There is a famous story about shutters and the origins of the term ‘Peeping Tom’, dating back to the eleventh century and Lady Godiva. Of course he put louvers on his window so he could still watch, something he did not do with the other windows. Where shutters came from is obvious, as they open and ‘shut’. The are two suggesting it came about in connection with Shutters though, both of which involved Philipe Louvrier and King Louis XIV. Before she did, she asked the people of the City to stay indoors and not watch her as she did. One possibility is that the term was already used in other areas. Most of them did with one exception, Tom. The other is that they were name after the King’s previous residence, the Louvre.
There have been some interesting myths surrounding window shutters over the years. This put the King’s guards off their work, as they spent time watching the women out of the windows of the Castle instead of performing their duties. She was unhappy with her husband plans to charge high taxes to the people of Coventry, England. Lady Godiva was the wife of Leofric, the Earl of Mercia. It is rumoured, although not widely accepted as likely, that upon this move, shutters were designed for him by Philipe Louvrier.
There is another, more likely story surrounding shutters and King Louis XIV. The story goes that he was blinded from the heavens as he did this.
This brings up another two myths about Shutters, both with regard to where the name Louvered Shutter came from. This frustrated the King, and to prevent this problem he had shutters installed throughout the Castle. Tom pierced a whole in his Shutters and watched Lady Godiva as she rode past his home and this is where ‘Peeping Tom’ apparently came from. Some of these involve the French monarch King Louis XIV, who was the French King in the late 1600’s and early 1700’s. Back in his time, the King’s headquarters was the Louvre in Paris. There is more debate, though, around the term louvered
(Reporting by Marat Gurt; Writing by Dmitry Solovyov, editing by Paul Casciato)
Special awards will be given to craftsmen for the best carpet featuring the horse, the best “holiday attire” for the breed, the best portrait and even sculpture.
President Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, who enjoys sweeping powers in this desert nation of 5 million and is known for his deft horsemanship, said national beauty contests for the ancient Akhal Teke breed should be held every April.
The best horses of the breed, distinguished by shimmering coats, long delicate necks and legs and popularly revered as “the wings of the Turkmen,” will be chosen “to promote the glory of the heavenly racehorse worldwide,” the decree said.
The late leader Saparmurat Niyazov, who enjoyed a flamboyant personality cult, raised eyebrows in 2004 when he opened a gleaming $20 million leisure center with a swimming pool, air conditioning and medical facilities — for horses.
ASHGABAT Once prized by Alexander the Great for their speed and stamina, Turkmenistan’s thoroughbred horses are being groomed for a series of beauty contests, ordered by a presidential decree published Monday.
The Akhal Teke horse, given as a gift to several foreign leaders, is featured at the center of Turkmenistan’s national emblem and enjoys cult status in the only former Soviet state in Central Asia where eating horse meat is strictly taboo.
Bush did, as in the case of executing an American civilian living abroad in Yemen who was suspected of being a terrorist.
Fawaz A. One former staffer claims that Obama espouses a case-by-case Realpolitik rather than some blanket moralist theory. The president cares less about consistency than he does successful outcomes.
It’s true that Obama has been hindered by the structural continuity inherent in the foreign policy process in addition to being handcuffed by domestic politics. In his 2010 National Security Strategy document Obama clearly states that he would “not preach to other nations.” He has also pulled the reins on democracy promotion activities abroad. However, his brutal drone program, his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and his continuance of the American policy of supporting dictators, are actions which have lowered his opinion amongst Muslims. Cynics say the only consistent theme apparent is that the president’s decisions are calculated based on getting reelected. Regardless the inconsistencies, most voters, according to poll after poll, seem to trust Obama more than Romney when it comes to foreign affairs.
When Obama first came into office many thought him an idealist that was going to repair relations with the Muslim world, especially after his 2009 Cairo speech. Noticeably, although the State Department pushes “universal values”, it tends to stay away from using the “d” word.
With that being said, it is not unreasonable to hope that Obama – who, if anything, seems adaptable – will work to right the course in a second term and close the gap between rhetoric and reality. Yet, the reality is, Obama will not get reelected if he dares to question the Israel lobby, which also has a stranglehold on Congress. During the Cold War the U.S. He even claims the Obama foreign policy team doesn’t have a Middle East specialist that doesn’t emanate from the “Israel first” school.
In the end, Gerges argues that the change candidate has been trapped by age-old establishment foreign policy paradigms which have prevented Obama from achieving his enlightened objectives, especially with respect to the Arab Spring:
In the name of stability, Israel and oil, the White House and State Department have chosen to back Middle East autocrats and monarchs guilty of deplorable human rights abuses. Gerges argues that presidential strategy lacks local context. Most assuredly, America’s Middle East policy could be a whole lot worse than imagined, especially if the American people make the wrong choice in November by picking an obstinate ideologue.
At one point the president seemed enthused about reengaging Iran, but pressure from the Israel lobby has forced the administration to take a much tougher approach than planned against Tehran’s nuclear program. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan with the realism of Bush 41. Obama also seems to better grasp the limits of U.S. fears the rise of any regime with an Islamic bent.
Foreign policy experts have been baffled by Obama-style realism because it seems to defy classification. Not to mention, he has pushed the bounds of executive power even more than George W. From Israel to the Arab Spring, Obama keeps the gurus guessing. Unfortunately, Israel colors most of the administration’s policies in the Arab world.
Although he hasn’t carried out the same imperialist strategies of George W. was afraid the masses would put nationalist pro-communist leaders in office. Gerges, in his new book Obama and the Middle East, says the president has tried to develop a foreign policy that combines the idealism of John F. Today, the U.S. power in a complex, multipolar, interdependent world better than Romney and his cohorts do.
In general, the Obama administration has shared the same philosophy of every American presidential regime since the advent of the Cold War: Arabs can’t be trusted to choose their own government. Obama stood by Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egypt’s Mubarak until the bitter end, for example, and looked the other way when Saudi Arabia sent 2,000 troops to quell an uprising in Bahrain, home of the U.S. Although he voiced concern for Arab human rights, for instance, he went out of his way to block Palestinian self-determination. Truth be told, Washington has changed Obama more than Obama has changed Washington.. in humanitarian adventures, Libya being the exception. Fifth Fleet.
…the Obama administration did not take risks on oppositional forces; its hard-core material interests could not be sacrificed at the altar of human rights and the rule of law.
Obama, having inherited a mess in the Middle East because of Bush’s “freedom agenda” and Iraqi excursion, has sought less intrusive policies. In fact, Obama has formed an unprecedented coalition to implement the severest sanctions against Iran the world has ever seen.
Obama has also seemed reluctant to involve the U.S.
President Barack Obama has eschewed an overarching abstract foreign policy doctrine in favor of a consequentialist approach with respect to the Middle East and North Africa, while Mitt Romney has surrounded himself with a hawkish national security team whose key members are driven by the same neoconservative ideology that led to the invasion of Iraq.
When it comes to the Middle East the Obama regime has at times been the victim of a “globalist” worldview as opposed to holding a nuanced “regionalist” perspective. With an economic crisis and outstretched military on his hands, the president has been wary of dispatching resources unless vital American interests are at stake.
One of Obama’s stated doctrines is to protect American geopolitical interests through multilateralism, which differs dramatically from Romney’s mindset. Bush, Obama’s policies have differed only in degrees, but not substance, from many of his predecessors. As a result, the president’s lofty rhetoric oftentimes has not matched his actions