text:
Good afternoon. I want to thank the conference organizers for inviting me to this very timely and relevant conference. I will be expressing my own views, and not those of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The times are extraordinary, and the conference agenda reflects it. The years of financial turbulence that we have experienced and continue to experience have illuminated both the power and the limitations of government intervention in managing financial crises. These years have illustrated how much more we need to understand about good design principles for intervention and sound strategies for the restoration of financial and banking market function following a crisis. And these years have highlighted the interaction between the fiscal condition and capacity of countries and the size and health of the domestic financial system. The conference agenda touches on all of these.
I speak of government intervention broadly, because the answer to the provocative question I am to discuss—how can we conduct crisis management without financial guarantees—depends a great deal on which types of government intervention we hope to avert. Certain guarantee or contingent arrangements can short-circuit incipient instability or stabilize already roiled financial institutions and markets; we do not want to end them. Other interventions are more intrusive and involve more socialization of loss; we want to reduce their necessity.
Guarantee has a legal meaning—for example, the Federal Reserve is not authorized to issue a guarantee—but I will use the word more broadly to describe contingent arrangements. Definitions of guarantee are variations of: "a warrant, pledge, or formal assurance given as security that another's debt or obligation will be fulfilled"; in the financial sector, that primarily means credit risk protection.
Guarantees, insurance and options have similar structures. They are contingent, they have prices and triggers, and the payout is meant to cover a specific risk. Because guarantees, like insurance, change the risks to the guaranteed party and its creditors, both third-party guarantees and insurance can change the affected parties' behavior in an adverse way, and therefore create moral hazard. Thus, the provision of a guarantee also involves various control activities—underwriting, monitoring, imposing penalties for deviation from terms—intended to correct those incentives. The cost of the guarantee therefore is not only the cost of hedging and absorbing credit risk, but also the costs of control activities and an adjustment for any social efficiency gains or losses.
One reason that I draw the connection
between guarantees, insurance and options is that the theory and technique
for valuing insurance and options have advanced substantially in the last three
decades. Thus, guarantees can in concept be valued. I stress "in concept" because
those valuation efforts are still approximate. But the measures show promise.
For example, Deborah Lucas and Robert L. McDonald in a 2006 Journal of
Monetary Economics paper used a "stress value at risk" measure
to capture the risk in the implicit government guarantee to Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac and obtained values that indicated the large and growing risk of
those institutions. The value of a guarantee, even an approximation of its
value, provides a potentially powerful signal of risk to the financial authorities.
Let me now turn to the U.S. experience during the recent financial crisis
to describe an approach to characterizing the spectrum of government interventions.
The U.S. Experience with Intervention During the 2008-09 Financial Crisis
Of course, no one can do justice in a few minutes to the unprecedented central
bank and government interventions during the 2008-09 financial crisis. Fortunately,
much information is available on the internet; for example, www.federalreserve.gov contains
a section called "Credit and Liquidity Programs" with a wealth
of detail on the Fed's actions during the crisis.
The United States employed four major types of interventions in the financial crisis. The first interventions were expanded programs providing liability insurance. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) raised the standard deposit insurance coverage limit. The FDIC established a Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program with two arms—a transaction (checking) account program that effectively covered corporate deposits and a debt guarantee program that covered unsecured short- and medium-term financial company debt. In addition, the U.S. Treasury offered insurance for money market mutual funds to curb "run risk" in those funds.
The second interventions were the market liquidity facilities provided by the Federal Reserve. While the Fed has authority to lend on a collateralized basis to banks, a large proportion of U.S. short- and medium-term funding for financial and nonfinancial firms now occurs in markets. The triparty repo market finances securities holdings for broker-dealers; the commercial paper market provides working capital for corporations; the asset-backed commercial paper and securities markets fund receivables and loans arising in business activities.
Under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, in unusual and exigent circumstances, the Federal Reserve can make loans to nonbank borrowers. As funding markets came under duress in 2008 and 2009, the Federal Reserve acted in a series of these markets. The common problem in each market was concern that an obligation would not be repaid at maturity because the obligor might experience either credit problems or liquidity constraints.
The interesting "contingent" aspect of these liquidity facilities was the pricing. The price, expressed as a borrowing rate, was set to stand well above the interest rates that prevailed prior to the crisis, but well below the rates then posted in strained markets. The pricing created a dynamic in which the availability of the facility eased funding pressures, borrowing rates in that market began to fall, and as markets gradually normalized, the market rate eventually fell below the rate charged by the Federal Reserve. With that fall in the market rate, borrowing tailed off and the facility gradually wound down. The volume of transactions in the facility and the market pricing gave the Federal Reserve—and market participants—insight into the program's impact and the market's recovery.
The third interventions were more firm specific: loans and other support to AIG, assistance to the Bear Stearns merger and an asset guarantee program announced for two financial institutions and implemented for one. The fourth and most well-known interventions were the capital injections in financial firms using funds from TARP, the U.S. government's Troubled Asset Relief Program.
These various interventions can be arrayed along two dimensions. The first is the nature and extent of loss absorption inherent in the design of the intervention—just how much "tail" or catastrophe risk the government is taking on. For deposit insurance arrangements, long experience suggests that the cost of the "tail" of losses during even a very distressed period is low relative to the benefits of prevention of runs and contagion. Similarly, the Fed's market liquidity facilities were meant to provide a backstop for market funding, predicated on the soundness of the underlying collateral assets and their margining. Moreover, both types of programs required little upfront investment of cash. In contrast, the direct loan to AIG, while collateralized, and the TARP investments involved substantial risk-taking and massive funding.
The second dimension is the economic cost of the intervention—just how intrusive the intervention is. All forms of intervention require some kind of underwriting, monitoring and enforcement, and many distort private market incentives and function, as I noted earlier. Ideally, I would include measures of both administrative costs and economic distortion in total cost.
Each intervention involved administrative burdens of varying extent. The FDIC's and Treasury's liability insurance programs rested largely on the existing licensing and supervision of regulated financial companies. The Federal Reserve's liquidity facilities rested on eligibility standards for borrowers and collateral, with a heavy reliance on the existing market infrastructure and processes for controls. By contrast, the firm-specific interventions required significant firm and examiner resources and extensive new financial controls. The TARP capital injections involved not only statutory constraints, most notably on executive compensation, but also a high level of scrutiny through public reports by the Congressional Oversight Panel and the Special Inspector General for TARP.
There are actual and potential programs that fall between the poles on both dimensions. The Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) created by the Federal Reserve to restart asset securitization markets lent to investors against asset-backed securities for terms of three and five years. Arguably, the Fed took on more risk of loss with the term of the loan, its non-recourse nature, and the type of collateral than it did in its other facilities. For that reason, TALF was complemented by arrangements for any work-out of defaulted collateral and was supported by TARP funding. On the administrative side, both borrowers and collateral had to meet eligibility requirements; the Federal Reserve Bank of New York extensively reviewed potential collateral and conducted compliance reviews at dealers arranging TALF borrowing.
The types of interventions for any given country will reflect its financial system structure and its institutional setting. The U.S. approach reflected the heavy reliance on markets and nonbanks for financing specific to our financial system. In addition, judgments about how much government loss absorption and intrusion are appropriate in central bank and government interventions will reflect country-specific circumstances and preferences.
As a final note, what didn't work well in the U.S. experience were implicit guarantees—that is, assumptions that the government would protect holders of certain liability and equity instruments that had no explicit guarantee. Official actions that laid bare the absence of the explicit guarantee—the imposition of losses on equity and subordinated debt investors when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken into conservatorship and on senior unsecured bondholders in the resolution of Washington Mutual—contributed to the dynamic of escalating panic in Fall 2008. Each action was one more shock at the time, but the investors' shock also pointed to the lack of hoped-for monitoring and market discipline by debt and equity investors in the run up to the crisis.
Contingent Arrangements and Financial Institution Failure
Guarantees as I described them earlier are about protection against failure
to meet financial obligations, that is, against default and insolvency. The
alternative to escalating government intervention during the crisis was accepting
a higher rate of financial institution insolvencies. The consequences
of multiple failures of large, complex and international organizations were
largely unknowable. They included the likelihood of disruption of systemically
important financial activities (such as payment services, where the customer
need is immediate and customers cannot quickly switch to another provider)
and the almost certain contagion to other institutions. The September
2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., underscored the difficulty
of controlling the ramifications of the failure of just one large cross-border
institution and the cost, complexity and extreme inefficiency of the existing
cross-border insolvency process.
The "too big to fail" problem—the expectation that a large financial institution insolvency would be too disorderly and too destructive of wealth for financial authorities to risk—has frustrated financial authorities, legislators, and academics since at least the failure of Continental Illinois Bank in 1984. In the wake of the crisis, the frustration is now shared by the public. Having intervened so forcefully in the crisis, financial authorities and others also worry that moral hazard has increased as a result.
An important avenue to tackle the too-big-to-fail problem is to improve the feasibility of cross-border resolution of large financial firms. The Financial Stability Board (FSB) in 2009 commissioned work on improving the process for cross-border resolution of systemically important financial institutions. The work since then is reflected in a set of proposed principles published for consultation by the FSB in July 2011, Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes.
The Key Attributes paper is more than a set of principles or emerging standards; the paper also maps out a series of actions to be taken in order to improve the feasibility of resolving a systemically important financial firm. The goal is to take actions that ease and speed the resolution of the largest firms while preserving critical functions and reducing the contagion and destruction of value that occurs in liquidation and, most important, to do so without recourse to public funds that exposes taxpayers to risk of loss.
The FSB proposes that all jurisdictions have a set of resolution powers, among them, the ability to create a bridge or similar institution, into which the healthy parts of a financial firm, including its critical activities, can be placed. In addition, the resolution authority needs the power to transfer, sell and restructure all or part of the firm. These powers have been used successfully by the FDIC in the United States, and a number of jurisdictions have adopted or have plans to adopt similar powers. The increased international use of bridge institutions is likely to require jurisdictions to recognize bridge banks from other countries, in order that some business functions, such as payment activities, can seamlessly transition to the successor bridge institution.
The bridge institution concept is quite powerful. The FDIC recently published a paper in its Quarterly that described how it could have handled the Lehman bankruptcy using its new powers under the Dodd-Frank Act to resolve systemically important nonbank financial institutions. The FDIC outlines how it could have created a bridge institution for the Lehman holding company, how it could have transferred to the bridge Lehman's equity holdings in its key subsidiaries, including its major broker/dealers, potentially avoiding their insolvency, and how it could have funded the London broker/dealer, a key problem following Lehman Holdings' bankruptcy in New York. Selling the broker/dealer subsidiaries as going concerns would preserve far more of their value and continuity of operations, as illustrated by the sale of most of Lehman's U.S. broker/dealer, which did not immediately enter insolvency.
The FDIC's article offers a promising path toward a workable cross-border insolvency process, a potential solution to a daunting problem, especially when viewed against the meaningful, but small progress made in the efforts of the past two decades. To build out the FDIC's proposed path to a workable cross-border insolvency process requires conforming changes to laws and rules across most jurisdictions. I do not want to minimize the challenges in developing the approach further, but simply highlight its potential to ameliorate a problem we would all like solved.
The FSB also proposes to make the process of recovery planning by firms and resolution planning by financial authorities an important principle. This planning, already underway for many systemically important financial firms, is being carried out by firm-specific crisis management groups, made up of regulators and resolution authorities from the jurisdictions where a given firm has its principal operations. The FSB also sets a broad direction for involving and communicating with host country jurisdictions where the host authorities view the financial firm to be of local systemic importance.
The FSB further proposes that the home country authorities, collaborating and coordinating with the crisis management group, produce an annual resolvability assessment. This assessment would identify a set of impediments to resolution and provide a list of follow-up actions, potentially some for the firm, but also some for the jurisdiction. Progress on the follow-up actions would be assessed in the following year.
The stated goal of the FSB's work is to make possible the resolution of systemically important financial institutions without exposing taxpayers to risk of loss. That will not happen overnight. In my view, we should be striving year by year to improve the feasibility and possibility of cross-border resolution. That means a dynamic assessment process that seeks improvement against the current baseline and addresses key changes in the firm and in the industry that either facilitate or complicate resolution. A stronger, more common resolution framework, a meaningful resolution planning process, and an annual resolvability assessment to ensure progress should make resolution a stronger alternative to government intervention.
Final Thoughts on Crisis Management Without Government Guarantees
Financial authorities are never really out of the crisis management business.
The recent U.S. experience with crisis has illuminated vulnerabilities in the
U.S. financial system, such as the role and structure of the government sponsored
enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the need for reform in
the triparty repo market and the money market mutual fund sector.
The systematic search for such points of vulnerability and new ones should be an important and permanent part of the work at the domestic and the international levels by financial authorities. What we need in the financial system is defense in depth, a series of actions both macro- and micro-prudential, that help prevent crises and help us manage them more effectively when they occur. The preventive measures include the new proposed Basel rules on capital and liquidity, intended to make financial institutions more resilient, especially systemically important firms; the international effort to strengthen the market infrastructure and supervisory oversight of financial derivatives; in the United States, the extension of comprehensive supervision to systemically important nonbank financial firms; and our ongoing efforts to reform the GSEs, the triparty repo market and the structure of money market mutual funds.
So let me conclude with some thoughts on the question of how close we might get to crisis management without government guarantees. For me, the paradigm of managing crises was the U.S. response in the early 1990s to its real-estate and leveraged buyout problems; while smaller than the more recent problems, the potential losses then threatened to engulf some of our largest banks. The paradigm consisted of three interconnected elements: identifying and isolating the problem assets for dedicated work-out management; replenishing the capital and liquidity of the firm; and drawing up new and credible business plans demonstrating the future profitability of the firm. The supervisors sought to be pre-emptive and proactive—propelling firms to acknowledge problems and take actions earlier than they might otherwise would have.
Where this paradigm was applied, we avoided failure. That experience illustrates that there is no substitute for early intervention in preserving value in the firm and in limiting externalities and other spillovers. Early intervention calls for strong supervisory oversight, as envisioned by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. It is significant that the FSB's Key Attributes paper on resolution highlights the important role of recovery planning by firms. Recovery planning and the dialogue with and among supervisors that accompanies it should facilitate early intervention. The recovery plan will already be on paper and the supervisory dialogue begun even before the firm starts to experience difficulty.
Early intervention will also be essential in resolution if recovery efforts fail. The Key Attributes highlights the need for resolution authorities to be able to act before technical insolvency. Resolution planning should once again facilitate that difficult decision to place a firm into an insolvency proceeding when it is necessary.
Second, government intervention measures such as those I described at the outset cannot substitute for the hard work that goes on in a private restructuring or in resolution. For example, even after the passage of a massive TARP fund and the injection of capital into the largest banks, market pressures continued for some banks, and those pressures only eased with more intervention, the thorough Supervisory Capital Assessment Program, also called the stress tests, for which results were disclosed, and a plan for specific capital actions by some firms. Problems need to be identified, capital and liquidity raised, new business plans put in place and old ones abandoned. Delays in taking and executing these hard, for the firm often life-changing, decisions contribute to the necessity for further intervention.
Third, I believe having some types of contingent arrangements in reserve will continue to be necessary, even with much a much stronger cross-border resolution process. The role of deposit insurance in stemming financial crises is well documented. A period of multiple financial institution failures, even with a strong resolution process, might trigger the same risk aversion in funding markets that we saw in 2008 and 2009. The ability to backstop key funding markets could prove valuable, and the Dodd-Frank Act preserved for the Fed authority under 13(3) to provide market liquidity facilities even while eliminating other aspects. But in designing these interventions, an exit strategy needs to be clear. Leaving those arrangements in place too long distorts incentives and erodes private market function.
And for those contingent arrangements that are ongoing, such as deposit insurance, measuring the value of the guarantee could be an important test of overall design of the guarantee and the accompanying monitoring regime. Continuing to refine our ability to value guarantees would provide a useful measure for supervisory authorities and for the deposit insurers, especially when they consider changes to deposit insurance. The value of guarantees also would complement other measures being developed for financial stability monitoring. Further, I suggest that all guarantees should not only be measured, but documented and reported, and not left as implicit.
Fourth, it will still be important to have a set of progressive actions that government can turn to if human judgment or the tools available at a time of incipient financial crisis prevent financial authorities from defusing the crisis. While such measures buy time and cannot substitute for more permanent solutions, sometimes time is the scarce resource. Deterioration in financial conditions--at individual financial institutions and in the economy—is inevitable as a crisis wears on in a financial system, given its leverage. Understanding that, financial authorities should feel great urgency to apply the progressive measures when they are needed, doing so with the force and size that truly arrest the crisis forces, and to entertain the usually difficult measures needed to resolve the fundamental problems behind the crisis.
Thank you.


text:
While many visitors to Spain like to see the sites on their own two feet, moverse on two wheels is becoming ever more popular and tourism grows.
From city-wide cycling lanes to innovative and unlimited rental systems like donkey.bike, Spain is following the example of other European cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam when it comes to making cities bike friendly, and cycle tours are cropping up as quickly as tapas bars, it seems.
Issues such as sustainability, pollution and health have become heavy-hitters that swing in the favor of biking – and that doesn't even cover the weather or leisure factors. In fact, the sector grew 8,2% in 2o15 and an estimated 10% of Spaniards use a bike daily (source: Asociación de Marcas y Bicicletas de España).
Cities around the country are listening, but you don't have to be local to take advantage of the 'pedelea':
Even if Ada Colau is all for a touristic ban, you can't deny that Barcelona is a city rife for cyclistic touring. The local Ajuntament is launching a larger network of bike paths that will take cyclists from one reach of the city to another, scheduled to debut over the course of 2017.
And in a city as large and (almost) flat as la Ciudad Condal, bicycle hire in Barcelona is the way to go; imagine cruising past the waterfront or down Las Ramblas on a bike!
When my friends Brian and Matt came to visit me in Seville, the city had just launched its bike-share system, one of the first in Spain. My college buddies spent their days riding from dock to dock, drinking beers in between in the January sunshine.
During the nine years I lived in Seville, my main mode of transportation became bike(s) as I made use of the miles of paved bike lanes that crisscross the city, connecting nearly every neighborhood better than public transportation does. And it made me feel extra European!
What sets Seville apart is that its bike lanes are off the street, meaning that it's safer for cyclists. And because of the weather, you can bike year-round.
If only Madrid would invest a bit more in their infrastructure so this abuelita can stop yelling, "ESTO NO ES UN CARRIL BICI" on my frigid walk to work.
When I went to Valencia for Las Fallas last March, it wasn't the fireworks and burning effigies – it was how many people were still circulating around the city by bike, despite throngs of tourists and raging street party (look for a post soon – it was a ton of fun and worth the burst ear drums!).
Thanks to a push from the local government to make the Mediterranean city safer for bikes, as well as a coastline and the dried bed of the Turia – now turned into a huge park – Valencia (and its 120 kilometers of bike path) is quickly becoming one of Spain's best urban areas for cycling.
An up-and-coming tourist destination in a country full of red-letter cities, Málaga, its coastal counterparts and the surrounding mountain communities have invested in cyclists. And given the higher number of holiday makers and the city's strong push for infrastructure, culture and gastronomy, bike-friendly laws will likely grow.
If you rent a bike, you can use the city's nearly 100 kilometers of bike lanes to take you from just about Pedragalejo past famed Playa de la Malagueta, to the city center and as far west as the Diputación de Málaga.
One of Spain's largest cities, the capital of Aragón has been giving ciclistas priority throughout most of its urban center for years – and it's relatively flat, despite the region's fame for mountains and outdoor activities.
What's more, the town hall website has numerous resources for cycling fans, including the best routes for both urban treks (including how long it will take you and any bike shops en route) and for those looking for more of a challenge further afield.
As tourism in Spain surges, many other cities – particularly in the Basque Country and in touristic destinations like the Costas – are expanding their infrastructure to promote safe cycling for locals and visitors alike. A word to the wise: remember that, as a vehicle under penal law, you are subject to the same laws as a driver. This means no cycling after knocking back six botellínes or riding through a stoplight when no one is coming. Helmets aren't required but strongly recommended.
These days, the only sightseeing I'm doing is to the doctor's office or pharmacy, but my legs are aching to be back on my cruiser, Feliciano. That is, once I've bought a bike seat for Microcín!
Have you ever rented a bike in Spain or done a cycling tour? I'd love to hear about it!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Finding Auto Parts
Order Auto Parts
DIY gear-heads and big repair shops in Shelbina trust Hines Performance Parts for the best service on auto parts. We are always happy to help our customers find the right auto part for their next repair. We have the auto parts you need for common repairs in stock. But if you need a specialty part, it can easily be purchased online and quickly shipped to your door or to Hines Performance Parts for the in-store pickup. Come by Hines Performance Parts at 201 S Center St and we will use your vehicle's VIN to help you find the exact parts you need to get your repairs done quickly.
OEM or Aftermarket Auto Parts. Which One Is Right For Your Vehicle?
- OEM: We can order your Original Equipment auto parts from the dealership or manufacturer so you only receive the one that matches your vehicle. Ease your mind by being 100% certain that the OEM part works identically to the one that needs replacing. Ask us about parts and labor warranties that come standard with most OEM auto parts.
- Aftermarket parts: Looking for less expensive auto parts or maybe a performance upgrade? Aftermarket parts offer cost savings as well as performance enhancements. Ask us at Hines Performance Parts which aftermarket auto parts are both low cost and high quality. We know our auto parts!


text:
Boston 2024 (Women)
We must not be satisfied to merely get a passage right. We must also think carefully about how to get it across. We must consider audience and application and a variety of other aspects of presentation when it comes to preaching and teaching God's Word.
Genre/Topic: Old Testament History
Language: English
Type: Audio MP3
Duration: 52 mins
File Size: 75 MB


text:
The ratio of Bitcoin's market dominance compared to all other digital currencies has generally getting smaller since early 2017. This period can be considered the 'big bang' for cryptocurrencies, when they literally all exploded onto the scene and inflated into the virtual universe. Over the past week however Bitcoin's dominance has picked up and its transaction fees have fallen.
Over the first half of 2017 Bitcoin's market share plummeted from almost 90% to around 37%. This was largely at the expense of Ethereum which skyrocketed in price from around $10 to over $400 during the same period. Other altcoins such as Ripple's XRP also chomped away at the Bitcoin behemoth as the crypto train gathered momentum. The latter half of 2017 saw Bitcoin steadily rise back up to a high of 64% market dominance in early December as traders soon realized that they needed BTC to buy altcoins.
Big Drop For Bitcoin
As crypto mania reached a crescendo just after New Year Bitcoin found itself in free-fall again dropping by 50% to a low of 34% market dominance. Smaller altcoins such as Verge, Tron, and Cardano were being shilled and pumped causing millions of dollars to flow away from BTC and into them boosting their market capacities into the billions. The party did not last long and those that shot up so rapidly fell the hardest. Everything was sucked into the virtual vortex and the crypto markets shed 66% from $830 billion down to a low of $280 billion in just one month from January 7 to February 6.
In the past week however Bitcoin's market dominance has seen a turn around and it is reclaiming some of its lost share. It has regained 14% from 34% on Feb 10 to just over 39% today, and it continues to climb as many of the altcoins carry on bleeding. Those that were seeking a quick buck are likely to have sold in a panic as markets fell, while those with true belief in blockchain technology and the projects they have invested in will be hodling for the future.
Usage and Transaction Fees at a Low
While Bitcoin approaches 40% market share again its actual usage has fallen to the lowest point in six months. Costs to send Bitcoin became unfeasible during its peak in December when they were as high as $35. This caused many to switch to more cost efficient alternatives such as Ethereum, Litecoin and even Bitcoin Cash.
With fewer people using Bitcoin its transaction fees have dropped back to an 18 month low yesterday. This means that a standard transaction of six blocks will cost as little as 20 cents with an average fee being around 50 cents according to analytics websites. Bitcoin transaction fees have not been this low since before the crypto boom in March last year.
These low fees only apply for peer-to-peer transactions however as exchanges set their own fees and commissions which are usually higher. Segwit adoption and Lightning Network implementation could help to bring Bitcoin back to the digital currency of choice it was developed to be in the first place.


text:
Our venerable and God-bearing Father Brynach was a 6th century hermit in Wales and friend of St. David of Wales. His feast day is April 7.
Saint Brynach was a 6th century Irishman who first landed in Wales at Milford Haven, where he was beaten for resisting the advances of a local nobleman's daughter. He then travelled to the Gwaun Valley and freed Pontfaen from evil spirits whose howling had made the village uninhabitable.
The saint is most associated, however, with the village of Nevern (Nanyfer in Welsh), Pembrokeshire, where his hermitage was located. Along with St. David's Cathedral (St. David's, Wales) this is one of the earliest sites in Britain used continuously for Christian worship. (Wales remained Christian after England was occupied by pagan Anglo-Saxons.) The church of St. Brynach in the village is believed to stand on the site of the saint's hermitage. While the current church building is of more recent construction, the antiquity of the site is indicated by the presence of a number of ancient inscribed stones in the churchyard and the church itself dating from the time of the saint. The Vortiper stone, which stands just outside the church entrance and has inscriptions in both Latin and Irish Ogham scripts, has been dated to c.466 to c.533; another dual-script stone has been re-used as a lintel inside the church, and at least one more Latin-inscribed stone can be seen on the outer fabric of the structure. The story associating the magnificent Celtic cross outside the church with Ss. Brynach and David (David is said to have carried the cross to Brynach as a gift), is, however, inaccurate as the cross dates to sometime between the 11th-13th centuries—at least six centuries after the saints.
St. Brynach himself lived an austere life of constant fasting and prayer. Wild beasts became tame for the saint, and his holiness was so great that he communed with angels on the summit of nearby Carn Ingli, the Mountain of Angels (also the site of a pre-Christian hillfort), which dominates the local landscape. A twelfth century hagiography, the Vita Sancti Bernachius exists, written by an anonymous author in the district of Cemaes, which includes Nevern.
- O holy Brynach, thou didst leave thy native Ireland
- to seek God in Pembroke's solitude.
- As thou dost now stand before Christ our God,
- intercede with Him, we pray, that He may have mercy on us.
External links
- Vita Sancti Bernachius (The Life of St. Brynach), composed in Cemis, Pembrokeshire, in the 12th C. Found in the British Museum Cotton MS Vespasian A xiv. Vitae Sanctorum Britanniae et Genealogiae. ed. A. W. Wade-Evans. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1944.
- Wikipedia: Brynach
Categories > Church History
Categories > Church History
Categories > Church History
Categories > Church History
Categories > Liturgics > Feasts
Categories > Liturgics > Feasts
Categories > Liturgics > Feasts
Categories > Liturgics > Feasts
Categories > People > Monastics
Categories > People > Saints
Categories > People > Saints > Pre-Schism Western Saints
Categories > People > Saints > Saints by century > 6th-century saints
Categories > People > Saints > Saints of the British Isles


text:
Asked about a Senate resolution disapproving the "surge" of US troops going into Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney growled: "It won't stop us."
The Senate, the House, the Constitution, the American people voting in an election nothing and no one in this country can stop the War Party. Are you one of the more than two-thirds of Americans who oppose this war, and totally disapprove of the "surge"? Don't bother seeking redress from your elected representatives in Congress they long ago abdicated their authority over the military and diplomatic branches of the national security bureaucracy.
In 1952, as the Korean war was raging, the Supreme Court stopped Harry Truman when he invoked "national security" in a bid to nationalize the nation's steel mills. Congress was more accommodating. When the dwarfish little haberdasher sent troops to Korea without bothering to consult them, our Solons rolled over and purred, in anticipation of a pat on the stomach. Ever since then, the conduct of American foreign policy has been as far removed from popular control as the decrees of an absolute monarch. Every Congress has ceded more authority to the president except for a brief, post-Vietnam interregnum until the people's representatives play only an advisory role when it comes to questions of war and peace.
Who, then, controls the foreign policy of this nation?
Well, there is the president, who has more power than any Roman Emperor ever dreamed of: Caligula only imagined himself to be Jupiter, while George W. Bush has more than a few thunderbolts in his quiver, and, thanks to our supine Congress, can hurl them at will.
There are the president's courtiers, his advisors, his friends and confidantes. As in any royal court, the idea is to get in a position to whisper in the ear of the king, and there are multitudes of lobbyists vying for this spot. In the foreign policy realm, a great many foreign interests compete for American attention and largess. Of all these, the most successful by far has been the Israel lobby, or, as John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have dubbed it, simply the Lobby in part, no doubt, because no other foreign interest or pressure group even begins to approach it in terms of Washington clout.
The Lobby used to be a forbidden topic, or, at least, one discussed in low whispers, using code words and knowing winks. We weren't supposed to say, at least out loud, that Israel, like every other country of consequence, maintains an active lobby in Washington, one which also happens to be the most organized, well-financed, and powerful pressure group when it comes to foreign policy. This kind of clout is measured, in part, by the single largest foreign aid appropriation, allotted to Israel, $3.5 billion yearly. It is also measured in the campaign contributions coming from what Wesley Clark refers to as "the New York money people."
Clark caused an uproar when he told Arianna Huffington why he was so worried about the prospect of war with Iran:
"When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.'"
We have seen no more blogging by Gen. Clark at the Huffington Post, and that's, no doubt, for the same reason I've been banished from the blog where Hollywood vapidity and DNC timidity meet and greet. "At one point," The Huff continues,
"Melinda reminded him that she was taking down everything he said (a fact that would have been hard to miss, since she was taking notes on a not-inconspicuous legal pad). His response: 'Yes, I know." For Clark, this is the biggest foreign policy issue facing the US I'm worried about the surge,' he said. But I'm worried about this even more.'"
Yes, comrade, we're taking all this down: see you at GPU headquarters. Next stop, the gulag.
Tellingly, the usually voluble Arianna, who has an opinion on virtually every subject, had nothing to say about Israel's invasion of Lebanon.
Attacked by all the usual suspects, Clark was ably defended by Matt Yglesias. Yglesias, a writer for the American Prospect whose blog is the go-to place for a sober, left-of-center (and pretty consistently noninterventionist) viewpoint, says that everything Clark said is true, and, what's more, everybody knows it's true:
"Most major American Jewish organizations cater to the views of extremely wealthy major donors whose political views are well to the right of the bulk of American Jews, one of the most liberal ethnic groups in the country. Furthermore, it's true that major Jewish organizations are trying to push the country into war. And, last, it's true that if you read the Israeli press you'll see that right-wing Israeli politicians are anticipating a military confrontation with Iran."
For evidence of the war hysteria now sweeping official Israeli circles, readers of the Israeli (and overseas) press will note the attention paid to the seventh annual Herzliya conference, an event attended by top Israeli and American leaders, including a surprising number of would-be occupants of the Oval Office. "There is no doubt that the war drums are beating pretty loudly here in Herzliya," reports Gideon Rachman, the Financial Times foreign correspondent, who was struck by "the number of top Americans who have bothered to come over for the conference." With US officials Gordon England and Nick Burns as the centerpieces, several serious presidential wannabes decorated the podium: Mitt Romney made a personal appearance, with John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and John Edwards addressing the conference by satellite. "I cannot think of any other country in the world that could summon up this level of American participation for a conference like this," writes Rachman. "Certainly not Britain."
Richard Perle, Jim Woolsey, and nutty Newt Gingrich rounded out the speakers list, adding their own notes of individualized hysteria to the chorus of warmongering. "A lot of these chaps," avers Rachman, "were very prominent in the drive to go to war in Iraq. Now, flushed by their undoubted success there, they are turning their attention to Iran."
That anyone, at this date, is advocating another war in the Middle East this time against a country three times the size of Iraq, with a far larger population, and the will to fight is astonishing. Yet each of these American politicians major candidates for the highest office in the land pledged at Herzliya that we would go to war, if necessary, in order to stop the alleged Iranian drive to acquire nukes. Former (and aspiring) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw out the CIA's assessment of 10 years before Tehran goes nuclear, and substituted his own: 1,000 days. The supposed imminence of an Iranian mushroom cloud looming over the Israeli skyline imparted a certain apocalyptic air to the proceedings, and the American candidates put on quite a show:
"US presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, John Edwards and John McCain, along with Newt Gingrich, were in Israel, seemingly competing to see who can be most strident in defense of the Jewish state during personal or video appearances at the conference here, just north of Tel Aviv.
"The four politicians called for ways to prevent Iran's government from acquiring nuclear weapons. While stressing the strong US-Israel ties, the presidential hopefuls all agreed that the US has to ratchet up sanctions on Iran and leave the possibility of a military attack on the table'."
Romney may have won the hyperbole contest, but the big surprise was Edwards, who came in second with his declaration that preventing Iran from getting nukes is "is the greatest challenge of our generation." On the same day he ran an ad in Roll Call calling on Congress to oppose the "surge" in Iraq, he was telling the Herzliya conference that "All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon."
"At a time when most Democrats in the United States are calling for less military involvement abroad," notes the Jersusalem Post, "Edwards, of South Carolina, told the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference on Monday that his country must do everything that it can to stop Iran from possessing nuclear weapons." His position is that we need to negotiate while tightening sanctions and never ceasing to threaten them. This marked Edwards as the "moderate" at the conference.
In spite of all the posturing tough talk, the Israelis don't have the military capacity to take out all of Iran's suspected nuclear sites in one fell swoop, or even half a dozen swoops: only the United States has the ability to do that. Unable to do it on their own, the Israelis must, somehow, cajole us into doing it for them.
The question is: how is it in American interests to go to war with Iran over this issue? The Iranian mullahs are not about to launch a nuclear first strike at Israel, for all of Bernard Lewis's visions of a Shi'ite apocalypse. Yes, there is a millennialist mythology in Shi'ite Islam, a mirror image of the end-of-the-world-ism of born-again Christian Rapturists in the West. Both groups support powerful political parties in their respective countries, yet one can hardly conclude, from this, that either the US or Iran is about to attack the other with nuclear weapons.
In any case, there is no threat to America, per se, unless one counts radical "settlers" from Brooklyn squatting on Palestinian land. The "existential threat" if it can be called that, as it was at the conference is to Israel, not the US. Yet the Israelis' hysterical response is way out of proportion to the alleged danger, even given the worst case scenario.
If and when the Iranians produce nuclear weapons, the result will be very similar to what occurred during the cold war, with both sides constrained by the prospect of mutual assured destruction. Professor Lewis to the contrary, the Iranians are not about to indulge in an act of collective suicide by raining nuclear death on Israeli cities. Retaliation would be swift, and merciless.
The Israelis already have nukes, and I don't see them rushing to abide by or even sign the Nonproliferation Treaty. The significance of a nuclearized Iran isn't the prospect of an Iranian first strike at Israel highly unlikely is putting it mildly but Israel's loss of its regional nuclear monopoly. Iran is making its bid to reassert its historical role as the regional hegemon, or at least positioning to contend for the title with Israel and the US.
The campaign to provoke war with Iran is aimed at maintaining Israeli nuclear supremacy in the Middle East. Americans are supposed to support this because an Israeli first strike at Tehran, or elsewhere in the Arab world, is unthinkable right? On the other hand, one can easily imagine Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman ordering the nuking of Tehran, Mecca, and Cairo.
The Lobby has a hard task, and one has to admire them for what they achieved: after all, it is so clearly not in America's interest to be seen as Israel's cat's-paw in the region, yet they have managed to make it so anyway. As Mearsheimer and Walt put it:
"Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country in this case, Israel are essentially identical."
When John Edwards, who poses as a peace candidate, declares that we will go to war with Iran before we'll let them break Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East, that should tell us something about how the power of the Lobby has distorted our foreign policy and deformed the American political process. In paying homage to Herzliya, Edwards and his fellow candidates are betraying and subverting American interests.
So why do they do it? Clark's analysis of the pressure, including financial pressure, is quite accurate: it takes an enormous amount of money to run for president, and there are other pressures as well. Anyone who takes a stand against the Lobby is relentlessly smeared, as were professors Mearsheimer and Walt, and as Gen. Clark is being smeared now.
With a born-again Christian faction in the GOP theologically committed to putting Israeli interests over and above American interests, and big contributors to the Democratic party making unconditional support for Israel a litmus test for candidates, the two-party system keeps the Lobby in the saddle, and politically formidable in spite of recent troubles having to do with possible violations of the Espionage Act.
Just as we attacked Iraq "motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure," as Mearsheimer and Walt put it, so we'll fight the next war against Iran for the same reason. The power of the Lobby is being mobilized, and not quietly. While there is some opposition, notably coming from Harry Reid and others who say that the war authorization for Iraq didn't and doesn't include Iran, Congress has yet to take any concrete action. In any event, as Dick Cheney put it, "It won't stop us."
We seem set on a course for catastrophe, and if there is any way to avoid it given our rigged political system the first step must be a public outcry. That's why I've been pushing a measure introduced by Congressman Walter B. Jones, Republican of North Carolina, House Joint Resolution 14, which forbids an attack on Iran by US forces unless our troops or interests are directly attacked first.
Not surprisingly, the Democratic party is a major obstacle to the passage of the Jones resolution. I had a call in to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office last week asking about her position on H.J. Res. 14 and still no answer. Maybe you can get an answer out of her, one way or the other. Call (2) 225-4965 and tell her Justin Raimondo sent you .


text:
I was honored that B&G asked me to judge the shucking competition (along with the incomparable Annie Copps), and between my hourly duties I made the rounds of each oyster station, slurping and sampling my way along the street, down in the garden-patio, throughout the interior of B& G Oysters, and across the street along Lynch's the Butcher Shop. (Apologies in advance to any vendors I may have missed in the crowds. And mea culpa, dear chefs, if I describe your creations and misreport an ingredient detail.)
Oh yeah, and the wine was fab too.
Many thanks to all involved, especially the B&G staff who all deserve a round of applause (and a nice big bonus check) for keeping things running so smoothly and with a smile.


text:
Type Y696 is a direct-operated vapor recovery regulator with internal registration, requiring no downstream control line.
This regulator is used to sense an increase vessel pressure and vent excessive internal tank pressure to an appropriate vapor recovery disposal or reclamation system.
CAD Drawings and Models: Click Here
CAD Drawings and Models: Click Here


text:
Displaying items by tag: Twilight Time October
Criterion's October, Bridge on the River Kwai, Starship Troopers, E.T. & T2 all announced for 4K & MUCH more
All right, we've a LOT of ground to cover today: Tons of news and announcements, plus some good stuff here at The Bits for you too. Let's start with the latter...
Tim has turned in new reviews of Meteor (1979) on Blu-ray from Kino Lorber and also Dave Parker's It Watches on DVD from Uncork'd Entertainment. Both are worth your time. And if you like It Watches, be sure to check out Dave's Sweet Tooth from Tales of Halloween, as well The Hills Run Red and The Dead Reborn too.
Also today, in honor of the late George Romero, I wanted to share a special feature we did here at The Bits way back in 2001: Telling Tales with John and George. I had the honor of spending an afternoon with George and filmmaker John Harrison (Frank Herbert's Dune) while they recorded the audio commentary for Paramount's Tales from the Darkside: The Movie DVD. It really gives you a good sense, I think, of who George was as a person: Truly one of the kindest, warmest, and most engaging people I've had the pleasure to meet in my 30+ years in this industry. I hope you'll enjoy it. [Read on here…]
- Bluray Disc
- Bill Hunt
- The Digital Bits
- My Two Cents
- Bluray
- Dolby Vision HDR
- Walt Disney Home Entertainment
- Tim Salmons
- The Bridge on the River Kwai 4K
- ET The Extraterrestrial 4K
- Starship Troopers 4K
- Starship Troopers: Traitor of Mars 4K
- Terminator 2: Judgment Day 4K
- EndoArm Limited Edition
- Criterion's October slate
- It Watches DVD review
- Meteor BD review
- Telling Tales with John and George 2001 special feature
- John Harrison
- George A Romero
- Tales from the Darkside: The Movie
- Vampyr
- Barry Lyndon
- Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me
- Personal Shopper
- The Lure
- Othello
- The Criterion Collection
- 976Evil
- Twilight Time October
- Wild Bill
- Play Dirty
- The Captain from Castile
- The Pirates of Blood River
- Game of Thrones: The Complete Seventh Season
- The Lion King: The Circle of Life Walt Disney Signature Collection
- Vikings: Season Four Volume Two


text:
Delivery & Returns Policy
Here at www.megafancydress.co.uk we offer the following easy to use delivery options in order to meet the delivery date you require at the lowest cost option to suit.
Standard Economy Delivery - 2- 5 working days.
Express Delivery - 1-2 working days.
Special Delivery Next Day by 1PM - Next working day delivery before 1PM.
Delivery schedules are based on shipping to UK mainland addresses.
We endeavour to dispatch all orders by 4pm the same working day. Please ensure you order early for next day delivery options.
If a product that you have ordered is unavailable we will endeavour to contact you, using the details provided by you (please make sure that your contact details are correct including valid phone number and email address), we will offer you an alternative or the option to cancel your order in full. Any refund will be automatically processed.
International Delivery
We deliver international orders using Royal Mail International Signed For which includes insurance and tracking.
The delivery cost is dependent upon the weight of your order and the destination country. Delivery outside the EU may be subject to local import taxes, which are your responsibility where they apply. Unfortunately we cannot advise you what these charges will be and Magic Toyz is not responsible for them.
Tax Charges For orders made from the UK or the European Union, 20% VAT is included in our prices.
Mega Fancy Dress
Unit 17, Bellingham Way
New Hythe Business Park
Here at Mega Fancy Dress we offer a 21 days returns policy. Returns received outside of this time will not be accepted and returned to the customer at their expense. Please enclose a copy of your original invoice and a detailed note with reason for return.
We recommend you send any returns recorded as we are not liable for lost returns. The cost of the return postage will be the customer's' liability. We will replace faulty products with the same product or refund back to the same method of payment if the product is no longer available. If an item is faulty please contact us regarding the issue before returning so we can advise the best way to resolve the issue.
If you are not happy with any product you have ordered and received from ourselves, then you may return them to us within 14 days for either an exchange, credit note or a refund. All returns unless faulty may be subject to a 10% restocking fee. If you choose to exchange the unwanted item for an exchange totalling higher than your original, then you will be liable to pay the difference. Postage costs do not constitute as part of the credit note.
Wigs, hosiery and make up may not be returned due to hygiene reasons. If part of your costume has a wig or hosiery please do not open these unless you are sure you want to keep the costume.
All non-faulty returned goods will only be accepted if in the same condition as they were sent out, i.e. in original packaging with all relevant materials enclosed. Any returns that are not received in this way will be sent back to you at your cost or held pending contact and will be destroyed within 60 days if no contact is made.
No replacement items or credit notes can be dispatched until the returned items have been received by us. Please allow up to 28 days for any refunds to appear on the card paid by.
Remittance Terms Payment is taken when the order has been accepted online, if however goods are found to be out of stock or have not been dispatched within 36 hours we shall contact you, giving you the option of a full refund of your payment or a replacement item option.
Late Delivery
In the event your item arrives too late for your party refuse delivery for the parcel and it will be returned back to us. Alternatively if you have already received your package you can return it using the instructions above. If Mega Fancy Dress or our couriers are found to be at fault we will refund the cost plus postage. In the event where you have selected an incorrect postage option, or were absent during delivery we will refund the price of the costume.
Late delivery due to COVID-19: Please note we cannot be responsible for late deliveries during the pandemic as some delays are inevitable. Postage will not be refunded unless we failed to post on time.
Cancelling An Order Prior to Payment
All orders prior to payment can be cancelled and will not be posted until payment received.
Cancelling An Order After Payment
We offer a quick turn around in order to get you your costume fast, therefore once an item is paid for we are unable to change, add or cancel an order once payment has been received. If you have placed an order and no longer want the costume you can refuse delivery, or return the costume back to us for a refund subject to our returns policy.


text:
Animal care and behaviour: Dogs
Multi-dog households: Enjoying life with more than one dog
by Alison Lever and Wendy Hanson
See also:
Sometimes multi-dog households work very well, other times they leave owners feeling fraught and frazzled. Wendy is a dog behaviour consultant and dog trainer, and has lived with three dogs, now two. Alison lives with three dogs, and has a long-term interest in multi-dog households which arose from a research project. We have looked both at what makes them work, and at preventing and dealing with problems. Here is a summary of our guidelines to help you to enjoy living with more than one dog.
Why have more than one dog? (And why it may not be sensible.)
Owners may have two or more dogs for a number of reasons, for example, they may have found a companion for their first dog, inherited a dog, found a rescue they just couldn't resist, or kept back a pup or two from a litter. Dogs tend to enjoy one another's company, and can communicate with each other in ways that we can't, so finding a companion for an 'only dog' is often a good idea. However, life takes on a new dimension when you have more than one dog, so this is a decision that needs some thought. One plus one can add up to three, because dogs tend to take their cues from one another. So if you have a dogthat is a little on the wild side, it is well worth waiting and investing at least six months in a serious effort to civilise your first dog so that he or she can set a good example to the newcomer. It is wonderful to watch a well-trained dog teach good manners to a newcomer. It is less wonderful to watch a newcomer learn bad habits!
Spacing dogs is important. It's not just that youngsters need a lot of effort invested in their training, at the other end of the dogs' lives you may find that your vet bills get higher, and it is hard to cope with the loss of two dogs, one shortly after the other. Ideally the first dog should be past the wilder years of adolescence. When this happens depends a lot on the dog. Some dogs are quite calm and adult by the time they get to two, while others take much longer to mature. Training, is of course important, especially if you have an energetic dog. Training allows you to channel the dog's energy, and have a nice, calm dog at times when you need one, such as when you have visitors. Bringing in a newcomer may also create problems if your dog is frail and elderly, and finds youngsters very difficult to cope with. If you bring in a pup under these circumstances, the oldster is going to need a lot of consideration and pup-free space and time, and it may be better to wait.
You may have chosen a first dog because of how he or she behaved with humans rather than other dogs. Many dogs get on very well with humans, but are quarrelsome with their own kind for various reasons. Some dogs just like fighting other dogs. If you regularly meet other dogs, you will know whether yours likes to pick fights, in which case bringing in a new dog is asking for trouble. Get your dog assessed to see if there is how far training can improve this behaviour, and whether the dog should really stay as an only dog. An honest assessment can save you a lot of grief. Some dogs don't get on with others of their own kind simply because they have spent a long time on their own, and have forgotten how to communicate with other dogs. It is worth making an effort to socialise such dogs, to see what sorts of dogs they might get on with, or whether they really just don't like other dogs at all. Dogs can be very picky about who they want to talk to, just like people. If you acquired your dog as a tiny pup, and live in an isolated area where you hardly ever meet other dogs, you will need to take it gently. With luck you can find people with calm, well-behaved dogs, who can remind your dog of how to talk to his own species. Training classes can also help with socialising dogs. Outdoor classes are generally best for dogs that have spent a long time away from their own kind.
How many dogs is too many?
The advice that owners most often gave was 'know your limits'. However appealing a potential newcomer may be, ask yourself whether the quality of life of your existing dogs might suffer. What do people you live with feel about another dog? Ask yourself how you are going to cope if you have 'flu, or a twisted ankle. You can ask a friend to walk one or two dogs for you as a favour, but walking three or more dogs is more difficult. Vet bills get higher the more dogs you have, and there's the cost of dog food. You need enough space, because dogs are more likely to fight if they live in crowded conditions. People with four or more dogs are likely to say 'the dogs come first'. Now that's fine if that is what you want, but think ahead, if you also want to have children, you may find that you suddenly have too many dogs.
Two groups of people are especially vulnerable to the temptation of taking on too many dogs. Breeders may keep back pups from a litter for one reason or another, while people involved in rescue may take on more dogs than they can handle, because they feel they are the dogs' last chance. If you have more dogs than is comfortable, it is sensible to make a determined effort to rehome one or more of them. For most people, two dogs are enough, but this very much depends on what the dogs are like, especially whether they are easy-going or have prickly personalities, and it also depends on how much time, energy and other resources you have. Humans are very good at kidding ourselves that a not-sensible decision is a good one, with 'it'll be OK' ... but if you have a small voice that tells you that you shouldn't take on another dog, listen to that voice!
Choosing a second and subsequent dog
Spacing dogs sensibly means that littermates are generally not a good idea. We both actually have littermates, and have been lucky in that they have got on well and have brought us a great deal of pleasure. However, when they were little, we were run ragged trying to keep up with their needs. For a start, toilet training can be more difficult, because if one littermate pees indoors, the other is likely to do the same. Other people with littermates report the same problem, that the first few years involve a lot of work.
Sometimes dog books tell you that littermates don't bond with the owner. This in fact has not been a problem for us, nor for most people we have asked who have littermates. The big problem is the time and effort needed when the dogs are young, when their training has to be intensive. Dog books may also tell you that littermates will fight. This very much depends on the dogs. Ours have always got on well. Even same-sex littermates can get on well if at least one is easy-going, but yes, there is a higher risk of fights between littermates, especially if they are of the same sex.
In general, the best combinations for two-dog households are dog-bitch, then dog-dog, then bitch-bitch. Dogs and bitches tend not to fight each other, fights between dogs tend to be brief affairs, but owners report that enmity between bitches can be very deep. This means that if you have three dogs, two dogs and a bitch is generally a safer combination than two bitches and a dog. However, this very much depends on the personalities of the dogs, and following this formula is no guarantee that your dogs will get on, nor, for that matter that two bitches can't live together amicably.
So, how do you pick easy-going dogs? In terms of breeds, one breed stands out as exceptionally easy-going, the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. This is no guarantee that all individuals from the breed will be nice-natured, but many Cavvie owners have commented on how their dogs like to sleep in a heap, and get on exceptionally well with each other. Most popular breeds, like Golden Retrievers, German Shepherds and Cocker Spaniels have large gene pools, and a great variety in terms of individual personalities. There can be a big differences in the temperaments of individuals from these breeds, even if they are littermates. If you can find a pup with four grandparents with easy-going temperaments, that pup will probably also be easy-going. An alternative is to take on an easy-going adult rescue dog, which is, in some ways, safer, because it's not always possible to tell how pups will turn out, whereas adults have already developed their personalities.
If you are picking a second dog, it's also worth looking hard at your first dog, to work out the best type of companion. How well behaved is your dog on walks? If he or she gets involved in fights, is there a pattern? Sometimes small dogs find big dogs hard to cope with, and long-legged dogs might find small terriers that run under them a bit scary. Any patterns you see give you clues as to what type of newcomer to shortlist. Then it is well worth taking your dog to meet the possible candidates, preferably on neutral territory. If you choose a rescue adult, a key question is 'what effect would a newcomer have on my dog's behaviour?' Your dog may adore one potential candidate because they enjoy mad races together. However, do you want two dogs racing around your garden, or would you prefer a new dog that has a more calming influence on your first dog? Watch how your dog interacts with possible candidates, draw up your dog's shortlist and compare it with your own, and remember you will be living with the twosome. The newcomer should be a dog that your first dog gets on with, but sometimes it is wiser to go with your dog's second choice!
Introducing newcomers
There are people who argue that dogs don't get jealous. Maybe dogs don't get jealous in the same way as humans, but they can fight for the attention of owners, and can react badly if they suddenly see their owner with a new dog. The gentlest way to introduce a newcomer is for the dogs to meet on neutral territory, preferably out of doors, with a helper handling the new dog. Dogs tend to bond together if they are walked together, so a short, on-leash walk will help the dogs get to know each other. Once the dogs are relaxed, they can be allowed off leash together, and the owner and helper can later swap leads.
Some resident dogs instantly get on with newcomers, other times there may be some friction. You can ease the situation by letting your first dog know that his or her place is safe, for example, if you treat the dogs, treat the first dog first, and give the first dog some continued alone-time with you. New adult dogs are generally on their best behaviour for the first few weeks, and are more likely to start to take liberties once they have sized you up. If you initially make the newcomer earn all privileges, you have more room for manoeuvre than if you start out giving the newcomer lots of privileges and having to take them away. Once the dogs are on the same diet, they will start to smell the same, and that helps with bonding, as does walking the dogs together. In the short term, while everyone is getting to know each other, the newcomer is in second place. In the long term the best behaved dog can be rewarded first, and if you have trained your first dog well, your first dog is likely to get the first reward.
Dogs can react very differently to the arrival of a new pup. They may act like an ideal substitute parent, giving gentle corrections that are understood by the pup, or become irritable and tetchy, or flee the new pup, or want to play all day, like the pup's favourite fun uncle. It's the owner's decision to bring a new pup into the house. It's quite natural that some dogs say with their body language that they would rather have nothing to do with a pup until the owner has civilised the little brat! The older dog may not have the energy to keep up, or may not have spent time with young pups for a long time. Think of how you might feel if if somebody suddenly left a lively small child in your house without asking your opinion. Even if you enjoy the company of small children, you may want some peace and quiet now and then.
Watch the dog and pup together, and take your cue from them. If the dog finds the pup too much, or just wants to play wild games with the little one, that is your cue to find other adult dogs who can help teach your pup good manners. If you walk regularly with people who have well-mannered, calm, older dogs, ask if you can walk with them. Few people can refuse such a request, in fact pups tend to arouse a lot of interest in dog walking circles. It's also worthwhile finding playmates for the pup among people you meet on dog walks, so the little one can run off some energy, and learn how to socialise with other youngsters.
Older dogs do need to be able to escape the pup's attentions should they want to. This is true however well the two get on, and especially true if you have a very pushy youngster and an older dog who simply doesn't want to know. It's not just unfair on the older dog to trap him or her with the pup, it's teaching the pup to be rude to adults, which puts the pup at risk when you go out on walks. It also helps to give the pup nap time in a separate room. This both gives the older dog some alone-time with you, and helps the pup learn to spend time alone.
Whether the newcomer is an adult or a youngster, feeding the dogs together will initially involve giving each a lot of space, and ensuring that each dog respects the rule 'all dogs have a right to eat their dinner in peace'. This means supervision, and a firm reprimand if any dog breaks the rule. The lessons learnt in the early days tend to stick in the newcomer's mind, and help the dogs to feel safe and happy in each other's company.
Walking the dogs together is also important, initially with a helper walking the newcomer if there is any friction between the two dogs. It may be because it's a natural 'pack activity' for whatever reason, it works. After just ten minutes walking together, dogs seem to tune into each other, and work more as a group. Your first dog will know the walks better, and this will boost his or her confidence. You can ask both dogs to sit and stay, or do a downstay, and reward the first to comply. This gets them focusing on you, and doing the same thing. So long as your first dog is well trained, you are telling the newcomer 'look, if you are good like your companion, you get something nice'.
The effort you put into training your first dog pays enormous dividends when you bring in newcomers. Newcomers tend to defer to older dogs who are already in residence when they arrive, and they tend to follow their example. If your first dog comes when called, behaves well on walks, and greets visitors politely, this sets a good example for newcomers. It means that you have to put less effort into later training, because your first dog is doing a lot of the work for you. However, if you find that your first dog is teaching the newcomer some bad habits, that means number one dog needs some remedial education!
Training dogs that live together means both individual sessions and sessions together as a group. Each dog benefits from alone time with you, so you can focus on strengths and weaknesses, and from group sessions where they learn to co-operate together. When you have two or more dogs in the same place, they need to know whether commands are meant for just one dog, or for all the dogs. Some owners preface individual commands with the dog's name. The name means that you get the dog's attention, then you can give the command. If you use food rewards, the dog to reward first is the best behaved dog.
Training is basically getting dogs to understand and obey the rules they need to learn for life together to be enjoyable. So if they mob visitors, but are fine on walks, the first priority is individual and group training in greeting people politely. It helps both to look at specific situations, like walking alongside roads with heavy traffic, and at the training needs of each particular dog. A youngster newcomer may be pushy, and try to shove senior dogs out of the way to get to you, or get to the door when it is time to go out. Such a youngster will benefit from learning to wait until you give a signal for a cuddle or to have a lead put
on. Sits and stays can be built into 'sit and stay until it is your turn'. Alternatively, your first dog may be a bit wild, and you may have a diffident newcomer who is happy to wait his or her turn. In that case the first dog needs to learn some self control through sits and stays. If they are both a bit crazy, then surprise quicksits and downstays on walks can help them to focus on you.
Manners training is very important, but dogs also benefit from doing fun activities together, and even from just watching another dog have fun. You can play retrieve or tug and drop games with one dog as an observer, and a helper holding the spectator. You can also play 'find the titbit, lining the dogs up in a stay while you hide titbits which they find on a 'sniff' command. The more they can play together, the more likely they are to enjoy one another's company.
Preventing and dealing with fights.
What owners see as fights between dogs may be just play, simple reprimands, spats, or very serious fights. Playfights are generally not a problem so long as they don't get out of hand, in fact if your dogs can playfight, and through playing learn how to control their aggression and take turns, they are more likely to get on. You can tell the difference between playfights and real fights, because of the dogs' body language. There are playbows, and usually chases and even boxing. Sometimes one dog leads, sometimes the other, and each dog goes back for more fun. If one dog is trying to get away, rather than coming back for more, it's not play, but bullying!
Dogs can be like small children when they playfight, in that they can get overtired and start to fight seriously, so you need to stop them at the first sign this is happening, and preferably know them well enough to stop them well before they get to this stage. However involved they are in their play, they should take notice of you immediately, and if they don't, then rationing playfights is a good idea. It's also safer to have a 'no playfighting indoors' rule, especially if you have three or more dogs. There's less intensity to outdoor playfights, they allow the dogs to run off more energy, and playfights out of doors are less likely to escalate.
A simple reprimand usually happens when a young, socially inept dog breaks the rules, and is told off by a senior dog. There may be noise and flashing teeth, but no harm is done. The offender accepts the reprimand, and minds his manners. This is healthy. Socially inept means for example, a younger dog mounting an older one. If the youngster does not accept the reprimand, this is your cue to step in and scold the youngster, so that both dogs look to you for leadership, and the older dog does not feel obliged to fight to prove his point. There are people who claim that non-mating mounting is always a sign of dominance, but in fact it is often a sign of immaturity, bad manners and overexcitement. Dogs may also reprimand pups who take liberties with them. If you are worried that reprimands may be too harsh, have someone more experienced come and watch the dogs interact, and advise you.
The main way to prevent real fights is to choose your dogs carefully, picking easy-going dogs, rather than grumpy, cantankerous individuals! The more dogs you have, the greater the risk that fights can become serious, especially if they have too little space. You have less time to train each dog, and if they get involved in a group fight, it becomes more difficult to break up. Training gives you far more control, for example allowing you to deter a dog you see eyeing up another by calling the troublemaker to you. You also need a vet check if a dog is unusually irritable, otherwise this may escalate into serious attacks due to an undiagnosed medical problem.
Spats are common between males, and are usually brief and noisy. They are often over before you have a chance to work out what is going on. The dogs must understand that Fighting Is Not Allowed, so this is your cue to give any dog involved a severe scolding. It's a case of 'I don't care who started it', because dogs can injure each other, even in brief spats, and they can injure any human whose hands, feet, or even face get in the way, with serious consequences.
This leads to the vexed question of canine hierarchies, about which a lot has been written by people who see, or don't see dogs in a multi-dog household as forming a 'pack'. Some people argue that owners should respect hierarchies that the dogs themselves form. They argue that this reduces conflict, because it means that one dog knows it should defer to another. Bruce Fogle, in his very popular 'The Dog's Mind', even argues that if a bully attacks a 'submissive' dog, owners should not support the 'submissive' dog, because it can increase conflict, but should instead pet a 'dominant' dog first. He gives an example of this having 'worked'.
Now this view goes against the 'Fighting is Not Allowed' rule, in that it appears to condone an attack by a bully. Any sane owner wants a peaceful household, so if one dog threatens or attacks another, that dog should be reprimanded, and have some extra training in self-control.
Fogle also raises a lot of questions. Firstly, is a dog that threatens or attacks another 'dominant'? In our experience, no, the attacker isn't usually the 'top dog'. Furthermore, favouring a dog threatening or attacking, in our experience, has always increased conflict. Fogle wrote his book some twenty years ago. Today, the generally accepted view is that the wannabe is more likely to instigate an attack than is the top dog. It's also clear that owners can create 'brattish' dogs which pick fights, simply by favouring one dog over the rest, for example a small dog allowed to sleep in a bedroom, while other dogs are excluded. Dogs can feel bolder if they get special attention from owners, and become more obnoxious because they feel they have back-up. Dogs do have a sense of fairness, and the excluded dogs may feel disgruntled. So if you strongly favour one dog over the rest, you are making fights more likely.
Rewarding a bully effectively means rewarding bad behaviour, which is not really sensible. The most sensible rule is simply 'Fighting is Not Allowed', which means that any dog that attacks another is scolded. This rule may leave you with an obedient 'top dog' who refuses to respond to provocations, and a bully to whom you need to teach some manners. It is much, much easier for you to do this, through extra training than to leave the dogs to fight it out. Letting dogs work out their own hierarchy through fights means abdicating control. If you have a top dog who stands back and lets you sort out the brat who won't accept a reprimand, that gives you control.
What emerges from surveying owners is that not all groups of dogs show a clear hierarchy. Some dogs are happy to share resources, rather than saying " 'smine, you can't have it". Other dogs may be happy to give way to one another. When you bring together dogs with different personalities, they may each value different resources. One may especially like chew toys, for example, while another especially likes being near you. The dog that especially likes chew toys will tend to get the chews, with the others, not so bothered saying 'OK, if you really want it, have it'.
It's true, there are people who see their dogs as forming a pack with a clear hierarchy which helps reduce conflict. If this is how you view your dogs, and it is backed by observation, fine, if it works, don't fix it! But that doesn't mean that every group of dogs that owners choose to put together will get on in this way. People who see hierarchies as important for promoting peace tend to advise against keeping littermates, on the grounds that they that they are more likely to fight because neither is clearly dominant. Yes, it is true that littermates may squabble because each wants they same thing and neither wants to back down. However, in both our cases, our littermates have different personalities, so the problem has not arisen.
Dogs vary a lot in terms of how peaceful or quarrelsome they are. Some owners say that their dogs are peaceful with no clear hierarchy, while others say they tend to squabble despite having a clear hierarchy, and this means that owners have to intervene more to prevent fights. In general, the more quarrelsome your dogs, the more care you will need to prevent fights. A key difference between the dogs we choose to live with and dogs in a wolf pack is that our dogs haven't chosen one another's company and have less chance to escape from one another. That can make conflict potentially more serious if owners abdicate control.
The most common triggers for fighting are access to food, chew toys, the owner, and the front door when it is time to go out for a walk. Dogs need enough space to eat in peace. How much space they need depends on the dogs. Some dogs can eat happily around three feet away from each other, while others need to be in separate rooms. Mealtimes should always be supervised if dogs eat in the same room, because otherwise a fast eater may try to muscle in and scoff another dog's dinner. If you offer titbits, it needs to be clear to the dogs who gets what, or you can trigger squabbles. Rawhide chews are often triggers for fighting. Dogs seem to especially value ones that are freshly chewed and slimy! Peaceful, give-and-take dogs can share such chews, other dogs can't. Some owners simply don't give their dogs these chews, while other owners give the dogs chews in separate rooms.
Fights over access to the owner are common between 'velcro' dogs, dogs that like to be on the owner's lap, or by his or her feet. Training is the best way to keep order, for example, putting the dogs in a downstay if they tend to mob you in an overexcited way when you come through the door. You also have more control if you only allow dogs on your lap, or beside you on the sofa with permission. You may find that a 'velcro dog' growls at companions only when on your lap, in which case the solution is clear, ejection! Sometimes dogs squabble when they are about to go out, especially if one is left behind. Training helps, putting the dogs in a sit before you open the front door. It can also help to put any dog that has to be left behind in a separate room first, with a chew, or some other compensation for being excluded from the walk.
Dogs can get seriously overexcited if they are all barking at a strange dog. This can lead to one dog attacking another simply 'because', not because they dislike one another, but because they are too keyed up. This is more likely to happen if you have little or no front garden, and your dogs see strange dogs passing close by in the street, or if they don't get on with the dogs next door. Training again helps, as can arranging the furniture so your dogs don't have easy access to the window. (See the article 'Designing and Using a Dog Garden' for tips on garden design to prevent this.)
Your dogs are more likely to sleep peacefully if you give them a good run before you leave them, rather than just walking them round the block. Dogs used to a routine tend to sleep until it is time for their owner to come back, when they start to get restless, so a routine helps to give you a peaceful household.
While most fights seem to happen when owners are present, dogs do sometimes fight when they are left alone, especially if they get wound up seeing strange dogs close by, so block their view if they can see dogs from the street, and supervise them in the garden. Space is important. Each dog needs to be able to have his or her own space, whether on a chair or in a basket, and if you have small rooms, it may be better to leave them in separate rooms. Some owners always leave their dogs in the same room because otherwise they fret, while others always put the dogs in separate rooms. Which is better depends on the dogs. If you feel there is any risk that they may fight if left alone together, then go by your feeling - it's better to be safe than sorry. It's also important to listen to whoever sold or gave you the dogs. If they advise separating the dogs in your absence, then that is wise. There are a few dogs who get on fine with the owner present but who can get involved in serious fights if left unattended.
So what can you do if your dogs do fight? Take care not to put your hands, arms, or feet where they are likely to be bitten, and use whatever you can to bring the dogs to their senses. Outdoors, a hose trained on dogs can work fast, or a bucket of water. Indoors, you can pour a saucepan of water on the dogs, or use a squeegee bottle with water. Yes, you'll have to mop it up afterwards, but the shock effect of water tends to work better than shouting, which tends not to get through once a fight has started. Often fights are over before you can react, but sometimes a dog will get a grip on another and not want to let go. One owner mentioned using a kitchen wooden spoon pushed into the side of the mouth to persuade the dog to open up, and another mentioned squirting shaving cream into the mouth. In general, think of your own safety, and use whatever you can that doesn't put you at risk.
Once the dogs are calm, tell them immediately after a fight that you are very, very annoyed with them, so they think twice about making you cross again. A verbal scolding can be very effective. In the longer term, think hard about why the fight happened. A vet check is usually a good idea, just in case one of the dogs has a serious medical problem that affects control of aggression. Another possibility is that you may simply have two dogs that just don't get on, despite your best efforts. In that case it may be wiser to rehome one of them, perhaps with the help of breed rescue, if the dog is a pure-bred or a cross-bred that strongly resembles one of the breeds.
Most owners who choose their dogs wisely, train them well, and give them enough exercise enjoy peaceful households, with just very occasional spats, or none at all. Prevention is always better than cure, and this is especially true if you want to enjoy a peaceful household with more than one dog.
Saying goodbye
There comes a time when we have to say goodbye to canine companions. Knowing that your dog's time with you is limited can be very hard, but most dogs appreciate sweet talk and compliments, even when they are very frail.
Goodbyes can affect both humans and dogs in different ways. It is easier to accept the passing of a companion who has lived a full life and just faded away, and species can pine when we lose a companion in the fullness of life, a friend we have been actively involved with. Dogs may show no apparent reaction to the loss of a companion, or they may become subdued, and go off their food. It can help to go walking in places you have never been before, to explore new territory together. Dogs that are reluctant to eat may be more willing if you take kibble on walks.
Dogs' lives are short compared to ours, but they give us a great deal. In some ways a group of dogs living together with their owner can be more magical than a wild wolf pack.The dogs are free to play together and co-operate. Harmony is easier to achieve because they don't have to compete for food or a mate. You are the one who makes this magic possible, by bringing together the right dogs, and helping them learn to form a team with you as their leader.
Very many thanks to all the people who answered the questionnaires, and who have helped with this study in other ways. Special thanks to the Australian Cattle Dog owners, Berit Aherne, Sue Axtell, Diane Blackman, Janet Boss, John Burchard, Melanie Chang, Shelly Couvrette, Dorothy Dunning, Margie English, Sally Hennessey, George Hobson, Heather Houlahan, Bob Maida, Donald McCaig, Barry McDonald, Melinda Shore and Jenn Standring.
The ideas and suggestions here do not necessarily reflect their views, but we are very grateful for their help and insights.
© copyright Alison Lever and Wendy Hanson 2011


text:
Posts Tagged 'noting magical'
Say "No" to New Year's Resolutions
What is it about the turning of the calendar from December 31 to January 1 that makes us think that we suddenly have the ability to exercise more, spend more time with our families, and get organized?
There is nothing magical about that switch from one day to another, yet most of us continue to set ourselves up for failure by vowing to be different people in the new year.
Here's a much more achievable way to make changes to your life: set quarterly goals.


text:
Google has launched Google+ Local, a new means to share local information that integrates your Google+ friend's reviews directly into Google Maps search results and replaces Google Places. On top of Google+ integration you'll also see Zagat scores displayed alongside user reviews of restaurants.
The integration into your Google+ profile comes with a new Local tab on the left side. When you click it you'll see results in your area and any reviews written by friends, Zagat, and older Google Places reviews. Google+ Local also works across Google's services. So, if you're typing a restaurant into Google Maps you'll see the Zagat scores and any notes from people on your friends list. The same goes for the Android map app and the standard search engine. The changes are rolling out across profiles throughout the day.
Local—now with a dash of Zagat and a sprinkle of Google+ | Official Google Blog


text:
Why is the U.S. still supporting the Saudi regime, which has evidently just murdered a Washington Post journalist. As Buchanan notes, "Any U.S.-backed "Arab NATO" to face down Iran, with Riyadh as central pillar, would appear dead."
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Was Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, and then his body cut up with a bone saw and flown to Riyadh in Gulfstream jets owned by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman?
So contend the Turks, who have video from the consulate, photos of 15 Saudi agents who flew into Istanbul that day, Oct. 2, and the identity numbers of the planes.
Supporting the thesis of either a murder in the consulate or a "rendition," a kidnaping gone horribly bad, is a Post story that U.S. intel intercepted Saudi planning, ordered by the prince, to lure Khashoggi from his suburban D.C. home back to Saudi Arabia. And for what beneficent purpose?
If these charges are not refuted by Riyadh, there will likely be, and should be, as John Bolton said in another context, "hell to pay."
And the collateral diplomatic damage looks to be massive.
Any U.S.-backed "Arab NATO" to face down Iran, with Riyadh as central pillar, would appear dead. Continued U.S. support for the Saudi war in Yemen would now be in question.
The special relationship the crown prince and President Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, have established could be history.
Congress could cancel U.S. arms sales to the kingdom that keep thousands of U.S. defense workers employed, and impose sanctions on the prince who is heir apparent to the throne of his 82-year-old father, King Salman.
Today, the Saudi prince has become toxic, and his ascension to the Saudi throne seems less inevitable than two weeks ago. Yet, well before Khashoggi's disappearance in the consulate, Crown Prince Mohammed's behavior had seemed wildly erratic.
Along with the UAE, he charged Qatar with supporting terrorism, severed relations, and threatened to build a ditch to sever Qatar from the Arabian Peninsula. To protest criticism of his country's human rights record by Canada's foreign minister, he cut all ties to Ottawa.
Last year, he summoned Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to Riyadh, held him for a week, and forced him to resign his office and blame it on Iranian interference in Lebanon. Released, Hariri returned home to reclaim his office.
A professed reformer, Crown Prince Mohammed opened movie theaters to women and allowed them to drive, and then jailed the social activists who had called for these reforms.
Three years ago, he initiated the war on the Houthis, after the rebels ousted a pro-Saudi president and took over most of the country.
And, since 2015, the crown prince has conducted a savage air war that has brought Houthi missiles down on his own country and capital.
Yemen has become Saudi Arabia's Vietnam.
That our principal Arab ally in our confrontation with Iran, which could lead to yet another U.S. war, is a regime headed by so unstable a character should raise serious concerns about where it is we are going in the Middle East.
Have we not wars already?
Do we not have enough enemies in the region—Taliban, al Qaida, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Iran—to be starting another war?
As for our regional allies, consider.
NATO ally Turkey, which is pressing the case against our Saudi allies, leads the world in the number of journalists jailed. Our Egyptian ally, Gen. al-Sissi, came to power in a military coup, and has imprisoned thousands of dissidents of the Muslim Brotherhood.
While we have proclaimed Iran the "world's greatest state sponsor of terror," it is Yemen, where Saudi Arabia intervened in 2015, that is regarded as the world's great human rights catastrophe.
Moreover, Iran is itself suffering from terrorism.
Last month, a military parade in the city of Ahvaz in the southwest was attacked by gunmen who massacred 25 soldiers and civilians in the deadliest terror attack in Iran in a decade.
And like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, Iran suffers, too, from tribalism, with Arab secessionists in its southwest, Baloch secessionists in its southeast, and Kurd secessionists in its northwest.
The U.S. cannot look aside at a royal Saudi hand in the murder of a U.S.-based journalist in its consulate in Istanbul. But before we separate ourselves from the Riyadh regime, we should ask what is the alternative if the House of Saud should be destabilized or fall?
When Egypt's King Farouk was overthrown in 1952, we got Nasser.
When young King Faisal was overthrown in Baghdad in 1958, we eventually got Saddam Hussein. When King Idris in Libya was ousted in 1969, we got Qaddafi. When Haile Selassie was overthrown and murdered in Ethiopia in 1974, we got Col. Mengistu and mass murder. When the Shah was overthrown in Iran in 1979, we got the Ayatollah.
As World War I, when four empires fell, testifies, wars are hell on monarchies. And if a new and larger Middle East war, with Iran, should break out in the Gulf, some of the Arab kings, emirs, and sultans will likely fall.
And when they do, history shows, it is not usually democrats who rise to replace them.
Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.