Portalvideo

NIEBAUR, MORMONS AND ‘SPIRITUAL WIFERY’:
One of the most important people that the esoteric societies used to control the likes of Hitler, Napoleon, Nixon and others is the personal physician. In this context we find Napoleon was later poisoned by his physician after one from Ireland refused to do what he was directed to do and we find the egis of something even more far-reaching. The religions of this world are all tools of the elite and their social engineers as Francis Fukayama proudly proclaims in his late 20th Century book The End of History and The Last Man. He does not tell us who created these religions or what their secret rituals are; if he even knows. The primary purpose of this book is to explore the esoterics of Josephine and Napoleon with a view to garnering more insight into who managed them and how it was done. With that in mind we look to a Kabalist who institutionalized the less-than-egalitarian treatment of women by Joseph Smith and the Mormons. This man’s father was the physician of Napoleon and his father wanted him to be a rabbi so I am sure his father knew the Kaballah to some extent too.
„The Council of Fifty in Nauvoo manifest a distinctly Masonic character, and Masonic ceremonial elements were incorporated in the council’s meetings. A similar tenor emerged in Strang’s Order of the Illuminati. It was only a few months after the claimed revelation commissioning him to organize the „Illuminati” at Nauvoo that Bennett initiated efforts to form the Masonic lodge. But Mormon historians have yet to specifically explored implications of another fact: both the name given by Bennett for the organization, „Order of the Illuminati,” and the political concept embodied by the organization had a clear Masonic heritage. The parallel is so close that one wonders whether Bennett might have brought this and other more esoteric Masonic concepts with him into Nauvoo. At about this same time the practice of „Spiritual wifery” or plural marriage was also introduced. Bennett made several exaggerated claims in his later exposés about libertine sexual practices, claiming the women of Nauvoo were inducted into three ritual orders based on the sexual favors expected of them. Such claims are not tenable, but nonetheless recent historians have noted the apparent association of the Relief Society with Masonry. And Bennett’s more slanderous claims aside, it is a fact that the female leaders of the Relief Society in Nauvoo were at one time all wives of Joseph Smith. Whatever the actual relationship to the practices in Nauvoo, Masonic lodges had existed which did indulge in such practices, the most specific example being Cagliostro’s {Part of the Crowleyan soul-continuance and if Paschal Beverly Randolph [Merovingian Physiocrat like Dupont] is right in his claimed similar connection to Eliphas Levi then to him as well.} Egyptian rite. By all reports, Bennett would have intimate interest in this sort of Masonry–or this sort of Mormonism–and it would be hard to imagine him not encouraging Joseph’s ideas about new forms of ritual marriage.
In this context, another question lingers: Is it possible Bennett’s meteoric rise to prominence in Nauvoo was related to some unsuspected Masonic factor? Did he arrive in Nauvoo claiming independent esoteric lineages of Hermetic or Masonic priesthood, or some ancient and occult knowledge–declarations that Joseph, because of prior life experiences and associations, choose to honor? Though Bennett finally may have been nothing but a talented charlatan, it must be granted that a complex legacy of spiritual insight was embedded in Masonic rituals, myths, and symbols; they had a history and a lineage reaching back many centuries into Hermetic, Kabalistic, and alchemical Gnosis. John C. Bennett may have brought something more than Blue Lodge Masonry to Nauvoo. And, regardless of his true intentions, what he brought may have been useful to a prophet.
In Nauvoo, in 1842 and after, I suggest Joseph Smith encountered a reservoir of myths, symbols, and ideas conveyed in the context of Masonry but with complex and more distant origins in the Western esoteric tradition. They apparently resonated with Smith’s own visions, experiences modulating his spiritual life from the time of his earliest intuitions of a prophetic calling. He responded to this stimulus with a tremendous, creative outpouring–the type of creative response Gnostic myth and symbol were meant to evoke, and evidently had evoked across a millennium of history. But, leaving Masonry, there was still another, more primary transmission of this esoteric tradition that would touched Joseph’s creative imagination during his last years in Nauvoo.
Joseph Smith and Kabbalah in Nauvoo
By 1842 Joseph Smith most likely had touched the subject of Kabbalah in several ways and versions, even if such contacts remain beyond easy documentation. During Joseph’s final years in Nauvoo, however, his connection with Kabbalah becomes more concrete. In the spring of 1841 there apparently arrived in Nauvoo an extraordinary library of Kabalistic writings belonging to a European Jew and convert to Mormonism who evidently new Kabbalah and its principal written works. This man, Alexander Neibaur, would soon become the prophet’s friend and companion.
Neibaur {The Rothschilds were Bauers before they took the occult symbol and shield as their name. Could this be a ‘nee’ [French for 'born']-Bauer?} has received little detailed study by Mormon historians, and his knowledge of Kabbalah has earned only an occasional passing footnote in Mormon historical work. Neibaur was born in Alsace-Lorraine in 1808, but during his later childhood the family apparently returned to their original home in eastern Prussia (now part of Poland). His father, Nathan Neibaur, was a physician and dentist, who family sources claim, was a personal physician to ‘the’ Napoleon Bonaparte and whose skill as a linguist made him of „great value” to Napoleon as an interpreter (claims perhaps inflated by posterity). Like his father, Alexander became fluent in several languages, including French, German, Hebrew, and later, English. He also read Latin and Greek. {It is reasonable to expect that he understood symbology and archetypes and what became Neuro-Linguistic Programming and its hypnotic ‘charms’ to control people.} Family tradition claims that as the first child and eldest son, his father wished him to become a rabbi, and that the young Neibaur was begun in rabbinical training.” (2)
NIEBAUR, MORMONS AND ‘SPIRITUAL WIFERY’:
One of the most important people that the esoteric societies used to control the likes of Hitler, Napoleon, Nixon and others is the personal physician. In this context we find Napoleon was later poisoned by his physician after one from Ireland refused to do what he was directed to do and we find the egis of something even more far-reaching. The religions of this world are all tools of the elite and their social engineers as Francis Fukayama proudly proclaims in his late 20th Century book The End of History and The Last Man. He does not tell us who created these religions or what their secret rituals are; if he even knows. The primary purpose of this book is to explore the esoterics of Josephine and Napoleon with a view to garnering more insight into who managed them and how it was done. With that in mind we look to a Kabalist who institutionalized the less-than-egalitarian treatment of women by Joseph Smith and the Mormons. This man’s domki holenderskie father was the physician of Napoleon and his father wanted him to be a rabbi so I am sure his father knew the Kaballah to some extent too.
„The Council of Fifty in Nauvoo manifest a distinctly Masonic character, and Masonic ceremonial elements were incorporated in the council’s meetings. A similar tenor emerged in Strang’s Order of the Illuminati. It was only a few months after the claimed revelation commissioning him to organize the „Illuminati” at Nauvoo that Bennett initiated efforts to form the Masonic lodge. But Mormon historians have yet to specifically explored implications of another fact: both the name given by Bennett for the organization, „Order of the Illuminati,” and the political concept embodied by the organization had a clear Masonic heritage. The parallel is so close that one wonders whether Bennett might have brought this and other more esoteric Masonic concepts with him into Nauvoo. At about this same time the practice of „Spiritual wifery” or plural marriage was also introduced. Bennett made several exaggerated claims in his later exposés about libertine sexual practices, claiming the women of Nauvoo were inducted into three ritual orders based on the sexual favors expected of them. Such claims are not tenable, but nonetheless recent historians have noted the apparent association of the Relief Society with Masonry. And Bennett’s more slanderous claims aside, it is a fact that the female leaders of the Relief Society in Nauvoo were at one time all wives of Joseph Smith. Whatever the actual relationship to the practices in Nauvoo, Masonic lodges had existed which did indulge in such practices, the most specific example being Cagliostro’s {Part of the Crowleyan soul-continuance and if Paschal Beverly Randolph [Merovingian Physiocrat like Dupont] is right in his claimed similar connection to Eliphas Levi then to him as well.} Egyptian rite. By all reports, Bennett would have intimate interest in this sort of Masonry–or this sort of Mormonism–and it would be hard to imagine him not encouraging Joseph’s ideas about new forms of ritual marriage.
In this context, another question lingers: Is it possible Bennett’s meteoric rise to prominence in Nauvoo was related to some unsuspected Masonic factor? Did he arrive in Nauvoo claiming independent esoteric lineages of Hermetic or Masonic priesthood, or some ancient and occult knowledge–declarations that Joseph, because of prior life experiences and associations, choose to honor? Though Bennett finally may have been nothing but a talented charlatan, it must be granted that a complex legacy of spiritual insight was embedded in Masonic rituals, myths, and symbols; they had a history and a lineage reaching back many centuries into Hermetic, Kabalistic, and alchemical Gnosis. John C. Bennett may have brought something more than Blue Lodge Masonry to Nauvoo. And, regardless of his true intentions, what he brought may have been useful to a prophet.
In Nauvoo, in 1842 and after, I suggest Joseph Smith encountered a reservoir of myths, symbols, and ideas conveyed in the context of Masonry but with complex and more distant origins in the Western esoteric tradition. They apparently resonated with Smith’s own visions, experiences modulating his spiritual life from the time of his earliest intuitions of a prophetic calling. He responded to this stimulus with a tremendous, creative outpouring–the type of creative response Gnostic myth and symbol were meant to evoke, and evidently had evoked across a millennium of history. But, leaving Masonry, there was still another, more primary transmission of this esoteric tradition that would touched Joseph’s creative imagination during his last years in Nauvoo.
Joseph Smith and Kabbalah in Nauvoo
By 1842 Joseph Smith most likely had touched the subject of Kabbalah in several ways and versions, even if such contacts remain beyond easy documentation. During Joseph’s final years in Nauvoo, however, his connection with Kabbalah becomes more concrete. In the spring of 1841 there apparently arrived in Nauvoo an extraordinary library of Kabalistic writings belonging to a European Jew and convert to Mormonism who evidently new Kabbalah and its principal written works. This man, Alexander Neibaur, would soon become the prophet’s friend and companion.
Neibaur {The Rothschilds were Bauers before they took the occult symbol and shield as their name. Could this be a ‘nee’ [French for 'born']-Bauer?} has received little detailed study by Mormon historians, and his knowledge of Kabbalah has earned only an occasional passing footnote in Mormon historical work. Neibaur was born in Alsace-Lorraine in 1808, but during his later childhood the family apparently returned to their original home in eastern Prussia (now part of Poland). His father, Nathan Neibaur, was a physician and dentist, who family sources claim, was a personal physician to ‘the’ Napoleon Bonaparte and whose skill as a linguist made him of „great value” to Napoleon as an interpreter (claims perhaps inflated by posterity). Like his father, Alexander became fluent in several languages, including French, German, Hebrew, and later, English. He also read Latin and Greek. {It is reasonable to expect that he understood symbology and archetypes and what became Neuro-Linguistic Programming and its hypnotic ‘charms’ to control people.} Family tradition claims that as the first child and eldest son, his father wished him to become a rabbi, and that the young Neibaur was begun in rabbinical training.” (2)

The Trek Madone bike comes with the highest possible recommendation – both Lance Armstrong and Alberto Contador rode the bike in 2009, and both are happy to promote the bike for Trek. Perhaps in reality they would promote the bike of whichever company sponsored them, but nonetheless it suggests that the bike really does have something very special to recommend it.
We have had a Madone Series 5 for the last two months and, despite the rather cold weather, we have had many opportunities to get out on the bike during the winter and see whether it deserves the fine accolades.
Short answer: yes! It is a very fine bike to ride and has everything you look for in a bike. It is fast – whether coming down hills or going up them – comfortable, rigid and responsive, and above all a constant pleasure to ride.
On poor quality roads the bumps don’t hurt too much and it is easy to spend a few hours in the saddle without discomfort. Indeed, your biggest challenge is more likely to be keeping the grin off your face as you hurtle along.
To some extent I think the performance is slightly deceptive. The bike sometimes perhaps feels faster than it really is, and often I have thought I have completed one of my regular circuits in record-breaking time only to find my actual average speed really wasn’t so great, and it was simply the ‘sportiness’ of the bike that felt fast.
But no matter. If you are trying to get over the top of a hill before your cycling colleagues the Madone is perfect for you – last minute bursts seem to come out of nowhere where some other bikes become a lead weight towards the top of a hill. If you like short steep hills where you need to stand out of the saddle for a moment, the Trek again will reward you with speed and finesse.
One slight word of caution – the lightness and rigidity of the bike mean it has little natural momentum and can require quite an effort to keep it moving fast. You pedal hard and you go fast but if you don’t make an effort you slow down! Recommended for enthusiasts but I doubt if it will be the ideal first bike for someone new to cycling.
Technically of course the bike is of very high quality, with all the resources that such a large company can afford to invest. But often throwing money at a problem isn’t the best solution. You will be pleased to know that in the case of the Trek Madone, a mix of large investment and a touch of inspiration seems to have paid off perfectly and the bike is very recommended.
The Trek Madone bike comes with the highest possible recommendation – both Lance Armstrong and ogrodzenie Alberto Contador rode the bike in 2009, and both are happy to promote the bike for Trek. Perhaps in reality they would promote the bike of whichever company sponsored them, but nonetheless it suggests that the bike really does have something very special to recommend it.
We have had a Madone Series 5 for the last two months and, despite the rather cold weather, we have had many opportunities to get out on the bike during the winter and see whether it deserves the fine accolades.
Short answer: yes! It is a very fine bike to ride and has everything you look for in a bike. It is fast – whether coming down hills or going up them – comfortable, rigid and responsive, and above all a constant pleasure to ride.
On poor quality roads the bumps don’t hurt too much and it is easy to spend a few hours in the saddle without discomfort. Indeed, your biggest challenge is more likely to be keeping the grin off your face as you hurtle along.
To some extent I think the performance is slightly deceptive. The bike sometimes perhaps feels faster than it really is, and often I have thought I have completed one of my regular circuits in record-breaking time only to find my actual average speed really wasn’t so great, and it was simply the ‘sportiness’ of the bike that felt fast.
But no matter. If you are trying to get over the top of a hill before your cycling colleagues the Madone is perfect for you – last minute bursts seem to come out of nowhere where some other bikes become a lead weight towards the top of a hill. If you like short steep hills where you need to stand out of the saddle for a moment, the Trek again will reward you with speed and finesse.
One slight word of caution – the lightness and rigidity of the bike mean it has little natural momentum and can require quite an effort to keep it moving fast. You pedal hard and you go fast but if you don’t make an effort you slow down! Recommended for enthusiasts but I doubt if it will be the ideal first bike for someone new to cycling.
Technically of course the bike is of very high quality, with all the resources that such a large company can afford to invest. But often throwing money at a problem isn’t the best solution. You will be pleased to know that in the case of the Trek Madone, a mix of large investment and a touch of inspiration seems to have paid off perfectly and the bike is very recommended.

This is your everything to know about guide to Pandora jewelry, from Pandora charms and Pandora beads to the Pandora chains and Pandora bracelets and even a little history. Pandora jewelry began as a husband and wife import business in 1982. They would travel to Thailand from Denmark in search of the perfect gem stones. As their demand increased they shifted their focus to more of a wholesale business of jewelry. A few years later they opened their own factory in Thailand and kept to a tighter focus on the design aspect of the jewelry they had collected. Now, 27 years later, this small time jewelry shop has grown into an international global brand name, Pandora, with a team of 35 people located at its head office in Copenhagen, Denmark, a team of over 100 employees servicing the North American region, and 1,000 workers at Pandora Productions, its factory in Thailand.
Today, Pandora jewelry has two main designers that inspire the creative makings of these charms, bracelets, necklaces, chains and beads. Both are trained goldsmith’s that know the ins and outs of the current cutting edge of fashion jewelry design. Let them design the perfect bead or charm for any occasion and use the unforgettable moments in your life to select and create the perfect dangle bracelet for you or someone special in your life. Browse through our website to select beads with personal meaning from our collection to create your own bracelet design with the Pandora charms and beads you want on your chain, necklace, or bracelet. With so many choices of just types of Pandora charms alone; clips, beads, gold, silver, glass, and whatnot Pandora has something that will appeal to you. Pandora Jewelry offers classic and timeless beads and charms that will last for generations.
Each and every Pandora bead and charm only uses real gemstones. The only exception is zirconia. This is the only gem that is synthetically made to look like a diamond jewel. Pandora jewelry is not limited to just bracelets and charms. Pandora has a vast and broad jewelry inventory that includes earrings, brooches, dangles, charms, bracelets, necklaces, beads, rings, pendants, toe rings, chains and more. No matter what jewelry you are looking for, our Pandora collection has a little something for everyone.
Pandora bracelets are always in high demand no matter the season. Not sure your bracelet size? No problem, you may use a tape measure in determining your wrist size. Simply wrap the cloth tape measure around your wrist and record accurately. Keep in mind that a great way of finding the correct size would be to make sure you are able to fit a finger between the tape measure and your wrist. This will help accommodate the Pandora charms or Pandora beads that will be added your bracelet so it is not too tight around your wrist. The bracelets, necklaces, and chains can come in 14k gold, sterling silver, sterling silver with 14k gold, and murano glass. In order to find the charms, beads or dangles for your Pandora bracelet, browse through the different categories, collections, and completed bracelets pages online. This will show you the top selling and most celebrated Pandora Jewelry that’s currently in vogue. Pictures of all these Pandora charms makes this quite easy to determine if these styles are what you are looking for.
Cleaning your Pandora jewelry is quite simple. All you really need is lukewarm soapy water and a toothbrush. Gently scrub the jewelry and then rinse in clean water. In order to remove the harder caked-on dirt soak for about 10 minutes before you gently scrub. For a shinier surface, consult with the sales associates at Wilkins and Olander. We can arrange for a cleaning at our store. You may also polish your jewelry with a certain polishing cloth that has a special cleaning solution. This special cleaning cloth and solution is available at Wilkins and Olander. As a warning, please do not brandish any Pandora jewelry to chemicals. The sterling silver charms manifest their detail by oxidation. And any exposure to certain chemicals may alter your piece of jewelry. Some of these chemicals include the types found in hot tubs, spas and pools. Liquid silver polish is another example.
This is your everything to know about guide to Pandora jewelry, from Pandora charms and Pandora beads to the Pandora chains and Pandora bracelets and even a little history. Pandora jewelry began as a husband and wife import business in 1982. They would travel to Thailand from Denmark in search torby papierowe of the perfect gem stones. As their demand increased they shifted their focus to more of a wholesale business of jewelry. A few years later they opened their own factory in Thailand and kept to a tighter focus on the design aspect of the jewelry they had collected. Now, 27 years later, this small time jewelry shop has grown into an international global brand name, Pandora, with a team of 35 people located at its head office in Copenhagen, Denmark, a team of over 100 employees servicing the North American region, and 1,000 workers at Pandora Productions, its factory in Thailand.
Today, Pandora jewelry has two main designers that inspire the creative makings of these charms, bracelets, necklaces, chains and beads. Both are trained goldsmith’s that know the ins and outs of the current cutting edge of fashion jewelry design. Let them design the perfect bead or charm for any occasion and use the unforgettable moments in your life to select and create the perfect dangle bracelet for you or someone special in your life. Browse through our website to select beads with personal meaning from our collection to create your own bracelet design with the Pandora charms and beads you want on your chain, necklace, or bracelet. With so many choices of just types of Pandora charms alone; clips, beads, gold, silver, glass, and whatnot Pandora has something that will appeal to you. Pandora Jewelry offers classic and timeless beads and charms that will last for generations.
Each and every Pandora bead and charm only uses real gemstones. The only exception is zirconia. This is the only gem that is synthetically made to look like a diamond jewel. Pandora jewelry is not limited to just bracelets and charms. Pandora has a vast and broad jewelry inventory that includes earrings, brooches, dangles, charms, bracelets, necklaces, beads, rings, pendants, toe rings, chains and more. No matter what jewelry you are looking for, our Pandora collection has a little something for everyone.
Pandora bracelets are always in high demand no matter the season. Not sure your bracelet size? No problem, you may use a tape measure in determining your wrist size. Simply wrap the cloth tape measure around your wrist and record accurately. Keep in mind that a great way of finding the correct size would be to make sure you are able to fit a finger between the tape measure and your wrist. This will help accommodate the Pandora charms or Pandora beads that will be added your bracelet so it is not too tight around your wrist. The bracelets, necklaces, and chains can come in 14k gold, sterling silver, sterling silver with 14k gold, and murano glass. In order to find the charms, beads or dangles for your Pandora bracelet, browse through the different categories, collections, and completed bracelets pages online. This will show you the top selling and most celebrated Pandora Jewelry that’s currently in vogue. Pictures of all these Pandora charms makes this quite easy to determine if these styles are what you are looking for.
Cleaning your Pandora jewelry is quite simple. All you really need is lukewarm soapy water and a toothbrush. Gently scrub the jewelry and then rinse in clean water. In order to remove the harder caked-on dirt soak for about 10 minutes before you gently scrub. For a shinier surface, consult with the sales associates at Wilkins and Olander. We can arrange for a cleaning at our store. You may also polish your jewelry with a certain polishing cloth that has a special cleaning solution. This special cleaning cloth and solution is available at Wilkins and Olander. As a warning, please do not brandish any Pandora jewelry to chemicals. The sterling silver charms manifest their detail by oxidation. And any exposure to certain chemicals may alter your piece of jewelry. Some of these chemicals include the types found in hot tubs, spas and pools. Liquid silver polish is another example.

Most people who travel to France would always want to take pictures of the Eiffel Tower or visit the famous and historic Palace of Versailles, home to the last monarch of the most romantic country in the world. Aside from visiting the famous landmarks of France, there are other things that a visitor can do to immerse in the country’s history and lifestyle. These include having coffee in one of the older cafes or visit a prehistoric art caves to get a glimpse of the past through the works of people in the past.
Sitting in cafes and enjoying a cup of beverage is one of the best way to enjoy the local culture. On the Left Bank are the cafes used to be the hangouts of famous people like Hemingway, Picasso, and Sartre. These include Select, Flore, Coupole, Deux Magots and Closerie des Lilas. Normally, visitors would find their way to cafes located in St-Andre-des-Art and boulevard St-Michel. If you’re the cost-conscious traveler, best to avoid those located in the Champs-Elysees and rue de Rivoli as you could end up paying double or triple of the average coffee prices.
There are also prehistoric art caves throughout France. One of these is the Grotte de Lascaus, which was discovered in 1940 by accident. The cave is said to be decorated with preserved animal paintings believed to be done by Cro-Magnon people about 17 thousand years ago. Among the subjects are bison, mammoth and horse. It is also in this cave that the 5.5 meter bull, the largest prehistoric drawing, could be found. The cave was opened to tourists in 1948 but it was closed for public viewing in 1963 because of deterioration of the interior. There is a replica of the cave at Lascaux II.
Most people who travel to France would always want to take pictures of the Eiffel Tower or visit the famous and historic Palace of Versailles, home to the last monarch of the most romantic country in the world. Aside from visiting the famous landmarks of France, there are other things that a visitor can do to immerse in the country’s history and lifestyle. These include having coffee in one of the older cafes or visit a prehistoric art caves to get a glimpse of the past through the works of people in the past.
Sitting in cafes and enjoying a cup of beverage is one of the best way to enjoy the local culture. On the Left Bank are the cafes used to be the hangouts of famous people like Hemingway, Picasso, and anonse towarzyskie Sartre. These include Select, Flore, Coupole, Deux Magots and Closerie des Lilas. Normally, visitors would find their way to cafes located in St-Andre-des-Art and boulevard St-Michel. If you’re the cost-conscious traveler, best to avoid those located in the Champs-Elysees and rue de Rivoli as you could end up paying double or triple of the average coffee prices.
There are also prehistoric art caves throughout France. One of these is the Grotte de Lascaus, which was discovered in 1940 by accident. The cave is said to be decorated with preserved animal paintings believed to be done by Cro-Magnon people about 17 thousand years ago. Among the subjects are bison, mammoth and horse. It is also in this cave that the 5.5 meter bull, the largest prehistoric drawing, could be found. The cave was opened to tourists in 1948 but it was closed for public viewing in 1963 because of deterioration of the interior. There is a replica of the cave at Lascaux II.

Glamour is synonymous with Hollywood movie stars, but they’re newcomers to the world of perfume, which goes way back. Perfume is thousands of years old.
The use of herbs and flowers to perfume the air was how a love for fragrance began. It was common for people to wear a garland of flowers, to hang fragrant plants indoors, and add aromatic plants to sweet-smelling rushes spread on a floor.
One of the oldest uses of perfumes comes form the burning of incense and aromatic herbs used in religious services, often the aromatic gums, frankincense and myrrh, gathered from trees. And the word „perfume” comes from the Latin per fume, meaning „through smoke”.
The Egyptians were the first to incorporate perfume into their culture followed by the ancient Chinese, Hindus, Arabs, Greeks, and Romans. The Egyptians invented glass, and perfume bottles were one of the first common uses for glass. The earliest use of perfume bottles is Egyptian, dating to around 1000 BC. That’s right, people have been dabbing their earlobes for more than 3000 years.
From the 9th century, high volume trade between Byzantium and Venice brought perfumes into Europe. There was much trade within Arabia, bringing perfumes from Baghdad to Muslim Spain.
Arabian perfume was a highly developed art. With ancient formulas from the Persians, they used ingredients from China, India and Africa, producing perfumes on a large scale. They had been using distillation since before the 9th century.
„Al-Hawi,” a book by Rhazes, who lived back in the 9th or early 10th century, contained a chapter on cosmetics. It was translated into Latin in France in the late 12th century.
That was about the time, 1000 years ago, that musk and floral perfumes were brought to northwest Europe from Arabia, through trade with the Islamic world and with the returning Crusaders. The trading for perfume was also involved in trade for spices and dyes.
So, there’s a lot more than „Ooo la la” to that next whiff of French fragrance! The exotic factor goes back thousands of years, and Hollywood is buying it.
For 240 years, the Anglo-French House of CREED has been the choice of celebrities, royals and connoisseurs of finesse worldwide. It still employs techniques largely abandoned in the perfume industry, and manufactures its own infusions from the finest botanicals and most precious essences the world has to offer.
The new creation from CREED, Love in White, debuted in 2005. It was the first to be released in the US, and among the first to receive a bottle was actress ANGELINA JOLIE because she and the new scent share a link to the United Nations. Sales of CREED’s Love In White in part support the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). It’s also the first time a CREED fragrance has ever supported a charity, and actress Angelina Jolie is a UN goodwill ambassador working on refugee issues.
CREED Jasmal was supposedly created just for NATALIE WOOD, and was a preferred scent of lovely Hollywood classic star. Natalie’s warmth and mystery seem to be a match with the fragrance’s notes of Italian and Moroccan Jasmine.
CREED Fleurissimo is a floral fairy tale of tuberose, rose, violets and iris. A thoughtful groom once presented his bride with the beautiful bouquet in an elegant glass bottle. The bride was GRACE KELLY, and late Prince Rainier of Monaco commissioned Creed to develop a fragrance especially for his princess.
The fragrance was also a treasured favorite of art and culture-loving JACEQUELINE KENNEDY ONASSIS.
In 1954, Hollywood associated with CHANEL quite by accident. Screen goddess MARILYN MONROE was asked what she wore to bed at night and gave the breathy reply, „Just a few drops of No 5.” As an icon of seduction, she popularized the fragrance,
inspiring Chanel’s then advertising director to begin choosing the world’s most stunning actors to keep Chanel No 5 alive in people’s imaginations. ALI MACGRAW and CATHERIN DENEUVE and most recently NICOLE KIDMAN are among beauties chosen.
Today, MADONNA, JENNIFER LOVE HEWITT and GOLDIE HAWN are among pop world icons who also savor the roots of tradition, all sharing a love for the scent Tuberose Indiana by CREED.
In January 1957, GIVENCHY created the fragrance L’Interdit especially for the charming screen star AUDREY HEPBURN, and allowed Hepburn to wear it exclusively for a year before it was released to the public the next December. It was, after all, Hepburn who, at the peak of her fame, convinced producers of the film Sabrina to let her wear the creations of up-and-coming young designer Hubert de Givenchy.
The tradition of Hollywood beauties associated with perfumes continues but, unlike Hepburn, actors of today are generally not the inspiration for the fragrances they endorse, but are chosen for the way they embody the spirit of the scents.
Today, Lord of the Rings fairy princess LIV TYLER is the face of the new Givenchy fragrance, Very Irresistible.
One of the latest to be the face of Calvin Klein’s fresh, new fragrance Eternity Moment, is fresh starlet SCARLETT JOHANSSON.
But do those faces really wear the fragrances they endorse? Ignited by the spontaneous innocence of Marilyn Monroe, successful marketing campaigns have launched a million bottles.
One would guess, yes, the scents have been worn as advertised at least once. But there are fragrances for every season, for day and for night, and today’s celebrities are launching their own.
So what do they wear behind the billboards? Here are some boudoir moments of who ihas worn what.
As they movie stars walk down the red carpet looking gorgeous, they smell gorgeous, too, and it makes common Zents!
In preparation for Oscar night. CHARLIZE THERON, ANGELINA JOLIE, JADA PINKETTT-SMITH, SHARON STONE, and KATIE HOLMES picked out one of the newest on the scene, ZENTS. The fragrances are created completely by hand in the same tradition as in Paris back at the turn of the century.
UMA THURMAN was the first person ever to receive the „Fresh” Zents scent upon its creation.
LAURA DERN loves Fresh. The delicate simplicity of heliotrope, linden blossom, cucumber and green apple are innocent and pure, contrasting with Dern’s other choice from the line, Fig, which is a warm and spicy blend of Himalayan cedarwood, vetiver, balsam, cinnamon, pimento berry — warm, invigorating and sensuous.
Some other fans of the line include JULIA ROBERTS who loves Ore, a deep, spicy and alluring blend of iris, bay laurel, coriander, jasmine, and patchouli. The style is described as sexy, fiery and euphoric.
CHRISTINA AGUILERA uses the Zents Concreta solid balm in her hair, which is the fragrance line in the form of a pomade.
Every year, perfume designers release new creations, and they compete for the attention of the public and the stars that intrigue the world. Some are passing favorites, and some classics still reign.
The tuberose enchantment of Fracas Parfum by Robert Piguet was cherished in the 40s by legendary diva MARLENE DIETRICH, and is cherished today by MADONNA and KIM BASINGER.
CHARLIZE THERON and KRISTIN SCOTT THOMAS are both said to love the magnolia, rose, cinnamon, peachy blend that lifts out of the vanilla and sandalwood bottom notes of DOLCE VITA, created by Christian Dior 1996.
And who can dispute some of these choices reflect the qualities of those who waft them?
EXOTIC and SWEET
GWEN STEFANI, OPRAH and CAMERON DIAZ are among celebrity clients who go for the exotic florals, including gardenia, in Monyette Paris. The scent is created using only the purest perfume oils with no alcohol or cologne base, so it’s long lasting and adapts to the wearer. The insouciant CAMERON is also said to like HAPPY by Clinique.
FRESH, FRUITY and CALM! „Pass the perfume, honey!”
SARAH JESSICA PARKER and MATTHEW BRODERICK is a celebrity couple that has both worn BRANDY Parfums. The unisex appeal of this fragrance is fresh and elegant with top notes of apple and peach, and herbaceous heart notes that help reduce stress. Other celebrity wearers of this scent for every season are NATALIE PORTMAN, JUDI DENCH, GOLDIE HAWN and TOBY MCGUIRE.
HONEY CHOCOLATE SPICE!
Today’s Hollywood divas KATE HUDSON and RENEE ZELLWEGER love ANGEL perfume, designed by THIERRY MUGLER in 1993. Pop star BRANDY and poetic princess VANNA BONTA also reportedly are known to wear this winged journey of a perfume that explores essences of honey, chocolate, and caramel and is blended with notes of vanilla, patchouli, and sandalwood. Sounds like these fragrances give perfect wings to these beauties of page and screen.
Much talked-about Hollywood writer VANNA BONTA is faithful to poetic fragrances from France of ANNICK GOUTAL, who came to perfume making after a career as a prize-winning pianist. A Bonta favorite is the aerial Eau du Ciel, a subtle interpretation of innocence in rosewood, violet, Florentine iris and lime blossom. Goutal’s description is „delicate as the shiver of an angel’s wing.”
BONTA indulges her terrestrial favorite signature blossom, the pure white gardenia, with Goutal’s Gardenia Passion, a fragrance famous for its natural and faithful reconstitution of this untamed flower.
NICOLE KIDMAN is also a fan of ANNICK GOUTAL’s Eau du Sud, an invigorating unisex blend of blend of orange, mint, and basil.
PERFUMES FIT THE WEATHER
Fragrances are, after all, created to meet the demand of moods, rain, sun, day, night, cold, warm, and every occasion.
Sultry amber and incense blends are perfect for winter, warming cold months. VANNA BONTA is a client of the famous Santa Maria Novella apothecary, run by monks, in Florence, Italy, and the Profumi di Firenze. Both lines use fragrance recipes that are hundreds of years old, some originals unchanged since the Renaissance Medici family commissioned them in the 1300s.
Summer brings out the citrus and vanilla-tropics attacks, and COMPTOIR SUD PACIFIQUE is a favorite of many celebrities for its Vanille variations in pineapple, apricot, lime and milk. A refreshing pineapple favorite is ARTISAN Annanas Fizz.
MICHELLE PFEIFFER loves Acqua di Gio, and the fresh marine notes with seaside floral scent reflect the crisp, refreshing charisma of this beautiful star.
Fans of singing diva WHITNEY HOUSTON and Friend’s famous LISA KUDROW are both fans of BULGARI pour Femme.
MIRA SORVINO and THORA BIRCH love Coco by Chanel, and CALISTA FLOCKHART flounces prettily in So de la Renta.
THE DIRT ON THE STARS
The new Pilar & Lucy fragrance, Tiptoing Through Chambers of the Moon, was a hit with some stars this year, as was The Exact Friction of Stars, not suprisingly a VANNA BONTA pick if only for the name. Reportedly a big vanilla fan, Bonta was a client of the cosmic friction of vanilla, coconut, and orange weaved with the warmth of clove.
And the dirt on SHARON STONE, always on the forefront of invention, is that she loves DEMETER Fragrances, especially Dirt, which is also a supposed favorite of KATE MOSS. In fact, Dirt is one of their most popular, a fresh and clean potting soil scent with the citrus smell of fresh grass. The Demeter library of food, beverage, and nature scents catalogue comfortingly familiar and less oblivious scents of pleasures, such as Russian Leather, Play-Doh, Laundromat, Grass, Thunderstorm, Ocean, Cotton Candy… Ahhh. We could go on.
Glamour is synonymous with Hollywood movie stars, but they’re newcomers to the world of perfume, which goes way back. Perfume is thousands of years old.
The use of herbs and flowers to perfume the air was how a love for fragrance began. It was common for people to wear a garland of flowers, to hang fragrant plants indoors, and add aromatic plants to sweet-smelling rushes spread on a floor.
One of the oldest uses of perfumes comes form the burning of incense and aromatic herbs used in religious services, often the aromatic gums, frankincense and myrrh, gathered from trees. And the word „perfume” comes from the Latin per fume, meaning „through smoke”.
The Egyptians were the first to incorporate perfume into their culture followed by the ancient Chinese, Hindus, Arabs, Greeks, and Romans. The Egyptians invented glass, and perfume bottles were one of the first common uses for glass. The earliest use of perfume bottles is Egyptian, dating to around 1000 BC. That’s right, people kancelaria patentowa have been dabbing their earlobes for more than 3000 years.
From the 9th century, high volume trade between Byzantium and Venice brought perfumes into Europe. There was much trade within Arabia, bringing perfumes from Baghdad to Muslim Spain.
Arabian perfume was a highly developed art. With ancient formulas from the Persians, they used ingredients from China, India and Africa, producing perfumes on a large scale. They had been using distillation since before the 9th century.
„Al-Hawi,” a book by Rhazes, who lived back in the 9th or early 10th century, contained a chapter on cosmetics. It was translated into Latin in France in the late 12th century.
That was about the time, 1000 years ago, that musk and floral perfumes were brought to northwest Europe from Arabia, through trade with the Islamic world and with the returning Crusaders. The trading for perfume was also involved in trade for spices and dyes.
So, there’s a lot more than „Ooo la la” to that next whiff of French fragrance! The exotic factor goes back thousands of years, and Hollywood is buying it.
For 240 years, the Anglo-French House of CREED has been the choice of celebrities, royals and connoisseurs of finesse worldwide. It still employs techniques largely abandoned in the perfume industry, and manufactures its own infusions from the finest botanicals and most precious essences the world has to offer.
The new creation from CREED, Love in White, debuted in 2005. It was the first to be released in the US, and among the first to receive a bottle was actress ANGELINA JOLIE because she and the new scent share a link to the United Nations. Sales of CREED’s Love In White in part support the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). It’s also the first time a CREED fragrance has ever supported a charity, and actress Angelina Jolie is a UN goodwill ambassador working on refugee issues.
CREED Jasmal was supposedly created just for NATALIE WOOD, and was a preferred scent of lovely Hollywood classic star. Natalie’s warmth and mystery seem to be a match with the fragrance’s notes of Italian and Moroccan Jasmine.
CREED Fleurissimo is a floral fairy tale of tuberose, rose, violets and iris. A thoughtful groom once presented his bride with the beautiful bouquet in an elegant glass bottle. The bride was GRACE KELLY, and late Prince Rainier of Monaco commissioned Creed to develop a fragrance especially for his princess.
The fragrance was also a treasured favorite of art and culture-loving JACEQUELINE KENNEDY ONASSIS.
In 1954, Hollywood associated with CHANEL quite by accident. Screen goddess MARILYN MONROE was asked what she wore to bed at night and gave the breathy reply, „Just a few drops of No 5.” As an icon of seduction, she popularized the fragrance,
inspiring Chanel’s then advertising director to begin choosing the world’s most stunning actors to keep Chanel No 5 alive in people’s imaginations. ALI MACGRAW and CATHERIN DENEUVE and most recently NICOLE KIDMAN are among beauties chosen.
Today, MADONNA, JENNIFER LOVE HEWITT and GOLDIE HAWN are among pop world icons who also savor the roots of tradition, all sharing a love for the scent Tuberose Indiana by CREED.
In January 1957, GIVENCHY created the fragrance L’Interdit especially for the charming screen star AUDREY HEPBURN, and allowed Hepburn to wear it exclusively for a year before it was released to the public the next December. It was, after all, Hepburn who, at the peak of her fame, convinced producers of the film Sabrina to let her wear the creations of up-and-coming young designer Hubert de Givenchy.
The tradition of Hollywood beauties associated with perfumes continues but, unlike Hepburn, actors of today are generally not the inspiration for the fragrances they endorse, but are chosen for the way they embody the spirit of the scents.
Today, Lord of the Rings fairy princess LIV TYLER is the face of the new Givenchy fragrance, Very Irresistible.
One of the latest to be the face of Calvin Klein’s fresh, new fragrance Eternity Moment, is fresh starlet SCARLETT JOHANSSON.
But do those faces really wear the fragrances they endorse? Ignited by the spontaneous innocence of Marilyn Monroe, successful marketing campaigns have launched a million bottles.
One would guess, yes, the scents have been worn as advertised at least once. But there are fragrances for every season, for day and for night, and today’s celebrities are launching their own.
So what do they wear behind the billboards? Here are some boudoir moments of who ihas worn what.
As they movie stars walk down the red carpet looking gorgeous, they smell gorgeous, too, and it makes common Zents!
In preparation for Oscar night. CHARLIZE THERON, ANGELINA JOLIE, JADA PINKETTT-SMITH, SHARON STONE, and KATIE HOLMES picked out one of the newest on the scene, ZENTS. The fragrances are created completely by hand in the same tradition as in Paris back at the turn of the century.
UMA THURMAN was the first person ever to receive the „Fresh” Zents scent upon its creation.
LAURA DERN loves Fresh. The delicate simplicity of heliotrope, linden blossom, cucumber and green apple are innocent and pure, contrasting with Dern’s other choice from the line, Fig, which is a warm and spicy blend of Himalayan cedarwood, vetiver, balsam, cinnamon, pimento berry — warm, invigorating and sensuous.
Some other fans of the line include JULIA ROBERTS who loves Ore, a deep, spicy and alluring blend of iris, bay laurel, coriander, jasmine, and patchouli. The style is described as sexy, fiery and euphoric.
CHRISTINA AGUILERA uses the Zents Concreta solid balm in her hair, which is the fragrance line in the form of a pomade.
Every year, perfume designers release new creations, and they compete for the attention of the public and the stars that intrigue the world. Some are passing favorites, and some classics still reign.
The tuberose enchantment of Fracas Parfum by Robert Piguet was cherished in the 40s by legendary diva MARLENE DIETRICH, and is cherished today by MADONNA and KIM BASINGER.
CHARLIZE THERON and KRISTIN SCOTT THOMAS are both said to love the magnolia, rose, cinnamon, peachy blend that lifts out of the vanilla and sandalwood bottom notes of DOLCE VITA, created by Christian Dior 1996.
And who can dispute some of these choices reflect the qualities of those who waft them?
EXOTIC and SWEET
GWEN STEFANI, OPRAH and CAMERON DIAZ are among celebrity clients who go for the exotic florals, including gardenia, in Monyette Paris. The scent is created using only the purest perfume oils with no alcohol or cologne base, so it’s long lasting and adapts to the wearer. The insouciant CAMERON is also said to like HAPPY by Clinique.
FRESH, FRUITY and CALM! „Pass the perfume, honey!”
SARAH JESSICA PARKER and MATTHEW BRODERICK is a celebrity couple that has both worn BRANDY Parfums. The unisex appeal of this fragrance is fresh and elegant with top notes of apple and peach, and herbaceous heart notes that help reduce stress. Other celebrity wearers of this scent for every season are NATALIE PORTMAN, JUDI DENCH, GOLDIE HAWN and TOBY MCGUIRE.
HONEY CHOCOLATE SPICE!
Today’s Hollywood divas KATE HUDSON and RENEE ZELLWEGER love ANGEL perfume, designed by THIERRY MUGLER in 1993. Pop star BRANDY and poetic princess VANNA BONTA also reportedly are known to wear this winged journey of a perfume that explores essences of honey, chocolate, and caramel and is blended with notes of vanilla, patchouli, and sandalwood. Sounds like these fragrances give perfect wings to these beauties of page and screen.
Much talked-about Hollywood writer VANNA BONTA is faithful to poetic fragrances from France of ANNICK GOUTAL, who came to perfume making after a career as a prize-winning pianist. A Bonta favorite is the aerial Eau du Ciel, a subtle interpretation of innocence in rosewood, violet, Florentine iris and lime blossom. Goutal’s description is „delicate as the shiver of an angel’s wing.”
BONTA indulges her terrestrial favorite signature blossom, the pure white gardenia, with Goutal’s Gardenia Passion, a fragrance famous for its natural and faithful reconstitution of this untamed flower.
NICOLE KIDMAN is also a fan of ANNICK GOUTAL’s Eau du Sud, an invigorating unisex blend of blend of orange, mint, and basil.
PERFUMES FIT THE WEATHER
Fragrances are, after all, created to meet the demand of moods, rain, sun, day, night, cold, warm, and every occasion.
Sultry amber and incense blends are perfect for winter, warming cold months. VANNA BONTA is a client of the famous Santa Maria Novella apothecary, run by monks, in Florence, Italy, and the Profumi di Firenze. Both lines use fragrance recipes that are hundreds of years old, some originals unchanged since the Renaissance Medici family commissioned them in the 1300s.
Summer brings out the citrus and vanilla-tropics attacks, and COMPTOIR SUD PACIFIQUE is a favorite of many celebrities for its Vanille variations in pineapple, apricot, lime and milk. A refreshing pineapple favorite is ARTISAN Annanas Fizz.
MICHELLE PFEIFFER loves Acqua di Gio, and the fresh marine notes with seaside floral scent reflect the crisp, refreshing charisma of this beautiful star.
Fans of singing diva WHITNEY HOUSTON and Friend’s famous LISA KUDROW are both fans of BULGARI pour Femme.
MIRA SORVINO and THORA BIRCH love Coco by Chanel, and CALISTA FLOCKHART flounces prettily in So de la Renta.
THE DIRT ON THE STARS
The new Pilar & Lucy fragrance, Tiptoing Through Chambers of the Moon, was a hit with some stars this year, as was The Exact Friction of Stars, not suprisingly a VANNA BONTA pick if only for the name. Reportedly a big vanilla fan, Bonta was a client of the cosmic friction of vanilla, coconut, and orange weaved with the warmth of clove.
And the dirt on SHARON STONE, always on the forefront of invention, is that she loves DEMETER Fragrances, especially Dirt, which is also a supposed favorite of KATE MOSS. In fact, Dirt is one of their most popular, a fresh and clean potting soil scent with the citrus smell of fresh grass. The Demeter library of food, beverage, and nature scents catalogue comfortingly familiar and less oblivious scents of pleasures, such as Russian Leather, Play-Doh, Laundromat, Grass, Thunderstorm, Ocean, Cotton Candy… Ahhh. We could go on.

Applidium, the company who is responsible for VLC port, reported that the new version of VLC media player would be running on iPhone and iPod touch. It may be very depressing for old iPhone users as they are out of luck in getting these features in their older models. This software company, Applidium, has ported media player to VLC player to ipad. They have announced a universal iOS version, which would be reviewed by Apple and they expect their approval soon. Last month Apple approved iPad version for App store. Now, it is expected that soon all iPhone and iPad users will be able to download the new VLC media player easily on their phone.
Features associated with this new development
There are a number of tremendous files or the popular media formats responsible for iOS devices, especially all movies and audio files. The new VLC player supports files that QuickTime is not able to play. There were strong demand from all iPhone users for the VLC player and there were unofficial port that was available for jail broken phones and this was more than two years ago.
Some special reports about this new development have been made and it says that this is a good development for all those who love media files. Wired.com’s Charlie Sorrell said that this was easy on hands and very much pretty in comparison to any desktop app. He is one of the people who have early hands on this new development. This just remains versatile with getting every small feature associated with it. Initially there were some bugs and errors in them and they have been fixed, so iPhone and iPod users will be seeing a better and advanced version or iteration of the model.
Old iPhone and iPod users will suffer
Surely, with this new development from VLC, older iPhone and iPod users will be left behind. Officially supported some of the main models include iPhone 4 and 3GS and ipod touch counterparts would be also supported. However, all left models would be left behind from these features, as they do not have processing power.
There are some other changes included in this VLC and that includes opening media files from Mail or Safari directly inside VLC, speed improvements and bug detection. With these features, surely it has to go far ahead.
The desktop version of VLS has been famous as the Swiss Army knife of media players as it handles any audio and media players in almost all formats. Although the iOS version is very versatile but there has been some limitation in ARM based processors. However, these will take care of all other media files and there are numbers of codec’s that are being supported by the VLC media player. All new iphone and ipod users will benefit by this new development. VLC player has its own charm and now it is going to add it to all new iPhone and iPod users.
Applidium, the company who is responsible for VLC port, reported that the new version of VLC media player would be running on domek holenderski iPhone and iPod touch. It may be very depressing for old iPhone users as they are out of luck in getting these features in their older models. This software company, Applidium, has ported media player to VLC player to ipad. They have announced a universal iOS version, which would be reviewed by Apple and they expect their approval soon. Last month Apple approved iPad version for App store. Now, it is expected that soon all iPhone and iPad users will be able to download the new VLC media player easily on their phone.
Features associated with this new development
There are a number of tremendous files or the popular media formats responsible for iOS devices, especially all movies and audio files. The new VLC player supports files that QuickTime is not able to play. There were strong demand from all iPhone users for the VLC player and there were unofficial port that was available for jail broken phones and this was more than two years ago.
Some special reports about this new development have been made and it says that this is a good development for all those who love media files. Wired.com’s Charlie Sorrell said that this was easy on hands and very much pretty in comparison to any desktop app. He is one of the people who have early hands on this new development. This just remains versatile with getting every small feature associated with it. Initially there were some bugs and errors in them and they have been fixed, so iPhone and iPod users will be seeing a better and advanced version or iteration of the model.
Old iPhone and iPod users will suffer
Surely, with this new development from VLC, older iPhone and iPod users will be left behind. Officially supported some of the main models include iPhone 4 and 3GS and ipod touch counterparts would be also supported. However, all left models would be left behind from these features, as they do not have processing power.
There are some other changes included in this VLC and that includes opening media files from Mail or Safari directly inside VLC, speed improvements and bug detection. With these features, surely it has to go far ahead.
The desktop version of VLS has been famous as the Swiss Army knife of media players as it handles any audio and media players in almost all formats. Although the iOS version is very versatile but there has been some limitation in ARM based processors. However, these will take care of all other media files and there are numbers of codec’s that are being supported by the VLC media player. All new iphone and ipod users will benefit by this new development. VLC player has its own charm and now it is going to add it to all new iPhone and iPod users.

Franczyza

Swollen lymph nodes that appear with a headache, while not always a medical emergency, could be compared to the double warning of flashing lights and a siren. It’s a signal from your body that it’s time to pull over unless you want to run the risk of getting into worse trouble!
Not a disease in itself, swollen lymph nodes with a headache is typically a warning of a more serious condition. Swollen lymph nodes are what most of us call swollen glands and when accompanied by a headache can signify the beginnings of serious illness such as tonsillitis, West Nile virus, chronic fatigue syndrome.
Even more worrying is that these symptoms can indicate severe, life-threatening illnesses like AIDS, anthrax, and mononucleosis. However, if you have this condition don’t panic…yet!
The human body has some miraculous defense mechanisms in that whenever we become ill, it warns us of impending trouble with various symptoms such as your lymph nodes being swollen. In fact, one of the body’s first lines of defense is to warn us with pain or swelling – think of it as a kinda of early warning system for your body.
A primary part of the body’s immune system, lymph tissues, or glands as we commonly call them, are bean shaped masses of tissue located in our armpits, necks, and groin areas. They trap invading organisms and contain lymphocytes (white blood cells) which destroy foreign bodies and other harmful cells.
Swelling is caused when lymph nodes produce extra white blood cells to fight infection and although the swollen area may be tender to the touch, it’s an indication that the lymph nodes are trying to do their job. Although swollen lymph nodes with a headache is certainly no fun, the former is an indication that your body is trying to combat infection while the latter is a warning to you that maybe it needs more help.
If you have swollen glands it’s time to see your medical practitioner, pinpoint the problem, and obtain professional treatment. Remember these symptoms are your body’s way of telling you that something isn’t working properly or that your body is struggling to fight off an infection so don’t ignore them.
Swollen lymph nodes that appear with a headache, while not always a medical emergency, could be compared to the double warning of flashing lights and a siren. It’s a signal from your body that it’s time to pull over unless you want to run the risk of getting into worse trouble!
Not a disease in itself, swollen lymph nodes with a headache is typically a warning of a more serious condition. Swollen lymph nodes are what most of us call swollen glands and when accompanied by a headache can signify the beginnings of serious illness such as tonsillitis, West Nile virus, chronic fatigue syndrome.
Even more worrying is that these symptoms can indicate severe, life-threatening illnesses like AIDS, anthrax, and mononucleosis. However, if you have Hotel Zakopane this condition don’t panic…yet!
The human body has some miraculous defense mechanisms in that whenever we become ill, it warns us of impending trouble with various symptoms such as your lymph nodes being swollen. In fact, one of the body’s first lines of defense is to warn us with pain or swelling – think of it as a kinda of early warning system for your body.
A primary part of the body’s immune system, lymph tissues, or glands as we commonly call them, are bean shaped masses of tissue located in our armpits, necks, and groin areas. They trap invading organisms and contain lymphocytes (white blood cells) which destroy foreign bodies and other harmful cells.
Swelling is caused when lymph nodes produce extra white blood cells to fight infection and although the swollen area may be tender to the touch, it’s an indication that the lymph nodes are trying to do their job. Although swollen lymph nodes with a headache is certainly no fun, the former is an indication that your body is trying to combat infection while the latter is a warning to you that maybe it needs more help.
If you have swollen glands it’s time to see your medical practitioner, pinpoint the problem, and obtain professional treatment. Remember these symptoms are your body’s way of telling you that something isn’t working properly or that your body is struggling to fight off an infection so don’t ignore them.

One can make a pretty good case that while the history of the United States reveals great and enduring innovations in business and industry, one could also argue that U.S. history is a history of war. Depending on one’s working definition of war, without doing any research I identify thirteen wars involving the U.S. Our government claims that all of these were not only necessary but largely forced on us. From my perspective the first one seems a little „iffy,” one was definitely forced on us, and at least eleven were actually of our choosing even though our leaders claimed we had no choice.
I consider the Revolutionary War „iffy,” the War of 1812 definitely forced on us, and the Mexican War of 1846-1848, the War Between The States, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, and Afghanistan all wars of choice. I probably missed some, but this list tells the tale.
Almost without doubt, almost all Americans would consider that we had no choice but to revolt against England and form a new country. Certainly the Founders thought so. And perhaps in the long run it was inevitable. But were the „facts” at the time so clear that we had to act how and when we did? We all know our Founders’ position on the subject, but is it possible that the political class in England also thought that the „facts” obviously justified their position? What was their position in their own eyes?
First, England believed in and practiced mercantilism at the time. Mercantilism basically assumes that the home country founded colonies for economic or military advantages for the home country, not especially for the colonists. While the American colonists were definitely English citizens, it was a citizenship that in the eyes of England was a sort of „secondary” citizenship, one that definitely placed the full obligations of citizenship on the American, without „really” providing them with all of the benefits in practice. The position of the colonists at that time was very much like that of Negroes in America, especially in the South, between the end of the Civil War and the 1960′s. An example will help. The Negroes were indeed citizens, they definitely had to pay taxes, but when it came to voting, attending quality schools, admission to „public” places and so forth, their type of „citizenship” clearly differed from that of whites. England definitely imposed the same duties on the American colonists, but when it came to rights, well, Americans had to realize that they were supposed to provide a net benefit to the home country and not quibble about such things as equal protection of the law and so forth.
The colonists complained about taxes. From England’s entirely rational point of view, it had recently spent a great deal of money protecting the colonies during the French and Indian Wars, and considered it totally obvious that the colonies should bear some of the cost, so it enacted taxes to recover part of its war costs. From the colonists’ entirely rational point of view, they had fought side by side with the Crown’s troops and therefore owed nothing more for their „protection.” It was also true that the colonists had no input regarding taxation, or much of anything else, and so complained about taxation without representation. While totally obvious to the colonists, this claimed lack of representation totally perplexed the government. It was, and still is, common practice in England for subjects to be represented in Parliament by Members who did not actually in the districts they represented. Clearly, someone somewhere in England was representing the colonists without residing there, so the colonist’s claims of taxation without representation had absolutely no merit. As the Crown’s total activities proved more and more costly, it levied more taxes on all its subjects, but not necessarily the same taxes on everyone. Thus, the Americans had to pay a stamp tax, a tax on tea, and so forth while subjects in other parts of the realm may have paid different taxes, but pay they did. There were other problems seldom mentioned such as the law that goods could be carried TO England only on „English” ships. Clearly each side thought its positions on the matters entirely logical and proper, and so they were to the respective sides.
We could continue to investigate claims and counter-claims of the two sides, all such claims totally logical to one side or the other, but it would serve no purpose. The central fact that really mattered much more than bickering over taxes, representation, and so forth is the fact that the needs and desires of the colonists had evolved as the colonies had grown from barely functional outposts of the Empire to self-sustaining, reasonably prosperous enterprises. Their dependence on England had greatly declined in many ways, while their fiscal value to England had finally begun to pay dividends on the investment, time, and even blood the home country had expended on behalf of the colonies. I call the war between the American colonies and England „iffy” because given different attitudes on both sides they could probably reached a solution to the real problems between them, but independence was probably unavoidable over the longer term. The position on the side of the Americans that they were „forced” into rebellion reflected their emotional involvement as well as legal and economic factors. So I’ll stick with „iffy.”
The War of 1812 is an entirely different matter. There is nothing „iffy” about it. The British clearly exceeded the traditional rights of nations with regards to other nations. The British stopped American warships and impressed supposed „British subjects” into their navy. The British had unilaterally imposed trade restrictions that affected American commerce. The Americans claimed that the British were supporting Indian attacks on American settlements, probably with justification. Also, both countries habitually attacked warships of the other.
While the Napoleonic Wars preoccupied Britain, American had encroached into Canadian lands, still owned by Britain. At the war’s end, Britain became more active in reclaiming its Canadian holdings, reigniting hostilities between the two countries. In the end, it appears that both countries just tired of the constant conflict, which importantly interfered with trade, and just called it a draw. Relatively soon after the cessation of hostilities, they entered into a period of joint prosperity through trade, and eventually began to share common interests, often working together. I count this as a war we had to fight.
The Mexican War of 1846-1848 used to be a straight forward matter of the Mexicans under Santa Anna attacking American territory subsequent to the U.S. annexation of Texas in 1845, which Mexico still considered its territory, meaning the war was forced on us. More recent scholarship by Eisenhower and others suggests that the Americans actually faked an attack on themselves in supposedly U.S. territory, demanding an invasion into Mexico in return. President Polk favored American expansionism, and approved of the war. Seemingly the only member of the American government who smelled a rat was Congressman Abraham Lincoln, who repeatedly demanded explicit information on „exactly” where the supposed attack took place, all of which the government ignored.
Mexico was in no condition militarily to repulse the American invasions. General Scott sent one force south through the middle of the country, capturing towns and cities with little problem. Scott sent another force by sea to a landing area near Mexico City, and mounted an amphibious assault on lightly defended territory. The Americans captured Mexico City with little trouble. But they soon came to realize that they could not possibly govern all the territory they had overrun. The southern areas of Mexico did not interest the Americans, but they offered the Mexican president 30 million dollars for the territory they wanted. When he refused, they made an offer of 15 million dollars to a lesser Mexican official, which was accepted. The United States wound up with parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California. Since the most recent portrayal of the episode seems more realistic, I will consider this a „voluntary” war.
The Civil War may seem to have been inevitable, but the two sections nearly reached an accommodation except for Lincoln’s refusal to budge on the tariff issue. We have been taught that the war was about slavery for so long it is almost impossible to see it in any other light. In truth, however, the practice of slavery itself was virtually a non-issue except for the relatively minor issue of the extension of the practice into new states. Lincoln has been considered the „Great Emancipator” for so long the label is rarely challenged. However, Lincoln said repeatedly from his first foray into politics that he was not against slavery and would never free the slaves but nobody seems to have taken him seriously. When elected President he repeated his promise, but the South was beyond listening. As strange as it seems to many people after a century and a half of hearing how Lincoln freed the slaves, Lincoln never did free a single slave. The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in territory occupied by the Confederates. Lincoln never freed even freed one slave in the North where he could have. In fact, Lincoln never even mentioned slavery for the first two years of the war, and seems to have done so only to placate England which he feared would throw its support behind the South. We are also told that the war was about the concern over states’ rights on the part of the South, primarily the right to leave the Union but it seems very unlikely that it would secede if other key issues could have been settled. As unpatriotic as it may seem, the only major issue that could not be resolved was money, and on that subject Lincoln was totally unmovable.
The only source of income to the Federal government at that time was the tariff. The Industrial Revolution was still in its infancy in the North and it produced only enough goods to satisfy its own needs, and had no surplus to trade to the South. Therefore the South supplied cotton and tobacco to England in return for quality manufactured goods. Accordingly, the strongest bonds existed between the South and England, not between the South and the North. This created an intractable problem because the South collected 85% of the tariff from its trade with England, but due to its political clout compared to the South, 85% of the money collected was spent in the North, mainly on public improvements such as roads, bridges, harbor development, and so forth. This was a critical problem to the South, because it was clear to everyone, including the North, that the days of slavery were numbered despite anything the South could do. The British Navy, as well as the Union’s, maintained slavery patrols along the slave coast of Africa ever since the Constitutional provision against slavery took effect in 1805. While daring slavers got through the patrols, the volume of slaves reaching America fell drastically which, of course, increased their price. Compounding that problem, the birth rate among slaves fell below the replacement rate, mainly from a lack of understanding about the sources of disease, which also tended to increase the cost of smuggled slaves. The North, except for a few fanatics such as Harriet Bleacher Stowe, completely understood this and the more level headed leaders were not about to go to war just to accelerate the inevitable. But for the South, this inevitably lead to the need for more money to develop new sources of income, meaning it needed a larger share of the national tariff income.
In negotiations with Lincoln shortly before the actual outbreak of war, he was agreeable to allow the South to come back into the Union on the same terms existing when it left including the practice of slavery. This was somewhat agreeable to the South, but its representatives explained that the South needed a greater share of the tariff to reorient its economy. Lincoln was as immovable as a rock, and would make absolutely no concessions on that point. When word of the failure of negotiations reached President Davis, he gave the order to fire on Fort Sumpter.
I personally believe that Lincoln was as opposed to needless bloodshed as anyone else, but he could not let the South depart with the access to tariff collection, and would not reduce the North’s share of the national income. My private opinion is that had the South been willing to allow the Union to maintain tariff collection in southern ports, Lincoln would have agreed, but that would have left the South penniless except for its profits from trade with England. But the South didn’t offer, and the last opportunity for compromise passed. I consider the Civil War a war of choice because it seems reasonable that some sort of compromise could have been achieved had the two sides any idea of the terrible carnage that was to follow. To believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery is to believe that over 600,000 men were willing to give their lives over the fate of slaves that only about 15% of the Southerners owned anyway, while slavery persisted in the North.
The Spanish-American War is beyond doubt a „voluntary” war, inaugurated by the United States using evidence known to be falsified. The American battleship USS Maine was moored in Havana harbor on a „good will visit,” when it exploded and promptly sank. The captain determined within an hour that the sinking was almost certainly due to a coal gas explosion, a problem at that time. Others saw political potential in the disaster, claimed that the Spanish had sunk the ship with a torpedo or mine, and pressured McKinley to declare war on Spain. Americans were pre-disposed against Spain for atrocities committed against the Cuban poor. Newspaper tycoons William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer agitated strongly for war, and the U.S. declared war soon after Spain’s declaration against the U.S. in 1898. Theodore Roosevelt gained national fame for his charge up San Juan Hill with his Rough Riders, although the attack actually took place on foot. This was obviously a „war of choice.”
World War I was totally avoidable, at least for the reasons given for it. Most, but not all, Americans favored the British in the war against Germany although the U.S. had a sizeable German community at the time. The facts are simple and speak for themselves. While the United States was still neutral, the British ship Lusitania loaded passengers in New York, including many Americans and Canadians. Most current accounts state that the ship was secretly carrying munitions and other war materiel, but that fact was clearly known by the public. The German embassy in Washington announced that the Lusitania was, in fact, carrying munitions in violation of her official civilian status, and that German submarines were ordered to sink her. The embassy placed good sized ads in American newspapers warning that the ship would be sunk, and strongly advising (almost begging) Americans not to sail on the ship, The potential passengers were completely informed of this and discussed their apprehensions about sailing on the ship with its captain. The captain assured the passengers that the Lusitania was to fast to be sunk by submarines, and close to two thousand people eventually sailed on her. The American government, expressly including President Wilson, was completely aware of the situation, including the fact that the Germans had made strenuous efforts to convince civilians not to sail on the ship. Apparently the U.S. government made no effort to restrain its citizens from sailing on the ship.
A German submarine spotted the Lusitania near Ireland. The British Admiralty had informed the captain of the ship that U-Boats were in the area and to alter course. The submarine fired its last torpedo at the Lusitania which caused enormous damage and the ship sank in fifteen minutes. Previously German submarines had allowed ships’ passengers and crew to enter lifeboats before sinking their ship, but the attacking submarine’s captain claimed he could not communicate with the ship due to dense fog in the area. The sinking caused a huge commotion in England and the U.S., although both governments and the potential passengers were more than adequately informed that the Lusitania was definitely carrying arms, which made her subject to sinking under international law and that the Germans fully intended to sink her.
In what would seem to be an extremely disingenuous act in view of the extreme efforts the Germans had made to keep civilians from sailing on the ship, President Wilson cited the sinking of the Lusitania in his speech declaring war against Germany. There is not the slightest doubt that for the U.S., World War I was a war of choice.
According to the public record, there is not the slightest doubt that Franklin Roosevelt desperately wanted to join the British in World War II, and for two years tried to convince the American people that American participation was essential. Unfortunately for Roosevelt, however, by far the greater part of the American people was strongly against joining the war in view of the huge losses of men in World War I with absolutely no gain for the United States. While numerous people did favor supporting England, and initiated a „Bundles For Britain” campaign, they were far outnumbered by „America Firsters,” who strongly opposed entry into the war.
Despite the strong resistance of the American people to entering the war, Roosevelt persisted by both legal and illegal means to do everything possible to support the British. He drew the public ire by „giving” England fifty World War I destroyers in return for some Caribbean islands of little use to us. The ships were admittedly well past their prime, but they were dearly welcomed by the British. Also, as secretly as possible, he ordered „surplus” military aircraft gathered from bases all over the United States and provided to England. „Surplus” had a strange meaning in a country wracked by depression and which had been unable to spare much funding on the military for several years. In fact, Army tank units actually maneuvered trucks marked „Tank” in training exercises.
The British badly needed military equipment from this country, but couldn’t provide naval escorts for convoys to the U.K. Roosevelt enraged many people in this country by ordering the Navy to carry on „exercises” around British convoys to England, in fact replacing the missing Royal Navy escorts and exposing our sailors to German submarines.
Most Americans with any interest in military history have known for some time that Roosevelt devised a plan to lure Japan into attacking us. We were net exporters of oil and steel at the time and Japan obtained their needs for each from us. On Roosevelt’s orders a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy prepared a list of actions we could take to draw Japan into war. The key to the plan was to cut off Japan’s supply of oil and steel. The only alternative to meet their petroleum needs lay far south in the Pacific on the Dutch islands of Java and Sumatra. However, Japan could not access this source of supply while the U.S. Navy commanded the Pacific Ocean.
Shutting off Japan’s access to oil in the U.S. would force Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in the hope of eliminating the American’s fleet’s ability to keep Japan from accessing the Dutch islands. The plan’s author told Roosevelt that such a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would most likely cause the deaths of two to three thousand American sailors. Roosevelt considered that acceptable. The attack occurred on December 7, 1941, „A day that will live in infamy,” said Roosevelt.
We were forced to retaliate by declaring war on Japan. Since Japan and Germany were allies, Germany also declared war on the U.S., exactly what Roosevelt really wanted. Once Congress declared war on Germany, Roosevelt virtually ignored the war with Japan. Throughout the war, the Pacific Campaign suffered from the lack of sufficient troops, ships, supplies, and in general all manner of necessary war supplies since the bulk of our support went to the war with Germany. Due to Roosevelt’s conniving, although we were actually attacked by Japan, joining England against Hitler definitely made WW II a war of choice.
The Korean War is rather peculiar in American military history. Neither our country nor that of an ally was attacked. By the end of WW II the U.S. had 40,000 troops in Korea. It began removing these troops since we had no military interest or obligations in Korea. The status of Korea so far as the United States was concerned was unclear until Secretary of State Dean Acheson defined our intentions for Asia in January of 1950. He declared that the United States would defend militarily Japan, the Rykus Islands, and the Phillippines. He made no mention of Korea, and it was not considered within our veil of protection. One source claims that the American presence in Korea when the North attacked was 472 officers and men. Another claims it was zero. What is perfectly clear was that we had no treaty obligations, no promises to defend Korea, in fact no obligation of any kind to defend Korea following Dean Acheson’s pronouncements regarding our role in Asia.
Apparently when the North Koreans attacked South Korea in June of 1950 President Truman decided to defend South Korea without any commitment by the U.S. government to do so. Rather than ask Congress for a Declaration of War as is implied as a precondition to war by the Constitution, Truman claimed to be acting on behalf of the United Nations and no permission from Congress was necessary. This was a major departure from past understanding of the conditions under which the U.S. could wage war, and one that has not been corrected. This practice has led to unfortunate military adventures by U.S. presidents ever since. It is totally clear that we had no binding obligations, formal or informal, to fight under any conditions in South Korea, and therefore it was clearly a war of choice.
What is not clear at all is why Truman felt the need to interfere in Korea. The only thing I have found on the matter is that Truman wanted to show the „Commies” that we wouldn’t stand by while they absorbed free countries. This would have been consistent with his policy of „containing” communism in Europe, but that would have committed us to constant war, which maybe it has. The only other justification seems to have been to keep the communists from getting closer to Japan because we had taken on the responsibility to protect it. But what real difference would it have made if the communists had advanced a few hundred miles closer to Japan? There were still hundreds of miles of ocean between Korea and Japan.
The decision to enter the conflict in Vietnam was a continuation of the Truman Doctrine of containing communism. Many Americans had problems with the proposition that preventing communists from expanding the territory they governed was worth the lives of the nation’s youth. Once heavily involved in South Vietnam, it was clear to high level American officials that they were not necessarily on the side of the angels. Corruption was rife at all levels of the government and the military, and it seemed clear to American realists that they couldn’t win a war dependent on such allies. President Kennedy was in the early stages of withdrawing from South Vietnam when he was assassinated. President Johnson had closer ties with the top military commanders and accepted their assessment that victory in Vietnam was achievable. While engaging in the war in Vietnam was consistent with the policy of containment, it was clearly voluntarily on our part. The conflict was not forced on us. We need not have fought that war.
Except for the human suffering involved, the First Gulf War, or Operation Desert Storm, resembled a comedy of errors. Iraq claimed that Kuwait was „slant drilling” to steal oil actually in Iraqi territory (Kuwait probably was). After a discussion with the American ambassador, Iraq’s leader believed that the United States would not interfere if Iraq invaded Kuwait, so he proceeded to do so. Killing followed by both sides, but Kuwait gained the world’s sympathy after releasing a faked story that Iraqi soldiers were killing newborn babies. Iraq’s presence so far south also threatened the Saudi Arabia oil fields, strategically important to the U.S. and the first president Bush ordered the American military as much to protect these oil fields as to rescue Kuwait from devastation. After a considerable buildup including allied forces from several countries, General Schworzkopf led a devastating attack on Iraqi forces, pushing them toward Bagdad. Schworzkopf stopped short of entering Bagdad, wanting no part of urban guerrilla warfare. America looked on the event as a huge victory for the U.S., and the operation served as a very strong morale builder for the U.S.
Except for the considerable political aspects of the operation, it normally wouldn’t qualify as a „war,” but it made General Schwarzkopf and General Colin Powell national heroes. The show of bringing in America’s tanks and smashing Iraqi resistance were probably intended to shore up President H.W. Bush’s political fortunes, as Iraq would surely have backed off at the mere threat of serious U.S. involvement. It definitely seems to fall into the war of choice category.
Following the 9/11 attacks on New York, the United States government claimed to have acquired information indicating that the attack had been masterminded by Osama-bin Laden, leader of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda. President G. W. Bush claimed that Osama-bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan, and attacked that country in October, 2001. The U.S.-lead action also included the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. France, Germany, New Zealand, and Canada strongly opposed the operation. The scope of the operation expanded to replace the ruling Taliban with a functioning government and elimination of the opium industry. Operations still continue to this day.
A recent book casts suspicion on the stated motive for the invasion because Bush, Chaney, and Rumsfield had acquired information that Islamic terrorists were not involved in the attack, that the planes were remote controlled by stations on the ground, and the story put out by the government was an invention. Several observers have hypothesized that the real motivation behind the invasion was to gain control of oil pipeline opportunities in the country. In any case, Afghanistan itself had not attacked the U.S., so the decision to attack it was made by choice, not in defense.
The Second Iraq War was initiated in 2003 by the G. W. Bush administration to eliminate Iraq as a base for terrorism, destroy weapons of mass destruction, and to free the Iraqi people from the dictatorship Hussein. Revelations over time have established that the U.S. administration had fabricated evidence that Iraq was manufacturing nuclear weapons and undertaking other actions contrary to American interests. The presence of American and allied forces also eliminated the danger of an Iranian attack on Saudi Arabian oil fields to the south. The decision to invade Iraq at this time was purely voluntary, not in reaction to attack, making the Iraq operation a war of choice, not one we needed to fight.
Almost all of the actions described here were voluntary commitments to war, not defensive operations. By and large, Americans do not look on themselves as a warlike, aggressive people, but the nature of the conflicts described here suggest that the American people, or more correctly their leaders, have shown a remarkable tendency to engage in war freely rather than as a strictly defensive reaction to aggression. My impression from following recent articles on the internet and current books supports the conjecture that World War II was the last „Good War.” Few, if any, veterans of the Korean War or the war in Vietnam believe that our involvement was necessary, in a good cause, or effective in furthering American objectives. U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to look on themselves more as mercenaries in operations of no danger to the United States than as defenders of America and its values as in WW II. This attitude will probably give the leaders of the United States even more latitude as to when and who we fight.
One can make a pretty good case that while the history of the United States reveals great and enduring innovations in business and industry, one could also argue that U.S. history is a history of war. Depending on one’s working definition of war, without doing any research I identify thirteen wars involving the U.S. Our government claims that all of these were not only necessary but largely forced on us. From my perspective the first one seems a little „iffy,” one was definitely forced on us, and at least eleven were actually of our choosing even though our leaders claimed we had no choice.
I consider the Revolutionary War „iffy,” the War of 1812 definitely forced on us, and the Mexican War of 1846-1848, the War Between The States, the Spanish-American War, Hotel Kraków World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, and Afghanistan all wars of choice. I probably missed some, but this list tells the tale.
Almost without doubt, almost all Americans would consider that we had no choice but to revolt against England and form a new country. Certainly the Founders thought so. And perhaps in the long run it was inevitable. But were the „facts” at the time so clear that we had to act how and when we did? We all know our Founders’ position on the subject, but is it possible that the political class in England also thought that the „facts” obviously justified their position? What was their position in their own eyes?
First, England believed in and practiced mercantilism at the time. Mercantilism basically assumes that the home country founded colonies for economic or military advantages for the home country, not especially for the colonists. While the American colonists were definitely English citizens, it was a citizenship that in the eyes of England was a sort of „secondary” citizenship, one that definitely placed the full obligations of citizenship on the American, without „really” providing them with all of the benefits in practice. The position of the colonists at that time was very much like that of Negroes in America, especially in the South, between the end of the Civil War and the 1960′s. An example will help. The Negroes were indeed citizens, they definitely had to pay taxes, but when it came to voting, attending quality schools, admission to „public” places and so forth, their type of „citizenship” clearly differed from that of whites. England definitely imposed the same duties on the American colonists, but when it came to rights, well, Americans had to realize that they were supposed to provide a net benefit to the home country and not quibble about such things as equal protection of the law and so forth.
The colonists complained about taxes. From England’s entirely rational point of view, it had recently spent a great deal of money protecting the colonies during the French and Indian Wars, and considered it totally obvious that the colonies should bear some of the cost, so it enacted taxes to recover part of its war costs. From the colonists’ entirely rational point of view, they had fought side by side with the Crown’s troops and therefore owed nothing more for their „protection.” It was also true that the colonists had no input regarding taxation, or much of anything else, and so complained about taxation without representation. While totally obvious to the colonists, this claimed lack of representation totally perplexed the government. It was, and still is, common practice in England for subjects to be represented in Parliament by Members who did not actually in the districts they represented. Clearly, someone somewhere in England was representing the colonists without residing there, so the colonist’s claims of taxation without representation had absolutely no merit. As the Crown’s total activities proved more and more costly, it levied more taxes on all its subjects, but not necessarily the same taxes on everyone. Thus, the Americans had to pay a stamp tax, a tax on tea, and so forth while subjects in other parts of the realm may have paid different taxes, but pay they did. There were other problems seldom mentioned such as the law that goods could be carried TO England only on „English” ships. Clearly each side thought its positions on the matters entirely logical and proper, and so they were to the respective sides.
We could continue to investigate claims and counter-claims of the two sides, all such claims totally logical to one side or the other, but it would serve no purpose. The central fact that really mattered much more than bickering over taxes, representation, and so forth is the fact that the needs and desires of the colonists had evolved as the colonies had grown from barely functional outposts of the Empire to self-sustaining, reasonably prosperous enterprises. Their dependence on England had greatly declined in many ways, while their fiscal value to England had finally begun to pay dividends on the investment, time, and even blood the home country had expended on behalf of the colonies. I call the war between the American colonies and England „iffy” because given different attitudes on both sides they could probably reached a solution to the real problems between them, but independence was probably unavoidable over the longer term. The position on the side of the Americans that they were „forced” into rebellion reflected their emotional involvement as well as legal and economic factors. So I’ll stick with „iffy.”
The War of 1812 is an entirely different matter. There is nothing „iffy” about it. The British clearly exceeded the traditional rights of nations with regards to other nations. The British stopped American warships and impressed supposed „British subjects” into their navy. The British had unilaterally imposed trade restrictions that affected American commerce. The Americans claimed that the British were supporting Indian attacks on American settlements, probably with justification. Also, both countries habitually attacked warships of the other.
While the Napoleonic Wars preoccupied Britain, American had encroached into Canadian lands, still owned by Britain. At the war’s end, Britain became more active in reclaiming its Canadian holdings, reigniting hostilities between the two countries. In the end, it appears that both countries just tired of the constant conflict, which importantly interfered with trade, and just called it a draw. Relatively soon after the cessation of hostilities, they entered into a period of joint prosperity through trade, and eventually began to share common interests, often working together. I count this as a war we had to fight.
The Mexican War of 1846-1848 used to be a straight forward matter of the Mexicans under Santa Anna attacking American territory subsequent to the U.S. annexation of Texas in 1845, which Mexico still considered its territory, meaning the war was forced on us. More recent scholarship by Eisenhower and others suggests that the Americans actually faked an attack on themselves in supposedly U.S. territory, demanding an invasion into Mexico in return. President Polk favored American expansionism, and approved of the war. Seemingly the only member of the American government who smelled a rat was Congressman Abraham Lincoln, who repeatedly demanded explicit information on „exactly” where the supposed attack took place, all of which the government ignored.
Mexico was in no condition militarily to repulse the American invasions. General Scott sent one force south through the middle of the country, capturing towns and cities with little problem. Scott sent another force by sea to a landing area near Mexico City, and mounted an amphibious assault on lightly defended territory. The Americans captured Mexico City with little trouble. But they soon came to realize that they could not possibly govern all the territory they had overrun. The southern areas of Mexico did not interest the Americans, but they offered the Mexican president 30 million dollars for the territory they wanted. When he refused, they made an offer of 15 million dollars to a lesser Mexican official, which was accepted. The United States wound up with parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California. Since the most recent portrayal of the episode seems more realistic, I will consider this a „voluntary” war.
The Civil War may seem to have been inevitable, but the two sections nearly reached an accommodation except for Lincoln’s refusal to budge on the tariff issue. We have been taught that the war was about slavery for so long it is almost impossible to see it in any other light. In truth, however, the practice of slavery itself was virtually a non-issue except for the relatively minor issue of the extension of the practice into new states. Lincoln has been considered the „Great Emancipator” for so long the label is rarely challenged. However, Lincoln said repeatedly from his first foray into politics that he was not against slavery and would never free the slaves but nobody seems to have taken him seriously. When elected President he repeated his promise, but the South was beyond listening. As strange as it seems to many people after a century and a half of hearing how Lincoln freed the slaves, Lincoln never did free a single slave. The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in territory occupied by the Confederates. Lincoln never freed even freed one slave in the North where he could have. In fact, Lincoln never even mentioned slavery for the first two years of the war, and seems to have done so only to placate England which he feared would throw its support behind the South. We are also told that the war was about the concern over states’ rights on the part of the South, primarily the right to leave the Union but it seems very unlikely that it would secede if other key issues could have been settled. As unpatriotic as it may seem, the only major issue that could not be resolved was money, and on that subject Lincoln was totally unmovable.
The only source of income to the Federal government at that time was the tariff. The Industrial Revolution was still in its infancy in the North and it produced only enough goods to satisfy its own needs, and had no surplus to trade to the South. Therefore the South supplied cotton and tobacco to England in return for quality manufactured goods. Accordingly, the strongest bonds existed between the South and England, not between the South and the North. This created an intractable problem because the South collected 85% of the tariff from its trade with England, but due to its political clout compared to the South, 85% of the money collected was spent in the North, mainly on public improvements such as roads, bridges, harbor development, and so forth. This was a critical problem to the South, because it was clear to everyone, including the North, that the days of slavery were numbered despite anything the South could do. The British Navy, as well as the Union’s, maintained slavery patrols along the slave coast of Africa ever since the Constitutional provision against slavery took effect in 1805. While daring slavers got through the patrols, the volume of slaves reaching America fell drastically which, of course, increased their price. Compounding that problem, the birth rate among slaves fell below the replacement rate, mainly from a lack of understanding about the sources of disease, which also tended to increase the cost of smuggled slaves. The North, except for a few fanatics such as Harriet Bleacher Stowe, completely understood this and the more level headed leaders were not about to go to war just to accelerate the inevitable. But for the South, this inevitably lead to the need for more money to develop new sources of income, meaning it needed a larger share of the national tariff income.
In negotiations with Lincoln shortly before the actual outbreak of war, he was agreeable to allow the South to come back into the Union on the same terms existing when it left including the practice of slavery. This was somewhat agreeable to the South, but its representatives explained that the South needed a greater share of the tariff to reorient its economy. Lincoln was as immovable as a rock, and would make absolutely no concessions on that point. When word of the failure of negotiations reached President Davis, he gave the order to fire on Fort Sumpter.
I personally believe that Lincoln was as opposed to needless bloodshed as anyone else, but he could not let the South depart with the access to tariff collection, and would not reduce the North’s share of the national income. My private opinion is that had the South been willing to allow the Union to maintain tariff collection in southern ports, Lincoln would have agreed, but that would have left the South penniless except for its profits from trade with England. But the South didn’t offer, and the last opportunity for compromise passed. I consider the Civil War a war of choice because it seems reasonable that some sort of compromise could have been achieved had the two sides any idea of the terrible carnage that was to follow. To believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery is to believe that over 600,000 men were willing to give their lives over the fate of slaves that only about 15% of the Southerners owned anyway, while slavery persisted in the North.
The Spanish-American War is beyond doubt a „voluntary” war, inaugurated by the United States using evidence known to be falsified. The American battleship USS Maine was moored in Havana harbor on a „good will visit,” when it exploded and promptly sank. The captain determined within an hour that the sinking was almost certainly due to a coal gas explosion, a problem at that time. Others saw political potential in the disaster, claimed that the Spanish had sunk the ship with a torpedo or mine, and pressured McKinley to declare war on Spain. Americans were pre-disposed against Spain for atrocities committed against the Cuban poor. Newspaper tycoons William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer agitated strongly for war, and the U.S. declared war soon after Spain’s declaration against the U.S. in 1898. Theodore Roosevelt gained national fame for his charge up San Juan Hill with his Rough Riders, although the attack actually took place on foot. This was obviously a „war of choice.”
World War I was totally avoidable, at least for the reasons given for it. Most, but not all, Americans favored the British in the war against Germany although the U.S. had a sizeable German community at the time. The facts are simple and speak for themselves. While the United States was still neutral, the British ship Lusitania loaded passengers in New York, including many Americans and Canadians. Most current accounts state that the ship was secretly carrying munitions and other war materiel, but that fact was clearly known by the public. The German embassy in Washington announced that the Lusitania was, in fact, carrying munitions in violation of her official civilian status, and that German submarines were ordered to sink her. The embassy placed good sized ads in American newspapers warning that the ship would be sunk, and strongly advising (almost begging) Americans not to sail on the ship, The potential passengers were completely informed of this and discussed their apprehensions about sailing on the ship with its captain. The captain assured the passengers that the Lusitania was to fast to be sunk by submarines, and close to two thousand people eventually sailed on her. The American government, expressly including President Wilson, was completely aware of the situation, including the fact that the Germans had made strenuous efforts to convince civilians not to sail on the ship. Apparently the U.S. government made no effort to restrain its citizens from sailing on the ship.
A German submarine spotted the Lusitania near Ireland. The British Admiralty had informed the captain of the ship that U-Boats were in the area and to alter course. The submarine fired its last torpedo at the Lusitania which caused enormous damage and the ship sank in fifteen minutes. Previously German submarines had allowed ships’ passengers and crew to enter lifeboats before sinking their ship, but the attacking submarine’s captain claimed he could not communicate with the ship due to dense fog in the area. The sinking caused a huge commotion in England and the U.S., although both governments and the potential passengers were more than adequately informed that the Lusitania was definitely carrying arms, which made her subject to sinking under international law and that the Germans fully intended to sink her.
In what would seem to be an extremely disingenuous act in view of the extreme efforts the Germans had made to keep civilians from sailing on the ship, President Wilson cited the sinking of the Lusitania in his speech declaring war against Germany. There is not the slightest doubt that for the U.S., World War I was a war of choice.
According to the public record, there is not the slightest doubt that Franklin Roosevelt desperately wanted to join the British in World War II, and for two years tried to convince the American people that American participation was essential. Unfortunately for Roosevelt, however, by far the greater part of the American people was strongly against joining the war in view of the huge losses of men in World War I with absolutely no gain for the United States. While numerous people did favor supporting England, and initiated a „Bundles For Britain” campaign, they were far outnumbered by „America Firsters,” who strongly opposed entry into the war.
Despite the strong resistance of the American people to entering the war, Roosevelt persisted by both legal and illegal means to do everything possible to support the British. He drew the public ire by „giving” England fifty World War I destroyers in return for some Caribbean islands of little use to us. The ships were admittedly well past their prime, but they were dearly welcomed by the British. Also, as secretly as possible, he ordered „surplus” military aircraft gathered from bases all over the United States and provided to England. „Surplus” had a strange meaning in a country wracked by depression and which had been unable to spare much funding on the military for several years. In fact, Army tank units actually maneuvered trucks marked „Tank” in training exercises.
The British badly needed military equipment from this country, but couldn’t provide naval escorts for convoys to the U.K. Roosevelt enraged many people in this country by ordering the Navy to carry on „exercises” around British convoys to England, in fact replacing the missing Royal Navy escorts and exposing our sailors to German submarines.
Most Americans with any interest in military history have known for some time that Roosevelt devised a plan to lure Japan into attacking us. We were net exporters of oil and steel at the time and Japan obtained their needs for each from us. On Roosevelt’s orders a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy prepared a list of actions we could take to draw Japan into war. The key to the plan was to cut off Japan’s supply of oil and steel. The only alternative to meet their petroleum needs lay far south in the Pacific on the Dutch islands of Java and Sumatra. However, Japan could not access this source of supply while the U.S. Navy commanded the Pacific Ocean.
Shutting off Japan’s access to oil in the U.S. would force Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in the hope of eliminating the American’s fleet’s ability to keep Japan from accessing the Dutch islands. The plan’s author told Roosevelt that such a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would most likely cause the deaths of two to three thousand American sailors. Roosevelt considered that acceptable. The attack occurred on December 7, 1941, „A day that will live in infamy,” said Roosevelt.
We were forced to retaliate by declaring war on Japan. Since Japan and Germany were allies, Germany also declared war on the U.S., exactly what Roosevelt really wanted. Once Congress declared war on Germany, Roosevelt virtually ignored the war with Japan. Throughout the war, the Pacific Campaign suffered from the lack of sufficient troops, ships, supplies, and in general all manner of necessary war supplies since the bulk of our support went to the war with Germany. Due to Roosevelt’s conniving, although we were actually attacked by Japan, joining England against Hitler definitely made WW II a war of choice.
The Korean War is rather peculiar in American military history. Neither our country nor that of an ally was attacked. By the end of WW II the U.S. had 40,000 troops in Korea. It began removing these troops since we had no military interest or obligations in Korea. The status of Korea so far as the United States was concerned was unclear until Secretary of State Dean Acheson defined our intentions for Asia in January of 1950. He declared that the United States would defend militarily Japan, the Rykus Islands, and the Phillippines. He made no mention of Korea, and it was not considered within our veil of protection. One source claims that the American presence in Korea when the North attacked was 472 officers and men. Another claims it was zero. What is perfectly clear was that we had no treaty obligations, no promises to defend Korea, in fact no obligation of any kind to defend Korea following Dean Acheson’s pronouncements regarding our role in Asia.
Apparently when the North Koreans attacked South Korea in June of 1950 President Truman decided to defend South Korea without any commitment by the U.S. government to do so. Rather than ask Congress for a Declaration of War as is implied as a precondition to war by the Constitution, Truman claimed to be acting on behalf of the United Nations and no permission from Congress was necessary. This was a major departure from past understanding of the conditions under which the U.S. could wage war, and one that has not been corrected. This practice has led to unfortunate military adventures by U.S. presidents ever since. It is totally clear that we had no binding obligations, formal or informal, to fight under any conditions in South Korea, and therefore it was clearly a war of choice.
What is not clear at all is why Truman felt the need to interfere in Korea. The only thing I have found on the matter is that Truman wanted to show the „Commies” that we wouldn’t stand by while they absorbed free countries. This would have been consistent with his policy of „containing” communism in Europe, but that would have committed us to constant war, which maybe it has. The only other justification seems to have been to keep the communists from getting closer to Japan because we had taken on the responsibility to protect it. But what real difference would it have made if the communists had advanced a few hundred miles closer to Japan? There were still hundreds of miles of ocean between Korea and Japan.
The decision to enter the conflict in Vietnam was a continuation of the Truman Doctrine of containing communism. Many Americans had problems with the proposition that preventing communists from expanding the territory they governed was worth the lives of the nation’s youth. Once heavily involved in South Vietnam, it was clear to high level American officials that they were not necessarily on the side of the angels. Corruption was rife at all levels of the government and the military, and it seemed clear to American realists that they couldn’t win a war dependent on such allies. President Kennedy was in the early stages of withdrawing from South Vietnam when he was assassinated. President Johnson had closer ties with the top military commanders and accepted their assessment that victory in Vietnam was achievable. While engaging in the war in Vietnam was consistent with the policy of containment, it was clearly voluntarily on our part. The conflict was not forced on us. We need not have fought that war.
Except for the human suffering involved, the First Gulf War, or Operation Desert Storm, resembled a comedy of errors. Iraq claimed that Kuwait was „slant drilling” to steal oil actually in Iraqi territory (Kuwait probably was). After a discussion with the American ambassador, Iraq’s leader believed that the United States would not interfere if Iraq invaded Kuwait, so he proceeded to do so. Killing followed by both sides, but Kuwait gained the world’s sympathy after releasing a faked story that Iraqi soldiers were killing newborn babies. Iraq’s presence so far south also threatened the Saudi Arabia oil fields, strategically important to the U.S. and the first president Bush ordered the American military as much to protect these oil fields as to rescue Kuwait from devastation. After a considerable buildup including allied forces from several countries, General Schworzkopf led a devastating attack on Iraqi forces, pushing them toward Bagdad. Schworzkopf stopped short of entering Bagdad, wanting no part of urban guerrilla warfare. America looked on the event as a huge victory for the U.S., and the operation served as a very strong morale builder for the U.S.
Except for the considerable political aspects of the operation, it normally wouldn’t qualify as a „war,” but it made General Schwarzkopf and General Colin Powell national heroes. The show of bringing in America’s tanks and smashing Iraqi resistance were probably intended to shore up President H.W. Bush’s political fortunes, as Iraq would surely have backed off at the mere threat of serious U.S. involvement. It definitely seems to fall into the war of choice category.
Following the 9/11 attacks on New York, the United States government claimed to have acquired information indicating that the attack had been masterminded by Osama-bin Laden, leader of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda. President G. W. Bush claimed that Osama-bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan, and attacked that country in October, 2001. The U.S.-lead action also included the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. France, Germany, New Zealand, and Canada strongly opposed the operation. The scope of the operation expanded to replace the ruling Taliban with a functioning government and elimination of the opium industry. Operations still continue to this day.
A recent book casts suspicion on the stated motive for the invasion because Bush, Chaney, and Rumsfield had acquired information that Islamic terrorists were not involved in the attack, that the planes were remote controlled by stations on the ground, and the story put out by the government was an invention. Several observers have hypothesized that the real motivation behind the invasion was to gain control of oil pipeline opportunities in the country. In any case, Afghanistan itself had not attacked the U.S., so the decision to attack it was made by choice, not in defense.
The Second Iraq War was initiated in 2003 by the G. W. Bush administration to eliminate Iraq as a base for terrorism, destroy weapons of mass destruction, and to free the Iraqi people from the dictatorship Hussein. Revelations over time have established that the U.S. administration had fabricated evidence that Iraq was manufacturing nuclear weapons and undertaking other actions contrary to American interests. The presence of American and allied forces also eliminated the danger of an Iranian attack on Saudi Arabian oil fields to the south. The decision to invade Iraq at this time was purely voluntary, not in reaction to attack, making the Iraq operation a war of choice, not one we needed to fight.
Almost all of the actions described here were voluntary commitments to war, not defensive operations. By and large, Americans do not look on themselves as a warlike, aggressive people, but the nature of the conflicts described here suggest that the American people, or more correctly their leaders, have shown a remarkable tendency to engage in war freely rather than as a strictly defensive reaction to aggression. My impression from following recent articles on the internet and current books supports the conjecture that World War II was the last „Good War.” Few, if any, veterans of the Korean War or the war in Vietnam believe that our involvement was necessary, in a good cause, or effective in furthering American objectives. U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to look on themselves more as mercenaries in operations of no danger to the United States than as defenders of America and its values as in WW II. This attitude will probably give the leaders of the United States even more latitude as to when and who we fight.

Many online and high street stores are taking pre-orders for the imminent Wii Fit release, but will there be any left to be put out onto the shelves?
It is anticipated that there will be a short supply of stocks for the huge demand and already stores are cutting short these pre-orders and even canceling some for fear of not being able to fulfill them.
Who is it aimed at? Who will buy it?
For two Christmas’ running, the Wii console was in short supply with shoppers snapping them up early in October or paying a small fortune on eBay if they’d left it too late.
The market for these consoles was aimed at nearly everyone – the square-eyed kids, the couch potato guys and the addicted gamers. To get them out of their seats and up on their feet.
The media are often telling us how our kids are getting fatter quicker and that they don’t exercise enough, so WHO is their market? – the concerned parents probably. It keeps the kids entertained whilst getting them to jump around a bit. It still doesn’t get them outside though!
So the adults buy it for the kids and then think ‘that looks fun, give us a go’. then they get hooked. Mum gets roped in to see how good her backhand is – she’s hooked. Then the whole family get together for a challenge of ten-pin bowling and before you know it EVERYONE is hooked in.
It doesn’t end there! Residential homes for the elderly are getting them in. It can also help get them out of their seats and have a bit of fun.
Nintendo have been really clever with this one, either that of it was a real lucky fluke!
So we’ve all got hooked on the Wii Sports, but once you’ve had a few goes and beaten everyone else then it gets a bit boring. There’s always the other games, but they’re a bit more like the kids games. So the remote gets put into a draw and the sofa gets comfy again, but wait, there’ something new coming. It’s called the Wii Fit – again, something different, something EVERYONE wants to have a go at as Wii Sports was such good fun. But guess what? there might not be enough to go around so get your preorder in quick.
So the Wii console with Wii Sports was a really big hit and surely anyone can see that the Wii Fit with its new accessory – the balance board – will be just as big.
Why can’t Nintendo get their act together and make more than enough, or is it a conspiracy to hype everyone up and want it now?
The teaser is that the release is staggered all over the world with Japan first, Europe, Australia and then the US last (surprising!). So some countries will get it and be raving about it whilst others are chomping at the bit to get their hands on it. The sting is that you can only use the same region game as the console – US console + US Wii Fit, so buying/selling on ebay won’t really be an option.
So is this a great marketing ploy? Or just bad planning? The first probably!
Many online and high street stores are taking pre-orders for the imminent Wii Fit release, but will there be any left to be put out onto the shelves?
It is anticipated that there will be a short supply of stocks for the huge demand and already stores are cutting short these pre-orders and even canceling some for fear of not being able to fulfill them.
Who is it aimed at? Who will buy it?
For two Christmas’ running, the Wii console was in short supply with shoppers snapping them up early in October or paying a small fortune on eBay if they’d left it too late.
The market for these consoles was aimed at nearly everyone – the square-eyed kids, the couch potato guys and the addicted gamers. To get them out of their seats and up on their feet.
The media are often telling us how our kids are getting fatter quicker and that they don’t exercise enough, so WHO is their market? – the concerned parents kredyt probably. It keeps the kids entertained whilst getting them to jump around a bit. It still doesn’t get them outside though!
So the adults buy it for the kids and then think ‘that looks fun, give us a go’. then they get hooked. Mum gets roped in to see how good her backhand is – she’s hooked. Then the whole family get together for a challenge of ten-pin bowling and before you know it EVERYONE is hooked in.
It doesn’t end there! Residential homes for the elderly are getting them in. It can also help get them out of their seats and have a bit of fun.
Nintendo have been really clever with this one, either that of it was a real lucky fluke!
So we’ve all got hooked on the Wii Sports, but once you’ve had a few goes and beaten everyone else then it gets a bit boring. There’s always the other games, but they’re a bit more like the kids games. So the remote gets put into a draw and the sofa gets comfy again, but wait, there’ something new coming. It’s called the Wii Fit – again, something different, something EVERYONE wants to have a go at as Wii Sports was such good fun. But guess what? there might not be enough to go around so get your preorder in quick.
So the Wii console with Wii Sports was a really big hit and surely anyone can see that the Wii Fit with its new accessory – the balance board – will be just as big.
Why can’t Nintendo get their act together and make more than enough, or is it a conspiracy to hype everyone up and want it now?
The teaser is that the release is staggered all over the world with Japan first, Europe, Australia and then the US last (surprising!). So some countries will get it and be raving about it whilst others are chomping at the bit to get their hands on it. The sting is that you can only use the same region game as the console – US console + US Wii Fit, so buying/selling on ebay won’t really be an option.
So is this a great marketing ploy? Or just bad planning? The first probably!