constructed beside it. The 1800s show the effect of the industrial revolution. The effect on the town is mixed. Some prosper, but many of the workers are poor (grim times). The last two scenes show our familiar street in the late 1800s and today. The church is still there – a landmark to help us orient ourselves. The castle is in ruins, but has become a tourist attraction.

Among the other fun things to do with this book is to play a sort of "Where's Waldo?" game. The illustrator has hidden a time traveler, named Henry Hyde in each scene. He keeps the same costume through the ages, and you can recognize him by the goggles on his head, his scarf, and long duster.

There are also text cues in the sentences printed in the margins that direct the reader to find particular features. A teacher or parent could use these very effectively with a child. An older student will enjoy the challenges on their own.

The book is oversize, 14" x 10", making each 2-page spread a full 28" wide.

A Street Through Time is a hardback, 32 pages, with full-color illustrations throughout. It is available for $17.99 direct from Greenleaf.

The second DK book is constructed on the same pattern as A Street Through Time, but takes a broader view. A City Through Time is billed as "The Story of a City – from Ancient Colony to vast Metropolis." The setting for this book is somewhere in Europe, at the mouth of a river on the Mediterranean coast – though the precise location is never specified. Rather than give an identical view for each snapshot in time, the depiction of the city in these spreads is a bit more varied. This allows for a more detailed examination of particular features and buildings. The story begins with a Greek colony in 550 BC (with a separate spread on the Greek temple), then continues to Roman civitas (again with a separate spread showing the public baths in great detail). There is a view of the medieval city (with detail on the castle) and then the more modern industrial port (and railroad station) and the steel and glass modern city (with a cutaway view of a skyscraper turned on it's side).

This one is also oversize, 14" by 10" making each 2-page spread a full 28" wide.

A City Through Time is a hardback, 32 pages, with full-color illustrations throughout. It is available for $17.99 direct from Greenleaf.

- Rob Shearer
Publisher, Greenleaf Press

From the top down this was only three years before the execution of the Christian Messiah – Jesus Christ.  But this must be put into perspective.  The death of Jesus at the time had no impact upon the world outside of his family, very small band of followers and agitated opponents in Jerusalem – an unimportant distant outpost in the Roman Empire.  Think of some local in modern Croatia, Bulgaria or Outer Mongolia being killed by a small mob of angry townsfolk – it would not even appear as a blip on the radar screen of modern media.

Therefore if ages regurgitated events along a similar timescale as previous ages, anyone in the world today fulfilling the role of Jesus would be unknown, out of the public eye, and their death would go as unnoticed as did the death of Jesus in the year 30.  Nevertheless at the time of Jesus’ death, akin to our year 2011, a very specific astrological signature was present.  This signature is based on the signs Scorpio and Pisces. 

Since the late 1960s, Scorpio has been the key sign within the Age of Aquarius, and will remain in this powerful position until midway through the next century when Libra takes over.  Whenever a smaller Scorpio period arrives within this major Scorpio period the results are magnified.  At the same period in the last age, the most powerful time for Scorpio was 29 – 34 AD while in this age a similar status exists from 2010 to 2015. 

How is Scorpio related to Jesus?  Most astrologers relate the sign Pisces to Christianity and Jesus due to the symbol of fish used by early Christians and various analogies to fish in the stories, parables and life of Jesus.  However very little in astrology is the preserve of only one zodiacal sign despite the confidence trick played onto the general public by sun-sign astrological columns in newspapers and magazines.  Scorpio takes rulership of death, rebirth, regeneration and inner experiences.  All these Scorpio trademarks are closely associated with Jesus.  Jesus and Christianity at the early stage was an amalgam of Pisces and Scorpio.

The critical issue at the death of Jesus from a predictive astrological context is the conflict and discord that was created in this small Jewish settlement by the new Christian/Jewish cult.  One of the key signs associated with Jews is the sign Taurus.  Coincidentally the signs Taurus and Scorpio are opposite.  What this means for Jews is that a Scorpio period created dissension within and without.  Enemies are at their throats (i.e. the Roman Empire) and dissension exists within with new cults (i.e. Christianity amongst others).

Taking a leaf out of the Scorpio period 29 – 34 AD the same stress and pressures should be expected by Jews and Israel in the period 2010 to 2015 (even 2009).  Jewish interests around the world and Israel in particular can expect to have to deal with the enemy without, and possibly dissension within.  The last time Israel encountered a powerful Scorpio time was from 1962 to 1978 - the peak of Scorpio power from the end of the Scorpio sub-age.  During this time Israel had to deal with the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1972 Munich Olympic Games hostages and deaths, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War amongst a medley of attacks by the PLO and related groups.  Another potent Scorpio time is on the way for Israel.

Will Israel attack Iran, or will Iran attack Israel?  Will Hamas deal a mighty blow against Israel or will Israel drive Hamas out of Gaza?  The details are uncertain, but what is sure from the astrological age’s standpoint, the aggressor is not favoured (see Will There be Peace in the Age of Aquarius?).  Alternatively or additionally it is possible that the hawks and doves within Israel may be at odds with each other and that internal dissension is the order of the day.

Another interesting development occurred in Rome in the former Scorpio period when in the year 33 the Roman Emperor Tiberius founded a credit bank offering interest-free loans to offset a severe financial crisis. Real estate values plummeted, and interest rates increased leading to a crisis of confidence severely affecting the upper classes and wealthy.  Many wealthy Roman families were ruined by this credit crunch.  Sounds familiar? 

The year 33 is akin to our 2014.  Scorpio is rarely a good sign for banks, money, wealth and the wealthy as they are ruled by Taurus – Scorpio’s opposite sign.

The recent sub-prime and banking crisis originating in the USA may be the preview for a more serious banking and financial crises that may hit between 2010 and 2015.  The Roman experience supports this.

One final note on this time last age.  The current Cancer micro-age affects 2000 – 2019 while the former Cancer micro-age one age ago affected the years 19 to 49 AD.  This period covered the Roman Emperors Tiberius (reign 14-37) and Caligula (reign 37-41).  Tiberius was depressed, reserved and “the gloomiest of men”.   Caligula was considered an insane tyrant who was cruel, extravagant and sexually perverse.  The next insane Roman emperor was Nero but he came later.  The relationship between these mentally troubled Roman emperors and Cancer is that Cancer is one of the key signs that indicate insanity, lunacy and depression.

It is extremely possible and probable that in our modern Cancer period covering 2000 - 2019 that some significant world leader or leaders will also be insane or severely depressed.  Time magazine recently reported that huge numbers of US soldiers in Iraq are being given anti-depressants – the seeds of Cancer are being sown!  This reflects the massive number of people in Western societies taking anti-depressants.    Certainly there has been a spate of shootings by mentally troubled people in recent times.  However the world has not even arrived at the strong point for Cancer yet.

The likelihood of adverse mental health issues affecting the world today is far greater than in the last age because Aquarius is another sign that indicates mental problems.  Aquarius plus Cancer equals a double whammy.  The worst time in the period 2000 -29 for mental health issues to negatively affect the world is the period 2015 – 20 but the tempo is quickening every year from 2007 to 2015.  Hopefully one of these depressed or mentally deranged people will not have their finger on the big button.  The mad Roman Emperors could murder and create havoc but they did not have access to atomic weapons that can create so much misery.

TEXT & PHOTO: Veronica Rizzo

The Colosseum is the most famous Classical structure of Rome and one that virtually every visitor comes to admire. The structure is easily recognizable with its distinct design and architecture. When the elliptical stadium was first built, over 2,000 years ago, it was the first permanent amphitheatre of its time. It was marveled at for its grand size and structure and remains a template for the stadia that we see today.

A huge ellipse with tiered seating, the Colosseum was able to seat 50,000 viewers with standing room for an additional 10,000. There were 80 exits that allowed for efficient entry and exit of the large masses of people attending events. Gladiator events were most common, but the stadium was also used for other games or to watch criminals being attacked by wild animals. No battle was neglected; at times the arena was filled with water to present naval battles. Entertainment at the Colosseum lasted for an impressive 450 years until the Roman Empire started weakening. The emperor Honorius ended the gladiatorial duels in 404 CE and animal shows ended by the sixth century. There are several theories to explain why the activities had ceased, but most likely it was due to lack of funding as games were expensive to produce.

The Colosseum was abandoned by the tenth century and soon became a home to houses and shops that were built within. Pieces of tufa, or stone, from the stadium were hacked off and used to build these new structures. During the Renaissance, when Rome became more vibrant again, more stone was removed and used to build the new palazzis and numerous buildings around Rome. This constant breaking down of the walls and removal of stone is the reason that only half of the outer ring remains today. It wasn't until restoration began in the eighteenth century that halted the destruction of the building and the focus moved to preserving the remains.

Currently, the focus is simply on maintaining the Colosseum. There have been no plans to rebuild it completely. Restorations to preserve this historical monument are costly, shown by the 20 million pound project completed in 2000. However, the history contained in the walls makes preserving it not only desirable, but a necessity. This amazing building started over 2,000 years ago to entertain the public, and visitors continue to be taken aback by its sheer size and beauty - especially when lit from within at night.

For tourists who will visit this fantastic monument, we recommend comfortable apartments in Rome near Colosseum.

National Geographic

When discussing how well-treated she was by the Iranians, Del Giudice expounds:

It's a part of a complex system of ritual politeness -- taarof -- that governs the subtext of life here. Hospitality, courting, family affairs, political negotiations; taarof is the unwritten code for how people should treat each other. The word has an Arabic root, arafa, meaning to know or acquire knowledge of. But the idea of taroof -- to abase oneself while exalting another person -- is Persian in origin, said William O. Beeman, a linguistic anthropologist at the University of Minnesota...

Being smooth and seeming sincere while hiding your true feelings -- artful pretending -- is considered the height of taarof and an enormous social asset.

The explanation of cultural mindset and behavior has in many ways answered a question gnawing at me for some time. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's smiling, lying, side-stepping-of-issues manner with which he engages interviews has long confused me. I first noticed the way Ahmadinejad presented a perfectly docile and respectful personage during a 2006 60 Minutes session with Mike Wallace. Since the Wallace interview, I have watched CNN's Christiane Amanpour engage Ahmadinejad and, most recently, NBC's Brian Williams.

Why a person with such ugly words - the denial of the Holocaust, wiping Israel from the Earth - would smile so sweetly while avoiding answers and delivering untruths was frustrating. He has provoked international consternation and heightened multilateral tensions on various global fronts, and yet he sits demurely and humbly with each accusing question. We want to understand Ahmadinejad and his motivations, but our Western ways have clearly misinterpreted his behavior - as is represented when interviewers point out his smiling to him as if it is oxymoronic to his words. It is not. He is, to paraphrase Del Giudice says, being smooth and seeming sincere while hiding his true feelings. Viola! A light bulb has perpetually displayed above my head since reading this piece in NG.

But it goes even further to give context to Iran's current activities. Of the historical Iranian empire:

'We have nostalgia to be a superpower again,' said Saeed Laylaz, an economic and political analyst in Tehran, 'and the country's nuclear ambitions are directly related to this desire.'[...]

The empire once encompassed today's Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Jordan, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, and the Caucasus region. 'The borders have moved in over the centuries, but this superpower nostalgia, so in contradiction to reality,' he said, 'is all because of the history.'

Whether right or wrong, our destruction of Iraq gave Iran the perfect opening to widen its regional influence and begin the steps to regain much of its historical glory. History has already sadly begun to acknowledge the volumes of considerations Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Feith, Luti, Hadley, Perle and the rest of the architects of the Iraq War failed to take into account when launching their unnecessary war. With dollar signs in their eyes and revenge in their hearts, the war-mongers ignorantly ignored the potential implications and results of such a conflict. Many of these eventualities could have easily been foreshadowed, and perhaps even prevented the war itself, if these people had only asked the right sources the appropriate questions and sought all relevant knowledge on the region rather than just knowledge on the invasion.

And many of our Right-wing, Neo-Conservates are committing the same egregious sins all over again with Iran. At issue is their short-sighted "Might Makes Right" contention that only the U.S. should be armed to the gills and unworthy nations must yield authority on many matters, but mostly nuclear weapon development. It is true that irrational actors are one of history's leading causes of war. However, the U.S. is slowly losing its economic might as India and China emerge and massive reserves of hydrocarbons are found on foreign soils. As our hegemony wanes, so does our might. Instead of acting like the wise big brother deserving respect in these times of transition, uneducated and foolish men mostly on the Republican side of the aisle are pushing the U.S. to be the schoolyard bully - shouting orders and stomping feet and dropping bombs to coerce others to do our will. This is a dangerous policy that has already yielded death and destruction and would continue to do so to our detriment.

Despotic rulers are eventually overthrown and if the U.S. insists the world must listen and obey our voice - we will see more terrorist plots succeed. When men like Sean Hannity spout repeatedly that the United States is the "bestest" and greatest country god gave the earth, he is insulting the other 6.3 billion people on this earth his "god" gave us. This isolationist arrogance will only cause us to fall harder as other countries assert their dominance on the global stage. As Karl Rove's "Permanent Conservative Majority" was an exercise in rejection of reality, so is the notion the United States will always reign supreme. Every empire has fallen - Egyptian, Iranian, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, British, etc. This is not an alternate universe and the United States cannot escape its eventual fate, whether in our lifetimes or beyond it. We must lay the foundation of respecting other nations and progressing together.

Neo-Cons believe the Iranian situation is on either/or footing. You either abide by our terms or we will bomb you into oblivion. The neo-cons forget we already have two wars in play, one of which we're winning by buying off insurgents and the other we're losing. They're those boys who touched the stove even when they're mothers told them not to and they knew it was hot. Only this time, their stubborn insistence to refuse common sense or acknowledge reality will burn us all.

The closed minds demanding bombs and war bring millions of us ever closer to a greater shame and more death than the Iraq War has. Their continued refusal to acknowledge or understand the entire situation will have dire consequences if we do not check the intentions of these relics and stifle their incorrect presumptions of the will of the American people. These men have already harmed the United States and the rest of the world with the Iraq War - a conflict they so pathetically did not understand would create a power vacuum and give birth to Iran's new ambitions of greatness. These war mongers should not be permitted -- under any circumstances -- to lie their way into another deadly conflict and untold disasters that they will only leave to the next administration to rectify.

Case in point: about 16 years ago, I saw a little movie called Rock-a-Doodle (shut up!). I won't bore you with the details, but it was an animated affair about a rooster who became this music superstar. The villains in the movie were a group of owls (makes sense, if you think about it, a rooster crows at dawn and ushers in the day; owls are nocturnal. See, perfect sense). Well, there was this one stupid little owl (voiced by, believe it or not, Charles Nelson Reilly) who was tasked with dispatching our heroes. He decides to drown them, forcing their little boat down what he proudly called an "adequate pipe." It was, of course, an "aqueduct pipe", meaning he didn't so much dispatch them as aid in their escape.

Okay, you ask, what's the point? Well, the point is, you've got a lot of nerve, mister. But, another point is this: this was not a movie that I watched more than once or twice. This was a movie that, before I looked it up on wikipedia today, I couldn't tell you much about, except that the main character was a cock (literally and figuratively). But, the whole adequate/aqueduct thing stuck with me. In fact, it apparently made such an impression that whenever I'm watching a show about the Roman Empire--which, lets be honest, for me could be any day of the week--and the Roman aqueducts are mentioned, I immediately think (and yes, sadly, sometimes say out loud) "adequate pipe."

Today's lesson, kids: I'm a huge dork.

In his 2002 book, "Worth the Fighting For," John McCain offered this confession -- an acknowledgment of a restless mind: "Although I seem to tolerate introspection better the older I am, there are still too many claims on my attention to permit more than the briefest excursions down the path of self-awareness. When I am no longer busy with politics, and with my own ambitions, I hope to have more time to examine what I have done and failed to do with my career, and why."

A telling observation, or so it seems, and refreshingly candid for a public figure. But the words are not John McCain's. They were written by his longtime aide Mark Salter, McCain's literary alter ego. "Worth the Fighting For," like McCain's other four books, is by "John McCain With Mark Salter," as they all say on their covers. This comment on McCain's disinclination to commit introspection was "my surmise," Salter said in a recent interview in his windowless office at McCain headquarters in Crystal City. He explained his technique:

"It's his voice, but I'm going inside his head to speak some psychological truth about him. I'm drawing a conclusion based on my observation of him. I always show him: 'This is what I've written. This is what I think about you. Is this fair?' " No one is closer to McCain than Salter, who has been with him since 1989. Their associates describe a "mind meld" that has created an extraordinarily close partnership. But even Salter sometimes has to guess what McCain might be thinking, particularly on sensitive subjects. "Things go on inside McCain's head that rarely or never come out," Salter explained.

Yet much of what goes on inside McCain's head is neither mysterious nor hidden. There is an elaborate record of the principles and beliefs that govern McCain's thinking about politics and policy in the five books he and Salter have written, scores of speeches they have collaborated on over nearly two decades, and countless interviews, including one last week for this article.

That record reveals a complicated man whose approach to the world cannot be summed up in an aphorism or two. He is a striver and a combatant, often at war with himself, who has conducted a lifelong struggle "to prove to myself that I was the man I had always wanted to be," as he has written. Multiple influences have shaped his thinking, from his famous grandfather and father, both four-star Navy admirals, to his travels and his extensive reading of history and literature.

On many points, the thinking is clear and consistent. For example, McCain believes in a muscular mission for America. As he has put it: "Our nation has a unique place in the world. We are the greatest force for good on earth. We chart history's course. Yes, we must be involved in the destiny of other nations." His favorite president is Theodore Roosevelt, reformer at home, activist wielder of a big stick abroad. He has read Edward Gibbon's six-volume "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" -- twice. But his favorite book is Ernest Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls," whose protagonist, Robert Jordan, has been McCain's hero since he was 13.
 
Above: President Teddy Roosevelt

Collectors' Voyages include 27 departure dates on 10 itineraries aboard Eurodam, Noordam, Zuiderdam and Prinsendam. These sailings range from 20 to 30 days and include up to 16 ports on a 30-day voyage. Noordam arrives in Europe on April 22 for the first of 11 departures on the 20-day Collectors' Voyages, "Mediterranean Adventure" or "Mediterranean Mosaic." Both combine the 10-day "Roman Empire" and "Mediterranean Enchantment" cruises that cover the Eastern and Western Mediterranean and visit nine countries, including Croatia, Greece, Tunisia and Italy. Zuiderdam spends its first season in Europe with a series of three new 12-day Mediterranean itineraries beginning April 26 that combine into two 24-day Collectors' Voyages: "Classical Worlds" and "Magic of the Mediterranean." Departing from Venice or Barcelona, each of the nine sailings features at least two overnight stays: one in Venice and another in either Istanbul or Barcelona. Prinsendam offers three Collectors' Voyages, including the longest of the season -- the 30-day "Ultimate Northern Europe" cruise June 17 from Amsterdam to London that takes the ship to 13 countries throughout Scandinavia and Great Britain. "Gironde Estuary and Kiel Canal" is a 25-day journey departing May 23 from Lisbon to Amsterdam that visits the Baltic, Spain and France.

Eurodam, the newest ship in the Holland America fleet, officially kicks off its inaugural Europe season July 5 with four Collectors' Voyages. "Dazzling Debut" and "Signature Sojourn" offer three departures on a 20-day round-trip from Copenhagen. Northern Europe ports range from Invergordon, Scotland, to St. Petersburg, Russia. "Viking Worlds" is a 25-day adventure from Copenhagen to New York that follows a northern route from Norway to Iceland and on to Canada before hitting the States. The Collectors' Voyages will also visit nine maiden ports of call. Over half of the 2008 Collector's Voyages will visit one or more maiden ports including Luleå, Hudiksvall and Kariskrona in Sweden; Aalborg, Denmark; Split, Croatia; and Newcastle upon Tyne and Barrow in Furness in England. Cruise fares for the 2008 Collectors' Voyages start at $2,199 per person, double occupancy

If you would like to try our services visit www.zanza.com  or email Travel@zanza.com. 

Started by crew members for cruise travelers, we’re changing the way you cruise! 

I found this graph over at Josh Crew's blog and almost had to look at it twice to really believe it. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but this is basically saying that the only way to peace is by forcing it. Um.. that doesn't work. Yet another sign that America goes the way of the Roman Empire. The Pax Romana, by the way, was only called that by the Romans themselves. The rest suffered under the boot. More on that later.

How can the members of the religion proclaiming a monopoly on truth and love be the most domineering and intolerant? I believe it comes from culture's influence on religion.

I'm not naive. I fully understand the balance needed between diplomacy and use of force. But I increasingly get the impression that Americanism is almost synonymous with strength and dominance, in the wrong way. Yes, we are the most charitable country in the history of man. But that doesn't make us a "Christian nation". And thank goodness, because if I didn't know the difference between the true love of Christ and the supposed love of the Church, I wouldn't want any part of it.

I call it Un-Love. Wake up, Christians.

Huge statue of Roman ruler found

Marcus Aurelius ruled over the empire for 19 years

Parts of a giant, exquisitely carved marble sculpture depicting the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius have been found at an archaeological site in Turkey.

Fragments of the statue were unearthed at the ancient city of Sagalassos.

So far the statue's head, right arm and lower legs have been discovered, high in the mountains of southern Turkey.

Marcus Aurelius was portrayed by Richard Harris in the Oscar-winning 2000 film Gladiator and was one of the so-called "Five Good Emperors".

He reigned from 161AD until his death in 180AD.

In addition to his deeds as emperor, Marcus Aurelius is remembered for his writings, and is considered one of the foremost Stoic philosophers.

The partial statue was unearthed in the largest room at Sagalassos's Roman baths.

The cross-shaped room measures 1,250 sq m (13,500 sq ft), is covered in mosaics and was probably used as a frigidarium - a room with a cold pool which Romans could sink into after a hot bath.

It was partially destroyed in an earthquake between 540AD and 620AD, filling the room with rubble. Archaeologists have been excavating the frigidarium for the past 12 years.

The dig is part of wider excavations at the ruined city, which was once an important regional center.

Imperial gallery

Last year, the team led by Prof Marc Waelkens, from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, uncovered fragments of a colossal marble statue of the emperor Hadrian in the rubble.

This month, the researchers found a huge head and arm belonging to Faustina the Elder - wife of the emperor Antoninus Pius.

Archaeologists now think the room hosted a gallery of sculptures depicting the "Antonine dynasty" - rulers of Spanish origin who presided over the Roman Empire during the second century AD.

The emperor wore army boots decorated with lion skins

Early on 20 August, a huge pair of marble lower legs, broken just above the knee, turned up in the debris.

They also found a 1.5m-long (5ft-long) right arm and hand holding a globe which was probably once crowned by a gilded bronze "Victory" figure.

But it was the giant marble head which identified this statue as the young Marcus Aurelius. The colossal head, which is just under 1m (3ft) in height, is said to bear his characteristic bulging eyes and beard.

Prof Waelkens said the pupils were gazing upwards "as if in deep contemplation, perfectly fitting of an emperor who was more of a philosopher than a soldier".

He added that this was one of the finest depictions of the Roman ruler.

The emperor wore exquisitely carved army boots decorated with a lion skin, tendrils and Amazon shields.

The torso was probably covered in bronze Armour filled inside with terracotta or wood. When the niche's vault collapsed in the earthquake, the torso would have exploded.

Bath complex

The statue of Hadrian was found lying halfway down in the frigidarium's rubble.

This initially led archaeologists to think it had been hauled in there from another part of the huge bath complex, perhaps to remove its gilded bronze armour, or to burn the huge marble pieces to make cement in a nearby lime kiln.

However, they now think sculptures of Hadrian, his wife Vibia Sabina, another Roman emperor Antoninus Pius, his wife Faustina the Elder, and Marcus Aurelius all once adorned niches situated around the room.

There were three large niches on both the western and eastern sides. The fragments of Hadrian's statue were found near the south-west niche.

The front parts of two female feet were discovered in the opposite niche, on the room's south-eastern side.

The remains of a globe can still be seen, cupped in the right hand

The archaeologists now think these belonged to a colossal figure of Vibia Sabina, who was forced into marriage with the homosexual Hadrian at the age of 14.

Remains of the statue depicting Faustina the Elder were found further along, on the eastern side.

In the opposite niche, they found the front parts of a pair of male feet in sandals, which could belong to her husband, Antoninus Pius - who succeeded Hadrian as emperor.

The experts suggest Antonine emperors occupied niches on the western side of the room, while their spouses stood opposite, on the east side.

Five good emperors

After the discovery of Faustina and her male counterpart, the archaeologists guessed the north-western niche would contain a colossal statue of Marcus Aurelius - the longest-surviving successor of Antoninus Pius.

The discovery on Wednesday confirmed this prediction, and suggests the north-eastern niche may contain remains of a statue depicting Faustina the Younger, Marcus Aurelius's wife.

Archaeologists will get the opportunity to excavate this part of the room next year.

The statue of Marcus Aurelius stood in the north-western niche

Despite his philosophical leanings, Marcus Aurelius had to spend much of his reign fighting Germanic tribes along the Austrian Danube where, in  180AD, he died in nearby Carnuntum.

The part of Marcus Aurelius in Gladiator was one of Richard Harri's last roles (the actor died in 2002). Although much of the storyline is fictional, it is set against an historical backdrop of the imperial succession from Marcus Aurelius to his son Commodus.

While Marcus Aurelius is considered, along with Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, as one of Rome's Five Good Emperors, Commodus's reign was marked by internal strife, cruelty and conspiracies.

Commodus took part, naked, in gladiatorial battles - which he always won. Opponents, whose lives were apparently spared, would eventually submit to the emperor.

He was murdered in 192AD - not by a general called Maximus, but by an athlete named Narcissus, sent by conspirators to strangle the megalomaniac emperor in his bath.

Where: Hadrian's Wall, Northumberland, England

When: July 2003

What: Two thousand years ago, a 10-foot-tall and 70-mile-long stone wall loomed over the undulating hills of northern England, built at the order of the Roman Emperor Hadrian to keep the savage Scots from raiding and pillaging Roman territory to the south. Today, the remains of Hadrian's Wall form the largest ancient structure in all of Northern Europe. This photo shows the path alongside the wall as it winds toward a series of crags called the Nine Nicks of Thirlwall, seen here in the distance towering above the pond.

Here's how I described the experience of walking here in one of my American Adventurer columns from last year: "A ragged mist swallows the rolling hills and checkerboard farmland ahead of me. An icy wind whips at the hood of my jacket. I'm alone today, a solitary hiker following in the footsteps of history, and this is just what I came for: a bleak and breezy walk along the ruined skeleton of England's most impressive ancient monument."

I've never been wholly satisfied with that description, though. I think it's because I wasn't able to use my column to talk about why I really chose this walk. I mean, who among SmarterTravel's bargain hunting readers would actually care about the personal crisis I was going through in 2003?

But here I can talk about it all I want, and this is what I wanted to say: I was at a crossroads in my life in the summer of '03, and Hadrian's Wall is one of the places I went in search of the proper road to take next. Penny and I were separated and I was living on my own for the first time since college. I took six weeks off from work and went to Europe that summer to find myself, and I was drawn to Hadrian's Wall because it gave me the opportunity to take long, solitary walks in the moody countryside near the Scottish border.

There was something wonderfully anonymous about "following in the footsteps of history." I took comfort in the idea that 2,000 years ago there might have been someone else standing near that wall, feeling homesick and confused, and wondering what to do with his life. It helped me keep my own problems in perspective. Melodramatic, probably, but it is what it is.

Anyone who knows me today knows that Penny and I eventually got back together, moved to Cambridge for two years and then to Beverly, where we now own a house and have started a family. But back in 2003 that outcome seemed improbable at best.

This is the trek that began the long process of helping me work through what was going on in my heart, and I think I'll always look back on it with a kind of bittersweet nostalgia. It wasn't a straight line from there to reconcilation, after all, and things would only get worse between us before they'd eventually get better.

So yeah, bittersweet, for sure. But it was still a hell of a walk.

A recent commentor observed that since World War 2, the world has essentially been playing a giant game of Risk, with only a few variations:

1. Supplies are not unlimited

2. The game never ends

This is the trouble of playing a game of global geopolitical dominance: the game never ends. In Risk, when one player manages to wipe out all of his opponents armies and controls every territory on the map, the game is over, and he or she is declared the winner. In history, nations who have succeeded in this quest, namely Rome, Britain, and the United States have to maintain control over their empires. Doing so requires an enormous amount of resources and over a long enough time period, becomes impossible and the empire collapses on itself.

The most recent historical example of this precedent is the collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite what Russophobes will tell you in light of the war with Georgia, Russia is not, and cannot ever reclaim the power that they once wielded.

This weekend during a game I came across a scenario that eerily resembled America's current struggle with Islamic extremists.

At the outset of the game, I took control of Australia.

* Australia is considered by most experts to be the ideal continental base in a multi-player game.

* This is because Australia is a small area: you are only required to control 4 territories to gain the bonus for the continent.

* Australia is by far the easiest to defend. Siam is the only way to gain access to this area, which is set far apart from where the action usually takes place in Risk.

* But controlling Australia is also a double-edged sword: because it's so small and relatively easy to defend, the bonus that comes with its dominance is not very large.

Players who are able to conquer larger continents like Africa or Europe build up armies quicker and therefore become more dangerous.

In order to offset the extra armies that my opponents were gaining on each turn, I decided to stretch my sphere of influence into Asia as much as possible. My armies took control of China, India, Japan, a few baltic states, and Kamchatka. The extra territories that I gained gave me an extra bonus, and because my base was not under direct threat from any other armies, I was able to defend them.

Until...

The player who had North America decided that he wanted to stretch into Asia as well, and given his greater resources, he was able to do so successfully. He took me out of Kamchatka and the baltic states. On my next turn, I struck back and took control of most of the territory I had lost. We continued this tit-for-tat for several turns. Generally speaking, the territories that we were fighting over have no strategic importance to anyone in the long run. Nobody tries to conquer all of Asia, and those who do usually find themselves out of the game very quickly.

Considering that the North American player had far bigger bonuses than I, I found it upsetting that he insisted on controlling these minor Asian territories. I warned him to stay out. When he refused to back off his claim of the territories, I pushed hard and managed to take Alaska away from him, robbing him of his bonus for the next turn. My goal was to teach him that he had little to gain from a prolonged conflict over these insignificant states, and hoped that he would turn his aggressions on the players controllong South America or Europe.

Instead, he pushed back and sent his armies on a path of destruction stretching all the way from Kamchatka to Indonesia.

The move severely diminished the size of my army and overstreched his forces, leaving his western borders open for an attack.

Now that there was no conceivable way that I could win the game, I decided to take the North American player down with me. Once I got a large bonus, I went on the offensive and pushed back north through all of Asia, then into Alaska. Whether the dice were with me or not, I had planned to go all out. Luckily, I was getting good rolls and so I continued the campaign until I managed to destroy his entire force in Greenland. This left him wide open to attack from his European rival. Two turns later, we were both destroyed and scooped up by the European player.

So, what can this Risk game teach us about global resource conflicts?

I found that my position was very similar to citizens of small Islamic nations. For hundreds of years, they have been dominated by greater, usually Western powers. From the French in Algeria, to the Russians in Afghanistan, to the Brits and the Americans in Iraq, they have usually been occupied by countries far richer and more powerful than they.

During the middle of my conflict with the North American player, I asked him why he was screwing with me in Asia, when he had everything he needed. He did not respond, but continued to push me around using his larger forces. Because I had no chance of winning the game, I decided, in essence, to perform a suicide bombing.

This is a very common tactic in Risk. When less fortunate players feel singled-out or dominated, they often choose to go on a Kamikaze mission to destroy their tormentor.

Which brings us to the Middle East and its oil.

For the sake of this argument, please spare me the idea that we are in the region to liberate its people from oppressive regimes. After all, one of the first names the administration dubbed the conflict was Operation Iraqi Liberation.

...

What does the United States have to gain through a foodhold on the world's dwindling oil supplies? 50 years ago permanent military bases in the middle east may have been prudent, (from a purely empirical standpoint.) Today we know that the global supply of crude oil isn't going to last but for another century at best, and a few decades more at worst.

The US may be gaining strategic advantages over hostile states by controlling Middle Eastern oil, but in exchange we are sacrificing our long term financial and physical national security. The cost of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to sink us into debt for years to come, while at the same time we're creating new generations of Jihadists.

When you think about their point of view from a Risk perspective, suddenly, they don't seem so crazy after all. If you're trapped in a corner and can't win the game of global domination, you might as well take the one responsible down with you.