The tensions in Indian – British relations are not new. They first came about because India was under British rule from the early 1600’s to the early 1900’s. The racial tensions of today stem from this past colonialism of India by the British. India did not gain independence from British rule till 1947, so Jesminder’s parents in the movie Bend it Like Beckham likely faced these tensions with the British throughout their childhood. During the time under British rule, Indians were mistreated by the British as the British saw Indians as beneath them because Indian culture was different than British culture. When Jesminder’s father recounts the tale of his trying to play cricket with the British at the country club, he is likely still feeling hostility towards the British as they kept him from playing cricket with them.

Outside sources can influence and alter your culture and make it alter itself to the current influences, for instance the impact of cricket on India. An example of this would be in the movie Bend it like Beckham when the father plays cricket. Cricket is not a sport that is native to India. This was the subject of the movie Lagaan. This movie explores how the game of cricket came to India as a result of British rule. Cricket was not even played by Indians till about 1800. The game of cricket was learned from the British and has now become ingrained in Indian culture. Everything slowly comes together and people start accepting bits of other cultures into their own.

In the past, the Indians were treated very unfairly and treated like animals. Jesminder’s father likely feels that he is still being treated badly by the British because he was prevented from integrating into the cricket team. The mistreatment of Indians during the British rule in India had produced some hostility but also left an impression on Indian culture as they were such a dominating force within India for so long. Jesminder’s father wants to feel like he is in control of the situation but he is accepting defeat for his daughter, Jesminder, without allowing her to try her hand at creating a new future for herself. Her future does not have to be the same as his past, and it takes him a while to realize that. A prime example of this is Jesminder’s desire to fight to be a part of something which is British in origin, in this case football (“soccer” in America), is a step to help her family see that Indians can be a welcome part of British society and even their sports teams.

The movie Bend it Like Beckham shows the British-Indian cultural conflict from the perspective of Jesminder. Jesminder is a young Indian female who is British borne. Her orthodox Punjabi Sikh parents want a good life for her. As her parents were raised in India and Jesminder was raised in Great Britain, they have different ideas on what her future should be like. As a young Indian woman, Jesminder should want to learn how to cook Indian meals and then find a nice Indian husband, but she is more concerned with playing football which is not, in her mother’s opinion, what a young Indian woman should be doing. Since Jesminder has been predominantly exposed to the British way of life and she sees opportunities that her parents cannot fathom. Jesminder tries to seize these opportunities by managing to navigate between these two worlds: the Indian world of her family, and the English world of her surroundings.

The movie Bend it Like Beckham shows this navigation of other characters as well by showing how some Indians, especially the young, have learned a lot about British culture, having been raised in it, and do not seem to share the same cultural values as their parents. There are a group of girls in the movie who go to the extreme by opposing their parent’s traditional ways in their clothing and their attitudes. These girls and Jesminder’s sister are not sexually reserved. They are rebellious and loud and sexually free. They have incorporated British cultural values into their own. Jesminder’s sister even gets to choose her own husband and have a love marriage. Arranged marriages have been the cultural norm for Indians, but love marriages are slowly becoming more accepted within the Indian culture.

Indian culture within England tries to retain its traditions while also embracing British life. The British ruled over India for so long and the Indians living in Britain want to fit in but do not want to lose their roots. In Bend it Like Beckham, Jesminder wants to be a part of an English football team but does not want to lose her Indian traditions. Jesminder’s parents want her to learn to cook, dress like an Indian lady, and do ladylike activities, not play football. There is a British comedy show from the late 1990’s called Goodness Gracious Me which is based in the United Kingdom. It stereotypes Indians living in Britain and shows how some Indians try very hard to pretend they’re not Indian. The television show takes it to the extreme for comedic purposes to show people how their culture is changing and being influenced by living in Great Britain. The character of Jesminder in the movie Bend it Like Beckham is different than the characters in the television show, as she is shown to be trying to incorporate both British and Indian cultural ideals into her own set of values. In the television show Goodness Gracious Me, the characters of “The Kapoors” who call themselves “The Coopers” show this drive to ‘appear English,’ by making themselves sound more English and they even compete with another Indian couple about who is ‘more English’. This drive to be English or to appear English results in the watering down of their Indian culture. Jesminder’s parents fear that Jesminder will do this also and forget the ideals that they have taught her. They fear that the integration of English ideologies into everyday life can affect their daughter’s cultural truth and her acceptance of her Indian heritage.

So, as you can see, culture is all around us. It is a phenomenon. By Jesminder being able to look at the world from the British perspective as well as the Indian one, she learns about culture and realizes that it can be molded and shaped into anything. Just as Jesminder was influenced by football and her father was influenced by cricket, we will always be influenced by the people we are exposed to and all of the cultures around us. Jesminder’s family realizes that they should become more accepting of other people’s cultures because cultural differences are always present and they can be wonderful. Jesminder’s football scholarship to America is an example of something wonderful that can come out of cultural differences. If she had never played, never given British culture a chance, then she would have never gotten her scholarship.

———————————————————————

Works Cited

Bend it like Beckham. Gurinder Chadha. Kintop Pictures. 2002. DVD.

Goodness Gracious Me. BBC. 1998. Television. Haviland,

William A., and William A. Haviland. Definition of “Culture.” Cultural Anthropology: the Human Challenge. 13th Edition ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.

Lagaan. Ashutosh Gowariker. 15 June 2001. Sony Pictures Classics. 2002. DVD.

In Great Britain there are often cultural conflicts between Indian and English cultures. The movie Bend it Like Beckham shows this conflict from the perspective of a young Indian female who is British borne. The girl, Jesminder, has orthodox Punjabi Sikh parents who want a good life for her. As her parents were raised in India and Jesminder was raised in Great Britain, they have different ideas on what her future should be like. Jesminder has been predominantly exposed to the British way of life and so she sees opportunities that her parents cannot fathom. As a young Indian woman, Jesminder should want to learn how to cook Indian meals and then find a nice Indian husband, but she is more concerned with playing football (“soccer” in America) which is not, in her mother’s opinion, what a young Indian woman should be doing.

Your definition of your own culture changes by the people you are surrounded by and through interaction with your environment. The movie Bend it Like Beckham addresses how some Indians have learned a lot about British culture, having been raised in it, and do not seem to share the same cultural values as their parents. There are a group of girls in the movie who go to the extreme by opposing their parent’s traditional ways in their clothing and their attitudes. These girls and Jesminder’s sister are not sexually reserved. They are rebellious and loud and sexually free. They have taken a lot of British culture and incorporated British cultural values into their own. Jesminder’s sister even gets to choose her own husband and have a love marriage. Arranged marriages have been the cultural norm for Indians, but love marriages are slowly becoming more accepted within the Indian culture.

Things change each person and their individual cultures grow through outside influences. Outside sources can influence your culture and make it alter itself to the current influences. Everything slowly diffuses together and people start accepting bits of other cultures into their own. An example of this would be in the movie Bend it like Beckham when the father plays cricket. Cricket is not a sport that is native to India. There is a Hindi movie called Lagaan which addresses the issue of how the game of cricket came to India through the Indians exposure to the game during the British rule over India. Cricket was not even played by Indians till about 1800. The game of cricket was learned from the British and has now become ingrained in Indian culture.

The tensions in Indian – British relations first came about because India was under British rule from the early 1600’s to the early 1900’s. India did not gain independence from British rule till 1947, so Jesminder’s parents in Bend it Like Beckham likely faced these tensions with the British throughout their childhood. During the time under British rule, Indians were mistreated by the British as the British saw Indians as beneath them because Indian culture was different than British culture. The British could not accept that a culture that was different from their own. When Jesminder’s father recounts the tale of his trying to play cricket with the British at the country club, he is likely still feeling hostility towards the British as they are keeping him out of their society by keeping him from playing cricket with them. During his childhood, the British viewed their ways as the right ways and if Indians did not conform to the British mentality then they were treated badly. I think slaves are to America as Indians are to Britain during that time even though the Indian people did not actually live within the United Kingdom.

The Indians were treated very unfairly and treated like animals. Jesminder’s father likely feels that he is still being treated badly by the British from his exclusion from integrating into their cricket matches. The mistreatment of Indians during the British rule in India had produced some hostility but also left an impression on Indian culture as they were such a dominating force within India for so long. Jesminder’s father wants to feel like he is in control of the situation but he is accepting defeat for his daughter without allowing Jesminder to try her hand at creating a new future for herself. Her future does not have to be the same as his past, and it takes him a while to realize that. The Indians were influenced by years of British rule, as the British considered themselves to be more powerful and proper within the social hierarchy, and thereby absorbed some of the British cultural values into their own. A prime example of this is Jesminder’s desire to fight to be a part of something which is British in origin, in this case football, is a step to help her family see that Indians can be a welcome part of British society and even their sports teams.

Indian culture within England tries to retain its traditions while also embracing British life. The British ruled over India for so long and the Indians living in Britain want to fit in but do not want to lose their roots. In Bend it Like Beckham, Jesminder wants to be a part of an English football team but does not want to lose her Indian traditions. Jesminder’s parents want her to learn to cook, dress like an Indian lady, and do ladylike activities, not football. There is a British comedy show from the late 1990’s called Goodness Gracious Me which is based in the United Kingdom. It stereotypes Indians living in Britain and shows how some Indians try very hard to pretend they’re not Indian. The television show takes it to the extreme for comedic purposes to show people how their culture is changing and being influenced by living in Great Britain. The character of Jesminder in the movie Bend it Like Beckham is different than the characters in the television show, as she is shown to be trying to incorporate both British and Indian cultural ideals into her own set of values. In the television show Goodness Gracious Me, the characters of “The Kapoors” who call themselves “The Coopers” show this drive to ‘appear English,’ by making themselves sound more English and they even compete with another Indian couple about who is ‘more English’. This drive to be English or to appear English results in the watering down of their Indian culture. Jesminder’s parents fear that Jesminder will do this also and forget the ideals that they have taught her. They fear that the integration of English ideologies into everyday life can affect their daughter’s cultural truth and her acceptance of her Indian heritage.

Indian values are based around very traditional ideals. There is a lot of importance based around family in the Indian culture. You have to be respectful of your elders and listen to what your parents say. The wife is normally seen, from an outsider’s vantage point, as a wife and mother who just does the cooking and cleaning. While it’s true that the wife does this in most households, she also holds the Indian family together. Women are very respected in Indian culture, especially in Sikhism. In Sikhism it is believed that a woman and a man are equals.

So, as you can see, culture is all around us. It is a phenomenon. It can be molded and shaped into anything. We will always be influenced by the people we are exposed to and all of the cultures around us. This exposure to other cultures helps us to grow as people. We see good things in other cultures and incorporate some of their ideals into our own. Cultural differences are there and they are wonderful. By becoming more accepting of other people’s cultures, we can grow in our own. By looking at the world from the perspective of another culture, we can learn about our differences and grow to understand the other people that live with us and around us.

—————————————————-

Works Cited

Bend it like Beckham. Gurinder Chadha. Kintop Pictures. 2002. DVD.

Goodness Gracious Me. BBC. 1998. Television.

Haviland, William A., and William A. Haviland. Definition of “Culture.” Cultural Anthropology: the Human Challenge. 13th Edition ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.

Lagaan. Ashutosh Gowariker. 15 June 2001. Sony Pictures Classics. 2002. DVD.

In Great Britain there is some cultural conflict with the clash between Indian and English cultures. The movie Bend it Like Beckham shows this conflict from the perspective of a young Indian female who is Britain borne. The girl, Jesminder, has orthodox Punjabi Sikh parents who want a good life for her. As her parents were raised in India and Jesminder was raised in Great Britain, they have different ideas on what her future should be like. Jesminder has been predominantly exposed to the British way of life and so she sees opportunities that her parents cannot fathom. As a young Indian woman Jesminder should want to learn how to cook Indian meals and then find a nice Indian husband but she is more concerned with playing football (“soccer” in America) which is not, in her mother’s opinion, what a young Indian woman should be doing.

The movie Bend it Like Beckham also addresses how some Indians have learned a lot about British culture, having been raised by it, and seem to have forgotten their roots. There are a group of girls in the movie who go to the extreme by opposing their parent’s traditional ways in their clothing and their attitudes. These girls and Jesminder’s sister are not sexually reserved. They are rebellious and loud and sexually free. They have taken a lot of British culture and incorporated it into their own. Jesminder’s sister even gets to choose her own husband and have a love marriage. Arranged marriages have been the cultural norm for Indians but love marriages are slowly becoming more accepted within the Indian culture. This is an example of how culture changes by the people you are surrounded by and through your environment as well.

Things change; each person and their countries culture grows. Outside sources can influence your culture and make it alter itself to the current time. Everything slowly melts together and people start accepting bits of other cultures into their own. An example of this would be in the movie Bend it like Beckham when the father plays cricket. Cricket is not a sport that is native to India. There is a Hindi movie called Lagaan which addresses the issue of how the game of cricket came to India through the Indians exposure to the game during the British rule over India. Cricket was not even played by Indians till about 1800. The game of cricket was learned from the British and has now become ingrained in Indian culture.

The tensions in Indian – British relations first came about because India was under British rule from the early 1600’s to the early 1900’s. Indians were mistreated by the British as the British saw Indians as beneath them because Indian culture was different than British culture. The British could not accept that a culture that was different than their own. The British viewed their ways as the right ways and if Indians did not conform to the British mentality then they were treated badly. I think slaves are to America as Indians are to Britain during that time even though the Indian people did not actually live within the United Kingdom. The Indians were treated very unfairly and treated like animals. The mistreatment of Indians during the British rule in India had produced some hostility but also left an impression on Indian culture as they were such a dominating force within India for so long. The Indians were influenced by the years of British rule, as the British considered themselves to be more powerful and proper within the social hierarchy, and thereby absorbed some of the British cultural values into their own.

Indian culture within England tries to retain its traditions while also embracing British life. The British ruled over India for so long and the Indians living in Britain want to fit in but do not want to lose their roots. There is a British comedy show from the late 1990’s called Goodness Gracious Me which is based in the United Kingdom. It stereotypes Indians living in Britain and shows how some Indians try very hard to pretend they’re not Indian. The television show takes it to the extreme for comedic purposes to show people how their culture is changing and being influenced by living in Great Britain. An example of this are the characters of, “The Kapoors” who call themselves “The Coopers” to make themselves sound more English and they compete with another Indian couple about who is more English. This drive to be English or to appear English results in them watering down their Indian culture and producing a whole new culture based on their experiences and their surroundings. It shows how the integration of English ideologies into their everyday life can affect their cultural truth.

Indian values are based around very traditional ideals. There is a lot of importance based around family in the Indian culture. You have to be respectful of your elders and listen to what your parents say. The wife is normally seen, from an outsider’s vantage point, as a wife and mother who just does the cooking and cleaning. While it’s true that the wife does this in most households, she also holds the Indian family together. Women are very respected in Indian culture, especially in Sikhism. In Sikhism it is believed that a woman and a man are equals.

So, as you can see, culture is all around us. It is a phenomenon. It can be molded and shaped into anything. We will always be influenced by the people we are exposed to and all of the cultures around us. This exposure to other cultures helps us to grow as people. We see good things in other cultures and incorporate some of their ideals into our own. Cultural differences are there and they are wonderful. By becoming more accepting of other people’s cultures, we can grow in our own. By looking at the world from the perspective of another culture, we can learn about our differences and grow to understand the other people that live with us and around us.

—————————————————————————–

Works Cited

Bend it like Beckham. Gurinder Chadha. Kintop Pictures. 2002. DVD.

“Culture.” The Free Dictionary. The Free Dictionary. Web. 17 Sept. 2011.

Goodness Gracious Me. BBC. 1998. Television.

Lagaan. Ashutosh Gowariker. 15 June 2001. Sony Pictures Classics. 2002. DVD.

     I thought of a ghost today.  I shuddered at thinking of him.   Usually I just send emails, mostly jokes, sayings I like, a simple, “how’s it going”?  Then I hit the send button and until someone sends me another email of wisdom to pass onto him.  I wish he would just stay there floating around in my mind, for I’m dead to him anyway.

     I used to dream about things and they would come true in time.  I once had a dream that my aunt was pregnant and when I told her my silly dream, she showed me a pregnancy test.  I once had a dream that my dead grandfather was sitting in his favorite chair telling me that there was ‘nothing left for her here in this house’.  I told my grandmother and she sold her house. ” I was just waiting for a sign.”, she told me.   Dreams never came like this everyday, and I’m not psychic. As I grew older, my sensitivity to these dreams slowed down. Two years ago   I dreamt that my sister in laws dead mother was holding a Christmas wreath, and a cross.  I told nobody.  Two days after Christmas my sister in law had a miscarriage.  Was the baby with her mother, or was I supposed to give my sister in law the message? I don’t blame myself, she lost the baby and I doubt me telling her would have stopped her from losing it.  I’m no ghost whisperer.    I hardly ever dream of non family members, so when I do on more than one occasion, I get mad, annoyed, tense, and curious all in one breath.

     This past person in my life  was reading something in a dream off of something, and I could almost read it… But it always grew blurry.   The outcome is not decided, or the issue is going to take another turn before the ends justify the means here.   It could be a simple dream.  Then I had the same one again!  He was talking but I couldn’t understand him, and there was a feeling of panic maybe, or uneasiness.  I had to tell him about it so that it would stop.  It did.  I never had the dream again.  Who the hell is he to invade my brainwaves while I’m trying to catch some zzzz’s.  Don’t misunderstand what mad love I have for him, but love is not enough to suffice this friendship, or lack thee of.  It’s not a friendship, it is like life, intensely  complicated.  We do not talk much, nor do we  communicate often, and he actually doesn’t email me back very often which is exactly what a friendship is not.    I love him though regardless so I hit send, where’s the harm there.  I no longer have his number in my phone.   I thought of calling so I removed the temptation.   I was kind of hoping to leave the past dead, but sometimes even the dead have something to say, don’t they?  Everyone deserves their peace, including me!

     Be well then, uhhh, pal.  Get your life straight for once before you can’t help but follow the one road that screams” go back, go home, stay out!  Unhappy demons who keep your soul from soaring are waiting here for you”!  Do you not see this?  Something is wrong here and if it is simply an exaggerated picture in the dark of my dreaming mind, please stay out.  I can’t help what doesn’t want my help, nor should I offer it anymore.  Love alone doesn’t feed the world, nor can it wish someone bliss and butterflies.  Why can’t I dream about myself?  Wouldn’t it be nice if I could see things in my own life, paths I should take, warning signs, go aheads… Other people in my dreams? Who asked for it?  My daughter had a dream that I was dead on the floor with bullet holes.  I chuckled.  Too much ‘48 hours’ and other criminal shows that she catches glimpses of.  I’m not worried.  I’ve had dreams, very few nightmares, and they were not all sensitive in nature dreams relevant to anything.  I know the difference even when the amount of relevant ones are dwindling.  This dude needs something out there.  Though the dreaming has stopped I still find myself wondering from time to time about him and his health.  My stomach hurts when think of him and I can’t help but wonder if it’s really his hurt I’m picking up on.  I asked how his back was feeling for some odd reason, pretending my own back and neck hurt.  It was something I felt obligated to ask about.   I suppose I’m flattering myself with a false connection I feel, still ‘feel’ for this terrible non friend of a person.  

     I sent a ghost a few things I wrote.  I’m probably going to send this too.  I bid you good dreams, much health, and may love bind you before it’s too late.

The U.S. and the CTBT: Strategy, Security, and Relationship

In 1996, the United States was the first country to sign the treaty designed to ban all nuclear weapon testing. But three years later, anti-climactic congressional cries of skepticism and worry later prevented U.S. ratification. Fourteen years after that, a landmark international nuclear agreement is still pending. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is designed to prohibit all nuclear explosions in all environments. Additionally, the treaty established the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), charging it with monitoring nuclear testing around the world and facilitating any country’s request to verify whether another country had tested a weapon.

The 1999 U.S. Senate under President Clinton failed to ratify the CTBT, as the dissenting Senators were concerned about the U.S.’s ability to maintain a nuclear deterrent if the country committed itself to an agreement not to test the weapons it depends upon for deterrence. Though, the U.S. has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1992. Adding to the Senators’ concerns were the perceived weaknesses of the treaty’s International Monitoring System (IMS), which provides several means of detecting possible nuclear explosions in a variety of environments. Perhaps, so the complaints went, Russia, China, or North Korea could get away with testing undetected nuclear weapons as parties to the treaty, enabling them to maintain viable deterrence while the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal might deteriorate into obsolescence. Then, perhaps, these fears emanating from the trail dust of the Cold War and the nascent, rather than proven, IMS system were warranted. But fourteen years and two presidents later, this is not the case.

Given the Obama Administration’s prioritized desire to reduce nuclear proliferation and the U.S.’s need for an effective non-proliferation regime, the time is right to ratify the CTBT. There are several reasons for this.

First is the goal of legal consistency. Even before the CTBT, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone international document concerning the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Entering into force in 1970, the treaty demands that countries without nuclear weapons not develop or acquire them. Equally important, the treaty, in its famous Article VI, calls on countries with nuclear weapons to make “good faith efforts” in negotiations with each other towards further nuclear disarmament. In large part this means reductions in the sizes of nuclear arsenals, and Obama has already restarted this process with the recent agreement with Russia on a new treaty to replace the recently expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) of 1991, further limiting the sizes of the arsenals of both countries. Lastly, in a provision for non-nuclear countries and progress in energy, under the NPT nuclear states are not to interfere with any states’ right to acquire peaceful nuclear energy.

One cannot argue for the CTBT in isolation, simply chiding those who have not ratified it and expecting massive international pressure to bring universal or national ratification. The CTBT is strongest in relation to the foundation of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, the NPT. But the NPT awaits reliable commitment from North Korea and ratification from India, Pakistan, and Israel. For India at least, the treaty’s promised “good faith” efforts of nuclear states negotiating to disarm is a particularly weak constraint on nuclear “haves”, perpetuating the inequality between them and nuclear “have nots.” Naturally then, India has not ratified the CTBT.1 It is not unreasonable to suppose that countries like India who refuse both the NPT and the CTBT, and even those who are parties to the former but not the latter, don’t trust the “good faith efforts” of the U.S. while it refuses to formally commit itself to a nuclear test-ban. To much of the rest of the world, it doesn’t look like we’re doing what we need to be doing in the way of disarmament if we’re effectively saying that we might test a weapon. So, Article VI of the NPT would gain needed force if the additional agreement of a nuclear weapon test-ban were reached and enforced. Ratifying the CTBT would put the U.S. in a position to lobby at the treaty’s Article XIV Entry-Into-Force Conferences for the treaty’s ratification by the remaining eight Annex 2 states, whose ratifications are required for the treaty to enter into force.2 Annex 2 states are those that had nuclear capability or an extensive nuclear research establishment at the time of the CTBT’s creation in 1996, and some others that have not ratified include China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran (who blames the failure of the CTBT to enter into force on the U.S.).3

Among other initiatives, this commitment, along with disarmament agreements with Russia, offer a more complete stance of disarmament to the rest of the world, and would go a long way towards bringing the CTBT into force with the necessary additional ratifications, as well as increase the number of members of the NPT.

Second, the principal concerns of the treaty’s opponents have been that testing nuclear weapons is the only way to maintain an effective deterrent and that the CTBT’s explosion monitoring system (IMS) is not sensitive enough to detect potential explosions of countries that may cheat. Although the first of these concerns may sound intuitive, nuclear stockpile maintenance initiatives like the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) and Life Extension Programs (LEP), have received acclaim from nuclear experts, particularly JASON, for their proven capability to maintain the reliability and safety of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.4 JASON is an independent physics and nuclear research panel that concluded in 2006 that most plutonium pits in the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal “have credible lifetimes of at least 100 years.”5 The plutonium pit is the essential core of a nuclear weapon whose reliability is necessary for the weapon to be effective. The Stockpile Stewardship Program run by the Department of Energy has resulted in now three annual declarations that, because scientific modeling has confirmed the reliability and safety of the U.S. stockpile, no nuclear testing is needed. The Life Extension Programs, under the Stockpile Stewardship program, have also proved to efficiently correct warhead safety issues.

This should allay the concerns of those thinking the U.S. could not maintain an effective nuclear deterrent while committed to the CTBT. But the U.S. might have tested if it was genuinely concerned about its ability to maintain a deterrent, so it would really not be taking a costly step if it formally committed to a test-ban.

On another note, it has been consistently reported by the National Academy of Science (NAS) that the IMS (the CTBT’s explosion detection system) can now detect explosions as small as .01 kilotons (kT) by a remarkable variety of means: seismological (earthquake-like geological events), hydroacoustic (ocean-based sound wave monitoring), infrasound (atmospheric sound waves), and radionuclide (atmospheric radioactive particle detection) stations. This thoroughly equipped detection network should answer the worries of many Senators who voted against ratification in 1999 worrying that Russia and China might conduct undetected tests.6

If, as the scientific history indicates, nuclear weapon testing is meant for developing new weapons, then an enforced test-ban could be an excellent compromise: nuclear states are not creating new weapons (essential background conditions for any committed “good faith” effort) and are not overtly frightening non-nuclear states, while they can remain confident in their current (hopefully shrinking) nuclear deterrents, provided they trust the scientific community’s experts. A committed test-ban would epitomize a good faith effort at disarmament and show states weary of U.S. power, aggression, and ‘high alert’ paranoia that the U.S. takes its disarmament responsibilities seriously.

Lastly, the cessation of new nuclear weapon production that would take place as a result of CTBT ratification, paired with (and possibly derived from) observing the NPT, would contribute to a robust network of consistent, relational commitments necessary for the U.S. to do its part to mitigate one of today’s greatest threats: nuclear attack.

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Barack Obama reminded us of the painful reality that we must sometimes meet the brutality of war with the same. As he frankly said, “a non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.”7 Sadly, neither could have persuasively crafted words in treaties. We need only recall the fruits of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. Treaties fail where relationships failed first, so we relate treaties to others in the hopes of making our agreements and messages clear and consistent. Treaties are essential because they represent positive agreement, accountability, and relationship among nations. But in themselves, they do not guarantee peace. Peace requires consistently regular, friendly, productive, and educational relations among nations. This is the same kind of citizen engagement that toppled the Berlin Wall and that might reveal to the conservative American and the conservative Iranian that they are not required to be enemies. Positive engagement is not legal or permanent, but immensely powerful, yet wavering. Preventing nuclear war requires what Andrei Lankov, a professor at Kookmin University in Seoul, argued is needed to open the North Korean regime: international engagement and relationship maintenance.8

Given Obama’s reminder about implacable tyranny and its only remedy, the U.S. would do well to stifle misunderstanding and its tragic progeny with clarity of global communication. Our initiatives to enforce the CTBT must systematically reference and hinge upon the NPT, but ultimately upon the larger relational banner under which each treaty lies. Together the treaties would strengthen each other in a comprehensive relational commitment made by a country striving for both policy consistency and therefore a credible position upon which to lobby for international threat reduction.

1 Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Treaties/npt.html

2 Dunlop, Sean and Du Preez, Jean. The United States and the CTBT: Renewed Hope or Politics

as Usual? James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Monterey Institute for International Studies. February 2009. http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_ctbt_united_states.html., p.8.

3 Statement by the Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to the Preparatory Committee of

the NPT 2010 Review Conference, May 8, 2007, www.reachingcriticalwill.org/ legal/ npt/ prepcom07/ statements/ 8mayIran.pdf.

4 Scheinman, Lawrence. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Center for Nonproliferation Studies,

Washington, D.C. Office. Monterey Institute of International Studies. April 2003. http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_9a.html., p.5.

5 “Studies Show Plutonium Degradation in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Will Not Affect Reliability Soon.” National Nuclear Security Administration, 2006.

6 Ibid, p.6.

7 Obama’s Nobel Remarks. New York Times, Dec 10 2009.

8 Lankov, Andrei. “Changing North Korea”. Foreign Affairs, November/December 2009.

I’m not trying to brag on appearance, but I do not have a problem finding a new partner. I really want to improve my financial situation. I’m not sure if I should spend my time trying to meet new people. I know it’s hard to find a good partner and I’m not sure I’m ready. I want my life to get together to live more comfortable financially. I’ve been in bad situations in the past because of finances. I do not want to experience that situation again. So I try to learn from my mistakes. So I try to concentrate on my work because I want to enjoy a good life. 

I know that life is short, but it’s like I know money is important, but it is not everything, because we can not take with us when we die. However, we can, the memories of our relationship with ourselves. I know that some people can balance to find love and build their careers. I do not know if I should concentrate on my career or love or both. So I’m just confused now. Can you give me any advice on how to handle it?

In policy debate, taking both sides of an argument is essential. Our modern politicians, at least in the United States, cannot do this. They cannot, to quote Eminem, “you be me and I’ll be you.” Trading shoes, is impossible for them because they are only there for the comfortable lifestyle and not for the countries well being. Though, there are a few exceptions. Overall, if politicians could have all participated in policy debate, then the policy-making decision would be a whole lot more logical. 

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

One of the articles that made me stop and say hey!STOP!was one about oral sex.This article taught in a wise tone practicing oral sex, even if you do not want and do not like, as a form of manipulation of men or sex surrogate, if you do not feel, but God forbid you leave your hubby dissatisfied, he can let it all or looking the other.Even in this wretched state I got?We are so desperate for a man to do things that we want them not only for their own sake? 

Further evidence that were strung various techniques to help mimic the taste you like and swallow sperm.If you like oral sex, do not stop practicing until you become nothing to him as in the field, but if you do not like do not see why you should cheat and pretend .. 

However advice from many magazines and websites cosmopolitan disappointing in terms of implementation.You want your boyfriend to stop watching football with beer in hand?Do who knows what so-called erotic freak!Many of these articles the author speaking hypothetically and some tips like “neighbors hear you scream if you want wild sex” or “smear yourself with honey from head to toe and let him lick you” are completely unrealistic and are applicable only if you want to be cut a man’s erection or make him give in diabetes.

This reminds me of a joke that applies perfectly in this case, the woman who would do anything, and would follow any advice to keep alive the desire erotic life partner: a woman cries as another, although it has a great husband from all points of view, it is not very interested in sexual aspect of their marriage and that the only thing that interests you enter the house is “what is food.”Amica one advises them out before her husband when he comes home from work, dressed in a black negligee and a sexy face mask.Said and done.After a few days amicele meet again.”Well, how was it?”"Bad,” responds the other, “this time when he entered the house, I asked <<Hey, Zorro, what to eat?>>”. 

As proof that the organization of the many romantic dinners with dishes as fancy and weird notes slipped into clothes, like “sex mad to see what awaits you tonight” re-organization and organization cuibusorului (special sweetie likes them) , sewing pillows with his name, forced and painful beauty of our body through various methods (without being aware that for us, not others should do it) all this and more that it is in the nature of women and others not ( thus tending to fall into the ridiculous) and some men like it or not (thus tending to mock his partner) is not always the best choice and worth following just because someone told you, be it a friend in the flesh or one of the media. 

Cliché is the watchword in relations between the sexes: men complain that the headaches too often we complain that men and women roll on the other side after watching Steaua-Dinamo derby or the last part of Lord of the Rings.After all who is right and who gets less sex than they should?Or better said, there is a “should”?There are rules on how little is too little and how much may be considered too much?I gave us men to us are guided by feelings and emotions and make statistics in bed?We returned again in November in any century women removed we could not survive without a man and tool, sorry, force his hand? 

It would seem so.So, I regret to inform you dear ladies as thousands of years mankind revolves in a circle.Vain boast to have evolved on the relations between the sexes, because we evolved at all.One and only purpose in life of women, regardless of IQ, social status and education seems to be forever a man’s chain.