http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWXCGm3zBY4
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-01-2011/116432-weather_blackbirds-0/ (Pravda)
The falling blackbirds and weather balloon stories
Right, five thousand birds drop from the sky just like that, following a massive fish kill in the same area and ok it was fireworks. Or maybe it was hail. Or no, lightning! That's it! Tell you what (whisper) someone heard the baker's assistant say that it could have been a (hush) weather balloon! No really....
Some of us have been around for longer than we'd like, but what can you do? Just remember the human body is like a bottle of high quality Port wine: the more mature, the better. At least that's what we tell ourselves, it's a defence mechanism because we know we're nearer to the exit than the point of entry.Another defence mechanism is used by those who hide behind newspapers to pull the type of BS we've just been laid with on New Year's Eve in Arkansas. It's the weather balloon type of explanation for weird phenomena that defy logic. The tell-tale signs that send the BS meter haywire are when you start getting conflicting information and loads of reasons, like the guy who missed your party for four or five reasons, first because...
BS! There's only ever one reason. So unfortunately never having been to Arkansas (a failing which I would love to rectify one day) let's do that journalist wrap we use for the lead in proper articles, that who what where and so on approach.
What? Red-breasted blackbirds (another source adds and some starlings); OK where? State of Arkansas, USA, more specifically around Beebe, a roosting area for these blackbirds; when? New Year's Eve Night; how many? Good question. One source says 1,000, another 2,000, another 3,000, another over 3,000 and another, between 4,000 and 5,000; motive? Hail stones (none reported), lightning strike (does not act like that, the birds would have to be touching), fireworks.
An initial examination of the birds, many of which fell to the ground dead but others were alive, showed signs of "acute physical trauma", occasioning "trauma in the breast tissue", "blood clots" and "a lot of internal bleeding". However " the main organs were normal. (Source: Arkansas Game and Fish Commission)
So, we have between one and five thousand birds (let's take the middle number of around 3,000) dropping out of the sky on New Year's Eve because a fireworks display frightened them so much they flocked together and banged into poles. Just one problem with that: birds aren't that stupid neither do these birds travel in migratory flocks of this size, nor are they nocturnal, so what were they doing flying at night?
Sounds like a nice BS story, or a weather balloon story. The day before, December 30, at Ozark, some 85,000 fish were found floating dead around 150 km west of Beebe. Totally unconnected say the sources. Well, they would, wouldn't they? The official story is it was an illness (so suddenly 85,000 fish show up dead, just like that) and the tests should take a (staggering) month to produce results, enough time for the story to die down and nobody will hopefully remember to conduct toxicology tests in Lake Arkansas.
That was before. Afterwards, on Monday morning January 3, in the State of Lousiana, just south, another mass bird fall, this time 500 birds of varied species, namely blackbirds but also starlings and grackle, these showing no signs of trauma. Nor had there been fireworks displays.
Now I have some questions to place. What is going on? Who owns factories around there? Is someone testing some sort of weapons system? Why are there three mass kills in three areas in the same region in three days?
Could it be that they were all killed by a weather balloon? And is it any way to carry on freaking people out like this without giving an explanation? Silence is the deadliest weapon of mass destruction in this case...
Photo credit: freakingnews.com
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/30-12-2010/116404-chavez_usa-0/
Hugo Chavez launches New Year war against USA
Hugo Chavez has launched a "New Year's War" against the U.S. He delivered a new portion of angry statements against Washington, and refused to allow a new U.S. Ambassador Larry Palmer into his country even at the cost of a possible breach of the diplomatic relations.
The dispute over Palmer's candidacy emerged last summer. Then, the former U.S. ambassador Patrick Duddy had left Caracas due to the expiration of his stay in Venezuela. However, the new appointment has not taken place.
Chavez did not like the statement of Larry Palmer that the morale of Venezuela's army is low, and that the ideology of the country is increasingly more influenced by the socialist Cuba. Finally, Palmer said that Venezuela hosted "terrorist bases" of the "Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia" (FARC), which Caracas has always denied.
Chavez did not like the statement of Larry Palmer that the morale of Venezuela's army is low, and that the ideology of the country is increasingly more influenced by the socialist Cuba. Finally, Palmer said that Venezuela hosted "terrorist bases" of the "Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia" (FARC), which Caracas has always denied.
Chavez called on to replace him with another diplomat. However, the U.S. State Department refused. In addition, the U.S. threatened to Venezuela that a refusal to accept the ambassador may cause further deterioration of already uneasy bilateral relations.
However, Hugo did not get scared. "We have refused to recognize this gentleman (Palmer), and now the U.S. government has threatened retaliatory measures. If they want to kick out our ambassador, let them do it! If they want to break off diplomatic relations, let them do it. To arrive here, the ambassador has to respect the country. That would be a shame if I allowed this man to come to Venezuela," said Chavez.
- Print version
Font Size - Send to friend
Lately, the Americans also allowed themselves undiplomatic remarks against Venezuela. They were not happy about the fact that on December 17 the Venezuelan Parliament granted Chavez additional powers to enact laws and bypass the Parliament itself. Chavez took advantage of it enough to anger Washington.
In particular, he created 10 special military districts, many of which are located on the border with Colombia, the main U.S. ally in the region. Others are located on the territory of Venezuela, in the provinces headed by the opposition. In this decision by Chavez Washington saw the pressure on its opponents.
The U.S. does not like his other laws aimed at strengthening of the supervision of the universities and cutting off the channels of financing of non-governmental organizations from abroad. As we know, thanks to such grants the Americans have nurtured "color revolutions" around the world.
The relationship between the U.S. and Venezuela has changed dramatically with the coming of Hugo Chavez to power in Caracas. But now we are talking about the threat of the break of the diplomatic relations, which is equivalent to a state of war.
Boris Martynov, Deputy Director of the Institute of Latin American Countries, commented on the situation for Pravda.ru.
- Is Chavez really, not just in words, ready to challenge the U.S.?
"This does not mean that he intends to break up the relations with the United States, knowing the dependence of Venezuela on oil exports. Chavez's words about a possible breakup is a puppet theater, a one-man show.
Realizing that he starts losing the ground, he turns to the means available to stir up the people, which is anti-Americanism. I foresee that in the near future, the verbal rhetoric of Chavez aimed at mobilizing his voters will only increase.
His statements are due to the deterioration of the situation in the country. First, after the elections to the Parliament where the opposition is stronger, it became clear that it has ceased to be a toy in Hugo's hands.
Second, he has wasted the enormous proceeds from oil sales to support friendly regimes and his economic platform is rather shaky.
Second, he has wasted the enormous proceeds from oil sales to support friendly regimes and his economic platform is rather shaky.
- Why did the U.S. take such an uncompromising position?
"The Americans are not going to give in; otherwise it would mean losing their face. This is important especially now, when the U.S. has made so many mistakes in terms of Latin America. If we take into account Palmer's harsh statements, it is not surprising. The U.S. is now going to recover its lost position in Latin America that it considers its back yard if not fully, then at least partially.
Even the "peacemaker" Obama who also made some mistakes in terms of the policy towards seemingly strategic direction to the south of the Rio Grande makes statements of this kind.
Yet, most Latin Americans disagree. They believe that they do not need directions on how to live their lives, as they are capable of choosing the most appropriate way. You do not teach Asian tigers how they should live, do you?
- What is the future of Chavez's regime?
"The prospects of Hugo, frankly, are not that great. He will make any concessions to the opposition, knowing that it would mean the loss of power. He will not be able to influence the situation without the crackdown. He simply does not have the economic leverage to do it.
He has the last resort - the dictatorship in the full sense of this word, without appealing to democratic institutions like parliament and all sorts of elections. This is the short term perspective.
Yet, if you look into the distant future, Chavez is unlikely to keep his place long enough. It does not have to do so much with the U.S. tricks, but with the actions of Chavez, which led to a sharp deterioration in the economic situation in the country."
Sergei Balmasov
Vadim Trukhachev
Pravda.Ru
Vadim Trukhachev
Pravda.Ru
Read the original in
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110106/wl_nm/us_venezuela_politics
Reuters – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez arrives at shelter to visit families made homeless by recent torrential …
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110106/wl_nm/us_venezuela_politics
Chavez backers, foes rally for Venezuela parliament
Reuters – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez arrives at shelter to visit families made homeless by recent torrential … CARACAS (Reuters) – Supporters and opponents of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez traded taunts and held dueling rallies on Wednesday at the start of a new parliament shorn of power by the socialist leader's assumption of rule by decree.
Although the new National Assembly has greater numbers of opposition lawmakers -- who had hoped to curb the former soldier's self-styled "revolution" -- the outgoing parliament hobbled it by awarding Chavez decree powers for 18 months.
Opposition supporters gathered noisily in downtown Caracas before the new lawmakers took their seats. They accuse the president of staging a "coup" against the Assembly and say he is turning the South American OPEC member into a dictatorship.
"Our tasks in the National Assembly are now very clear: to stop the imposition of communism in Venezuela, this communism that creates death, sadness and darkness," said one opposition leader and new Caracas legislator, Maria Corina Machado.
Several thousand opposition supporters gathered to cheer their lawmakers off to the assembly, some shouting "Down with the revolution! Down with corruption!" while others waved banners reading "We are back!" and "We are the majority!"
On a corner opposite, women in red pro-government T-shirts sang back: "Ooh! Ah! Chavez no se va! (Chavez will not go!)"
Police, some in riot gear and carrying shields, blocked streets in the area and kept watch from a helicopter.
But apart from isolated scuffles there was none of the trouble that has marred past rallies in Venezuela.
Chavez, 56, says he needs decree powers to speed through urgent reconstruction after December floods smashed infrastructure and left 140,000 homeless.
He insists he is ruling in the name of a poor majority downtrodden for decades until he took office in 1999.
CHAVEZ WIELDS BOLIVAR'S SWORD
All sides are eyeing the next presidential election in December 2012, when Chavez will seek re-election and the opposition hopes to find a unity candidate who can unseat him.
The newly united opposition coalition won about half the popular vote at a September legislative election, giving it 40 percent of seats in parliament and a symbolic boost in its long and largely fruitless political battle against Chavez.
In a charged first session in the Assembly, lawmakers from both sides chanted slogans and mocked each other.
Opposition representatives waved signs saying "52 percent" in a reference to their total vote in September and shouted "Freedom" for two absent colleagues under arrest on murder and corruption charges that they say are politically motivated.
Government legislators shouted back: "Imperial lackeys!" and "You will not return (to power)!"
A government rally on the other side of parliament that also drew thousands went peacefully, to the relief of Caracas residents who largely stayed off the streets fearing violence.
Chavez joined that gathering brandishing a sword used by his idol and 19th century independence hero Simon Bolivar.
He called for unity and applauded the day's events but also slammed opposition lawmakers as "counter-revolutionaries."
"They will never return to power," he told a cheering crowd, before urging them to focus on the 2012 vote.
"You will say if you want to carry on with Chavez or you want the right-wing back. Those who want to be a Yankee colony, go with them; those who want the fatherland, come with me."
Over the year-end holiday period, Chavez moved to sideline the opposition's election gains by pushing a host of laws through the outgoing parliament to entrench socialism and boost state control in areas ranging from the Internet to banking.
A devaluation of the currency last week stirred passions even more, with critics saying it proved that the president had mismanaged the economy and oil revenues.
The opposition has returned to parliament for the first time in five years following a boycott of the 2005 legislative election, a move it now regrets.
The Democratic Unity coalition has 65 seats in the 165-member Assembly, compared to 98 for Chavez's ruling Socialist Party. A smaller party, which recently broke with Chavez, has two seats.
"Bit by bit, we're getting them out of power!" said pro-opposition pensioner Oswaldo Sanchez, 62.
(Additional reporting by Patricia Rondon, Deisy Buitrago and Mario Naranjo; Editing by Eric Walsh)
Although the new National Assembly has greater numbers of opposition lawmakers -- who had hoped to curb the former soldier's self-styled "revolution" -- the outgoing parliament hobbled it by awarding Chavez decree powers for 18 months.
Opposition supporters gathered noisily in downtown Caracas before the new lawmakers took their seats. They accuse the president of staging a "coup" against the Assembly and say he is turning the South American OPEC member into a dictatorship.
"Our tasks in the National Assembly are now very clear: to stop the imposition of communism in Venezuela, this communism that creates death, sadness and darkness," said one opposition leader and new Caracas legislator, Maria Corina Machado.
Several thousand opposition supporters gathered to cheer their lawmakers off to the assembly, some shouting "Down with the revolution! Down with corruption!" while others waved banners reading "We are back!" and "We are the majority!"
On a corner opposite, women in red pro-government T-shirts sang back: "Ooh! Ah! Chavez no se va! (Chavez will not go!)"
Police, some in riot gear and carrying shields, blocked streets in the area and kept watch from a helicopter.
But apart from isolated scuffles there was none of the trouble that has marred past rallies in Venezuela.
Chavez, 56, says he needs decree powers to speed through urgent reconstruction after December floods smashed infrastructure and left 140,000 homeless.
He insists he is ruling in the name of a poor majority downtrodden for decades until he took office in 1999.
CHAVEZ WIELDS BOLIVAR'S SWORD
All sides are eyeing the next presidential election in December 2012, when Chavez will seek re-election and the opposition hopes to find a unity candidate who can unseat him.
The newly united opposition coalition won about half the popular vote at a September legislative election, giving it 40 percent of seats in parliament and a symbolic boost in its long and largely fruitless political battle against Chavez.
In a charged first session in the Assembly, lawmakers from both sides chanted slogans and mocked each other.
Opposition representatives waved signs saying "52 percent" in a reference to their total vote in September and shouted "Freedom" for two absent colleagues under arrest on murder and corruption charges that they say are politically motivated.
Government legislators shouted back: "Imperial lackeys!" and "You will not return (to power)!"
A government rally on the other side of parliament that also drew thousands went peacefully, to the relief of Caracas residents who largely stayed off the streets fearing violence.
Chavez joined that gathering brandishing a sword used by his idol and 19th century independence hero Simon Bolivar.
He called for unity and applauded the day's events but also slammed opposition lawmakers as "counter-revolutionaries."
"They will never return to power," he told a cheering crowd, before urging them to focus on the 2012 vote.
"You will say if you want to carry on with Chavez or you want the right-wing back. Those who want to be a Yankee colony, go with them; those who want the fatherland, come with me."
Over the year-end holiday period, Chavez moved to sideline the opposition's election gains by pushing a host of laws through the outgoing parliament to entrench socialism and boost state control in areas ranging from the Internet to banking.
A devaluation of the currency last week stirred passions even more, with critics saying it proved that the president had mismanaged the economy and oil revenues.
The opposition has returned to parliament for the first time in five years following a boycott of the 2005 legislative election, a move it now regrets.
The Democratic Unity coalition has 65 seats in the 165-member Assembly, compared to 98 for Chavez's ruling Socialist Party. A smaller party, which recently broke with Chavez, has two seats.
"Bit by bit, we're getting them out of power!" said pro-opposition pensioner Oswaldo Sanchez, 62.
(Additional reporting by Patricia Rondon, Deisy Buitrago and Mario Naranjo; Editing by Eric Walsh)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27149262/How-Smart-Dust-RFID-will-change-our-lives
EXCERPT:
EXCERPT:
But with smart dust safely inserted while the birds were feeding at sea, the biologists can now
track their movement and environment with no interference.
Cities will begin planting smart dust along roadways, where real-time traffic flow and road conditions can be monitored with pinpoint accuracy. Accidents, potholes and hazards can be detected and details transmitted in real time.
Smart dust will explore not only roads, buildings and habitats, it will explore our own bodies as
well. Dust patrols will police our blood streams, watching out for invading viruses, tracking our
temperatures, sensing unusual skin growth, tracking our blood composition. It will send signals
to home monitors that retain personal health histories, including previous ailments and
medications, and calculate appropriate courses of action to be taken before professional medical
intervention. Smart dust can even carry medication to be dispensed upon an alert.
well. Dust patrols will police our blood streams, watching out for invading viruses, tracking our
temperatures, sensing unusual skin growth, tracking our blood composition. It will send signals
to home monitors that retain personal health histories, including previous ailments and
medications, and calculate appropriate courses of action to be taken before professional medical
intervention. Smart dust can even carry medication to be dispensed upon an alert.
There are concerns, though. Privacy will become ever more fragile — if at all possible — in a
world under the watch of smart-dust eyes. And with talk of nuclear-powered batteries that would
keep dust "alive" for decades, a grave question arises for future generations who must devise safe
means of disposal for perhaps billions of aging, potentially toxic, dust components.
world under the watch of smart-dust eyes. And with talk of nuclear-powered batteries that would
keep dust "alive" for decades, a grave question arises for future generations who must devise safe
means of disposal for perhaps billions of aging, potentially toxic, dust components.
And undoubtedly, military applications will test the age-old moral dilemma over the boundaries
of humane use of emerging technology.
Dust in our future is inevitable. The question is whether we can keep it smart, safe and humane.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/business/84759412__Smart_dust__aims_to_revolu
tionize_lives.html
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/05-01-2011/116436-west_putin-0/
Why the West fears Putin. Part II
Continued. Read Part I of the article here
American Missiles near Russia.It is understandable that the West is made uneasy by Russia because of the communists that were in charge of the government under the Soviet Union. There is a small communist party that still exists today but Putin is not a member and they are all vocal against him to a point of creating riots in Moscow with people sent in from Vladivostok (January 2009).
It clearly shows the conflict between the Communists and Putin's United Russia Party. Last March 28, Reuters wrote something similar in Arkhangelsk.
Putin recently advised the West concerning democracy: "Rather than talking about democracy in Russia let the West be specific about the issues that matter. If they are worried about nuclear programs in Iran, let's talk about Iran together. If they want us to resolve Kosovo, let's talk Kosovo. We will gladly participate in any debate with our partners."
He also stated in an interview with Larry King on CNN that he would set up a defense if the west were to set up missiles near Russia. He emphasized that he would never start anything but only retaliate. Putin's reply at 2:20
Better translation here.
Better translation here.
"Larry, listen, I'd like to make this clear to you and to all Americans, or,
at least, to the audience of your show today. It's not Russia that is moving
missiles close to your border; it's the United States that is planning to
deploy missiles near Russia's border. We keep hearing that the purpose is to
protect yourselves from the threat of a nuclear missile attack by Iran, for
example. But Iran poses no such threat at the moment. And if anti-missile
and radar systems are set up near our border, even in 2015, they will
undermine our nuclear capabilities. So it's only natural that we are alarmed
by the prospect. And we are obligated to take some measures in response.
This is a response; we are not making the first moves... But we continue to be
told: "We don't want to take your interests into account, we are going to do
whatever we want." So we'll just have to view it as a threat to our
security, and we'll be forced to respond accordingly. That's what I'd like
to get across to the American public."
at least, to the audience of your show today. It's not Russia that is moving
missiles close to your border; it's the United States that is planning to
deploy missiles near Russia's border. We keep hearing that the purpose is to
protect yourselves from the threat of a nuclear missile attack by Iran, for
example. But Iran poses no such threat at the moment. And if anti-missile
and radar systems are set up near our border, even in 2015, they will
undermine our nuclear capabilities. So it's only natural that we are alarmed
by the prospect. And we are obligated to take some measures in response.
This is a response; we are not making the first moves... But we continue to be
told: "We don't want to take your interests into account, we are going to do
whatever we want." So we'll just have to view it as a threat to our
security, and we'll be forced to respond accordingly. That's what I'd like
to get across to the American public."
Russia and Iran.
Putin sees no threat working with Iran. The spent fuel from the nuclear reactor is being sent back to Russia as promised. The western media rarely includes the fact that the UN nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are keeping a watchful eye on the nuclear power plant in Bushehr. Only one TV station in America finally reported it correctly.
Fox News reported last August 2010, "The uranium fuel Russia has supplied for Bushehr is well below the more than 90 percent enrichment needed for a nuclear warhead. Iran is already producing its own uranium enriched to the Bushehr level -- about 3.5 percent. It also has started a pilot program of enriching uranium to 20 percent, which officials say is needed for a medical research reactor."
In my article, "The World Should Follow Russia's Lead", I wrote, "According to the Moscow Times Iran tested its first nuclear plant February 26, 2009 with the help of Russian officials. Russia is working with Iran and not against it. Russia no more wants Iran to have nuclear missiles any more than the US does. Recently, President Dmitry Medvedev on September 22. 2010, signed a ban to stop deliveries of S-300 missile systems to Iran."
"President Dmitry Medvedev ...signed a decree which bans deliveries of S-300 missile systems to Iran.", reported Russia Today. Medvedev will not allow Iran to have the missiles they requested. I remember this happened after a meeting he had with Netanyahu of Israel. The first meeting was in February then I heard they had another meeting later in secret. "Russia certainly understands there is a need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and it understands that certain steps must be taken against it," Netanyahu said.
As though to persuade the reader that Russia could care less, Reuters likes to add, "Neither Medvedev nor Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has publicly commented on the Iranian situation for weeks." Maybe instead of relying on babylon.com or Google to translate the web, Reuters should invest in a human translator. "A web translator is only good for translating "words" not phrases or paragraphs."
"I trust what I heard from President Medvedev on this issue. I know that on this issue Russia is guided by considerations of regional stability," Netanyahu said.
START Treaty and U.S. Media Bias.
CBS and AP reported last December 1st that Putin warned, ‘resistance to the treaty "dumb,"'. However, Putin never said that it was dumb. They seem to portray Putin as a man ready to attack. They like to scare America by saying, "Mr. Putin warned". Keep in mind that dictators never warned their opponents. Did Hitler warn Russia? Did Japan warn America? Bush warned Iraq but he is not a dictator as Soros and the liberals want us to think. They later referred to Larry King's question about the Start treaty. It is the first question in our video.
The new treaty shows Russia is willing to trust America but should they really trust Obama after what happened in Georgia and S. Ossetia? Medvedev seems content with the new Start treaty that the U.S. Senate and lower house of the Russian parliament recently ratified. Russian military expert Konstantin Sivkov says it is more beneficial to America and leaves a poor missile shield for Russia.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the leader of the Liberal democratic party and the the Communist Party also agree that the Start treaty is bad for Russia. The upper house of the Duma still has to debate during the second reading in mid-January of 2011.
Putin Baptized.
McCain, AP, CBS and others like them would be happy to tell you that Putin's father was a devoted communist. They do not want you to know that his mother was a devout Christian and had Putin baptized in 1952. In Richard Sakwa's book, "Putin: Russia's Choice", he writes:
"Maria was a devoted believer, and although there were no icons in the flat she regularly slipped off to church, which in those days of official atheism and persecution suggested a person with deep-felt beliefs. She ensured that the baby Vladimir was christened into the Orthodox faith, although this was done in secret, and she regularly took him to services"
Putin's Religious Cross.
Later, Putin recounts that on the eve of an official visit to Israel his mother gave him his baptismal cross to have it blessed: ‘I did as she said and then put the cross around my neck. I have never have taken it off since'". At 5:25 CNN Larry King asks him about his faith. (English translation below)
KING: There is much talk about Vladimir Putin and religious faith. I'm told that you wear a cross. Is that true? Are you religious? What are your feelings in this area?
PUTIN (through translator): I prefer -- I would prefer not to develop on that subject in detail. I think such things are sacred for everybody. Everybody's belief is not to be shown off, it's inside a man's heart. As regards to wearing cross, earlier I never had it -- once my mother gave it to me and when I visited Israel. I was there two times. First on an official invitation of the minister of foreign affairs of that country. The second time, I liked the country, and I traveled there with my family as a tourist.
So my mother gave it to me to have a blessing there at the Tomb of Lord. I did so and now it's with me always.
Incidentally enough, there was a story about this cross and since then I have always decided to have it on my body, now in the Dacha close to St. Petersburg, there was fire on the Dacha, it happened because of the fact that something went wrong with sauna.
Prior entering sauna, I took off the cross before entering the sauna, and then with my friend we jumped out naked, since it was so unexpected. And I cherish that cross very much, it was my mother's cross, and the fire was really in earnest at the time. So I was thinking about whether perhaps it could get even remnants of it, it was an aluminum-made cross, a very simple thing.
I was surprised completely when one of the workers, just muddling through those ashes of the remnants, found that cross intact. And the house fell, that was a surprise, a revelation, and therefore I always now keep it with me.
Putin will only allow traditional marriages in Russia. He said, "As for same-sex marriages, they do not produce offspring, as you know. So we are fairly tolerant toward sexual minorities, however we think that the state should promote reproduction, support mothers and children, and look after their health."
Putin does not drink and wants Russia to follow moderation. Reuters reported Jan. 14. 2010, "Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, alarmed by Russians' love affair with alcohol, gave the go-ahead on Thursday for a campaign to cut consumption by more than half in the next 10 years."
To be continued.
Xavier Lerma
