www.owohrod.com.

So, Christmas is coming, again, as it is an annual event, in much the same vein as we might celebrate the anniversary of each year we spend on the earth. And, like the particular circumstances which do attend to each persons birthday anniversary, this Christmas will find millions of people having to endure adverse circumstances which makes it impossible for them have a Happy Christmas and a Merry New Year. These circumstances will vary from one one extreme to another.  For some people, it will be no more than that they are temporarily separated from loved ones, for whom they have the assurance of knowing that they are not with them, but that they are safe. For others, it will be the constant and acute awareness of them or a loved one suffering from some life-threatening or terminal illness or disease, with the knowledge that it is, as it were, only a matter of time before destiny arrive and bring an end to the proceedings. And for others, it might be the plight of having

The President having failed to pursue a positive policy which would have seen America engaging constructively with the Syrian government, instead of the rebels and opposition forces, had chosen to meddle. We can speculate on what has been the actual and alternative cost of the West's meddling, to the Syrian people.  I would argue that, compared with what the Syrians have lost, the cost has been catastrophic, and that nothing positive has been gained by turning a national conflict into an international one. It is the Syrians who will be left to pick up the pieces and start again, from a minus position, to endeavour to climb out of this void which this conflict has left in their lives and their country. It would be a mischaracterisation to perceive the retention of Syria as a unitary and intact sovereign state, and, ipso facto, the retention of President Assad as its leader, at least until peace and stability has returned to the country, and the Syrian electorate are able ma

This is a most interesting video of a flock of Sea Gulls going the routine of doing some rather synchronised birdarial feeding display. Please take a look, and, if it elicits such feelings, be thrilled, or surprised, and enjoy the spectacle.

So, have your heard what has been said about what we, humans, are, namely that we are what we eat, and, for that matter, drink? So, according to this axiom, or self-evident truth, if we eat badly, we become a manifestation of the bad food and drinks we consume. Which might lead to us becoming obese, afflicted with diabetes, high blood pressure, poor dental health, etc. Conversely, if we eat healthily and exercise regularly, then, other things being equal, we should become manifestations of rude or good health and fitness Now, if that is so, that we are indeed, what we eat and drink, should we not also become 'what we think'? Are we not manifestations of what our thoughts are and how we think about ourselves, others and the world? When we eat, the food and drink we consume, are converted into maintaining, replacing and strengthening the different cells which form the physicality of our bodies, including our brain cells. In that context, we become what we consume,

So, where President Obama failed, with his approach towards helping to resolve what has evolved into probably the greatest catastrophe the Syrian people and state has ever experienced, is that he helped to foment the problem by giving succour and support to the forces which have and are rebelling against the Syrian state. He has, as America has always tended to do, whether it is in the Americas, Asia or the Middle East, opted for the 'regime change model of intervention.'  This did not happen when the now President Sisi toppled President Morsi's government, because Morsi's administration, although it might have been on the same side as the Americans, regarding Syria, was not their preferred choice. President Obama could have intervened much more forcefully and probably even destroyed the legitimate Syrian government, and 'Iraqised' Syria, but that would not have achieved the stability which the country needs. Like in Iraq, it would have made the post

Oh, Madam, I am greatly perplexed by the high level of duplicity and machiavellianism within which our foreign policies are packaged.   Indeed, Madam, might this not have something to do with how 'the privileged few' maintain their 'good fortune'? Boris, please get a bloody hold of yourself.  Stop being guided your grand moral prerogatives, and allow Britain's self-interests to be your guiding principle, with the finest of British arms being your shield and sword.  It is the  militarily weak, but morally strong who takes comfort in moral arguments. While lacking the might of the powerful, for whom might is right, and the acquisition of their national selfish interests takes priority over everything else, including ethics and morality. So, Madam, where does this leaves the Saudi and the Iranian and the Sunni and Shia 'puppets' whom they, and, to be fair, Madam, we Europeans and Americans, are having dancing to our  'puppeteering' ? I repea

This is a short video of a Squirrel, well, just scurrying about, looking thither and dither for only he/she know what. Please take a look, and, if you are inclined to do so, enjoy what you find enjoyable.

To the observer, the 'left' and the 'right' route is dependent on whether you positioning, as you approach the bridge. Its, America's, strategy has helped to make the problem of governing Syria and achieving the 'democratic model' of government which is the purported objective of the formerly progressive advocates wanting it, much more difficult to achieve. Normally, when faced with a situation of having to choose between the option which is most likely to result in more stability of the situation, and the desire to forward the interests of 'democracy and individual freedom', the west has been known to opt for the former more 'pragmatic' option, instead of the more idealised one.  For whatever reason, this has not been evident in how the West has dealt with the Iraq, Libya and Syria challenges. In fact, it is very obvious that the model they have been following, is that of sacrificing whatever little stability there is, in these cou

Seeing the world and trying to find the 'truth', from ones vantage point.' So, in my view, how RT is presenting this issue, can only advance the case of those Germans, and other nationals, who oppose Angela Merkel's approach to dealing with the migrant and terrorist issues. Which begs the question, does RT supports the 'anti-migrant' case, and the position of the AFD; either ideologically or as a tactic or strategy to achieve some other political objective? I am aware that broadcasters and the media in all countries are engaged in propaganda with a view to achieving their masters and or owners' interests, and are doing so even when they are actually providing something beneficial for the listener and viewers. Yet, I am disappointed that RT's sometimes failures are so glaring, as to suggest that, like much of the western media, it is disrespecting its audience, by treating them with the contempt of assuming that they are not as discerning as we r

It is necessary for the public to be provided with an 'objective presentation of what is happening in the world, in their own and other countries. Yet, this is  a challenge which is probably never met, or, indeed, can ever be met. Why, because the 'news' and other media presentations with which we, the public, is presented with, is never 'objective', or 'neural.'  What we are presented with, is always being filtered, edited, and selected through the prism of the persons who 'conceived and produced it', and by the presenter. More so by the producers and owners of what is being presented. And so it is, that on several occasions I have watched Russia Today TV, RT, presenting 'news', 'commentaries' and programmes on what has or is taking place in the West, and has, in my view, presented a one-sided and patently biased picture. I have noticed this in RT's position towards the German government of Angela Merkel, in whic