Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
0 Views
02:48:32 05/25/12
Star Wars Weekends 2012 at Disney's Hollywood Studios
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 02:48:32 05/25/12
Star Wars Weekends 2012 at Disney's Hollywood Studios
Join Lou Mongello from WDW Radio as he explores and enjoys the first Star Wars Weekends 2012, an annual event at Disney's Hollywood Studios celebrating the Star Wars films and animated TV series Star Wars: The Clone Wars.
Since 1997, Star Wars Weekends has been presented at Walt Disney World at Disney's Hollywood Studios and includes special shows and parades, Star Wars celebrities, autograph opportunities, special limited-edition merchandise and memorabilia and even Star Wars themed food!
You'll also get a peek inside the Carbon Freeze-Me experience, where you can get "frozen" in Carbonite, just like Han Solo in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.
The highlight of the event is the nightly Hyperspace Hoopla, performed by a cast of Star Wars stars at the end of Hollywood Boulevard. The Rebel Alliance battles Emperor Palpatine and the evil Empire in a dance off of today's hottest music.
Darth Vader, Boba Fett and a legion of Stormtroopers match their moves against Chewbacca, Slave Leia and Padme Amidala, along with C-3PO (in Shuffle Bot headwear). Their dance-off to LMFAO's "Sexy and I Know It" and "Party Rock" is priceless!
=========================================
Join us every Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. ET at http://WDWRadioLIVE.com for a LIVE interactive video news show covering Walt Disney World. Be a part of the broadcast and discussion and discuss the news real-time in the chat room.
-------------------------------------
THANK YOU for your support by voting WDW Radio Best Travel Podcast for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011!
-------------------------------------
Twitter: http://Twitter.com/LouMongello
Facebook: http://Facebook.com/WDWRadio
Google+: http://LouMongello.com/gplus
Thanks for watching!
- Lou Mongello
0 Views
02:01:26 05/25/12
Myth McConnell
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 02:01:26 05/25/12
In the wake of the debt-ceiling crisis he helped manufacture last summer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell boasted it was "a hostage that's worth ransoming" which "also is a new template" for the future. As it turns out, those threats were among the few true words McConnell has uttered. Because while he's promising once again to blackmail the White House over the debt ceiling, the Kentucky Republican claimed it's because "we'd like to do something about the nation's biggest problem, spending and debt, which of course is the reason for this economic malaise." Of course, as the data show, it's the very austerity policies here and in Europe which are costing jobs and hurting growth.
But Mitch McConnell's myth-making hardly ends there. On the economy, taxes, deficits, health care and so much else, virtually all of McConnell's talking points are tried - and untrue.
( Click a link to jump to the details for each below ):
* "Obama Made the Economy Worse"
* "No Evidence Whatsoever That the Bush Tax Cuts Actually Diminished Revenue"
* "Punishing Job Creators"
* "We Look a Lot Like Greece Already"
* Public Sector Layoffs Are a "Local" Problem
* 47 Million Uninsured Americans "Don't Go Without Health Care"
* The Public Option "May Cost You Your Life"
* Democrats Are "Sticking It to Seniors with Cuts to Medicare"
"Obama Made the Economy Worse"
For months, Mitch McConnell (for example, here , here and here ) regurgitated the GOP talking point that President Obama " made the economy worse ." Sadly for the trickle-down mythmakers of the Republican Party , the facts and the overwhelming consensus of economists - including John McCain's 2008 brain trust - prove otherwise. President Obama not only did not make the American economy worse; no thanks to obstructionist Republicans in Congress he saved the United States from "Great Depression 2.0" and put the nation on the path to recovery.
Start, for example, with the conclusions of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Despite Republican mythmaking that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) "created zero jobs," in November the CBO reported that the stimulus added up to 2.4 million jobs and boosted GDP by as much as 1.9 points in the previous quarter. As The Hill explained, the CBO has found that "President Obama's 2009 stimulus package continues to benefit the struggling economy": >
The agency said the measure raised gross domestic product by between 0.3 and 1.9 percent in the third quarter of 2011, which ended Sept. 30. The Commerce Department said Tuesday that GDP in that quarter was only 2 percent total...
By CBO's numbers, the $800 billion stimulus added up to 0.9 million jobs in 2009, 3.3 million jobs in 2010 and 2.6 million jobs in 2011.
Mark Zandi , an adviser to John McCain in 2008, was adamant on positive role of the stimulus. Federal intervention, he and Princeton economist Alan Blinder argued in August 2010, literally saved the United States from a second Great Depression. In " How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End ," Blinder and Zandi's models confirmed the impact of the Obama recovery program and other federal interventions dating back to 2008, concluding that "laissez faire was not an option": >
We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.
"No Evidence Whatsoever That the Bush Tax Cuts Actually Diminished Revenue"
In his version of the Republican myth that " tax cuts pay for themselves ," President Bush confidently proclaimed, "You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase." As it turned out, not so much.
After Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt with his supply-side tax cuts, George W. Bush doubled it again with his own. (Reagan's performance would have been much worse, had he not raised taxes 11 times to help make up the shocking shortfall.) As a share of American GDP, tax revenues peaked in 2000; that is, before the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded, the Bush tax cuts accounted for half of the deficits during his tenure, and if made permanent , over the next decade would cost the U.S. Treasury more than Iraq, Afghanistan, the recession, TARP and the stimulus - combined .
Nevertheless, as the Republican Party waged its all-out attack in 2010 to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy , the GOP's number two man in the Senate provided the talking point to help sell the $70 billion annual giveaway to America's rich. "You should never," Arizona's Jon Kyl declared, "have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans." For his part, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rushed to defend Kyl's fuzzy math: >
"There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."
That may have been a view universally shared by virtually every Republican, but it happens to be wrong.
"Punishing Job Creators"
For years, Senator McConnell has been among the legions of Republicans wrongly arguing that even the slightest increase in taxes for the wealthiest Americans is tantamount to " punishing job creators ." As his colleague John Boehner put it: >
"The top one percent of wage earners in the United States...pay forty percent of the income taxes...The people he's [President Obama] is talking about taxing are the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy."
If so, those expectations were sadly unmet under George W. Bush. After all, the last time the top tax rate was 39.6 percent during the Clinton administration , the United States enjoyed rising incomes, 23 million new jobs and budget surpluses. Under Bush? Not so much.
On January 9, 2009, the Republican-friendly Wall Street Journal summed it up with an article titled simply, " Bush on Jobs: the Worst Track Record on Record ." (The Journal's interactive table quantifies his staggering failure relative to every post-World War II president.) The meager one million jobs created under President Bush didn't merely pale in comparison to the 23 million produced during Bill Clinton's tenure. In September 2009, the Congressional Joint Economic Committee charted Bush's job creation disaster, the worst since Hoover.
That dismal performance prompted David Leonhardt of the New York Times to ask last fall, "Why should we believe that extending the Bush tax cuts will provide a big lift to growth?" His answer was unambiguous: >
Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7... >
Is there good evidence the tax cuts persuaded more people to join the work force (because they would be able to keep more of their income)? Not really. The labor-force participation rate fell in the years after 2001 and has never again approached its record in the year 2000. >
Is there evidence that the tax cuts led to a lot of entrepreneurship and innovation? Again, no. The rate at which start-up businesses created jobs fell during the past decade.
The data are clear: lower taxes for America's so called job-creators don't mean either faster economic growth or more jobs for Americans .
As Jared Bernstein aptly put it earlier this month: >
"Tax cuts and job growth? They're just not that into each other."
"We Look a Lot Like Greece Already"
As their last round of hostage-taking of the debt heated up last summer, Republicans including Mitch McConnell warned, "We look a lot like Greece."
hile FactCheck.org was quick to conclude that "whatever it 'looks like' through Sen. McConnell's eyes -- the fact is that the U.S. is not yet a fiscal wreck of Greek proportions," its analysis hardly does justice to the scale of the Republican myth-making. The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen summed it up quite succinctly: >
New rule: every time a confused Republican lawmakers compare the United States' fiscal conditions to that of Greece, an angel loses its wings.
Look, the very idea is just crazy. The U.S. has extremely low interest rates and foreign investor are happy to loan us money; Greece has extremely high interest rates and no one is eager to loan the country money. The U.S. has our own currency; Greece has the Euro. We have a great credit rating (for now); Greece has an awful credit rating. We have a manageable debt; Greece has a debt crisis. We're a large country with an enormous economy; Greece is a small country with a small economy. We have one of the world's most stable systems of government (at least until six months ago); Greece's government structure is a little shaky.
For his part, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has been decrying the " Hellenization of economic discourse " for months. "Greece -- with a long history of fiscal irresponsibility, very high public debt, and a country without a currency -- doesn't bear much resemblance even to the other peripheral Europeans, let alone the United States."
>
Here's debt levels (if you ask me the IMF projections for Greece are too optimistic). >
Plus there's the having your own currency thing, and the fact that the interest rate on US 10-year bonds is 3.11 percent, on Greek bonds 16.82 percent. >
Otherwise we're exactly the same.
Public Sector Layoffs a "Local" Problem
Last fall, Minority Leader McConnell led the GOP opposition to President Obama's proposed $400 billion American Jobs Act. The loss of hundreds of thousands of police, firefighter, teacher and other public sector jobs, he insisted, was a "local" problem.
As it turns out, the 600,000 state and local government jobs already lost since December 2008 is very much a national issue. That " anti-stimulus ," it turns out, has added a full point to America's unemployment rate .
Last month, the Economic Policy Institute noted that the private sector had gained 2.8 million jobs while federal, state and local governments shed 584,000 just since June 2009. EPI concluded that the public sector job losses constituted "an unprecedented drag on the recovery": >
"The current recovery is the only one that has seen public-sector losses over its first 31 months."
Back in March, Paul Krugman expressed the same point , but with some inconvenient historical context for the Party of Reagan. "In fact, if it weren't for this destructive fiscal austerity," Krugman explained, "Our unemployment rate would almost certainly be lower now than it was at a comparable stage of the 'Morning in America' recovery during the Reagan era." >
We're talking big numbers here. If government employment under Mr. Obama had grown at Reagan-era rates, 1.3 million more Americans would be working as schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, etc., than are currently employed in such jobs. >
And once you take the effects of public spending on private employment into account, a rough estimate is that the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points lower than it is, or below 7 percent -- significantly better than the Reagan economy at this stage.
47 Million Uninsured Americans "Don't Go Without Health Care"
McConnell the " strict obstructionist " was naturally in the forefront of the all-out Republican effort to block health care reform at any cost. As he repeatedly put it in June 2009 , "all of us want reform, but not reform that denies, delays, or rations health care." To prove his point, McConnell didn't merely trot out a Canadian patient who came to the U.S. for special treatment, but insisted to NBC's David Gregory that no American does without health care now. >
GREGORY: Do you think it's a moral issue that 47 million Americans go without health insurance? >
McCONNELL: Well, they don't go without health care. It's not the most efficient way to provide it. As we know, the doctors in the hospitals are sworn to provide health care. We all agree it is not the most efficient way to provide health care to find somebody only in the emergency room and then pass those costs on to those who are paying for insurance. So it is important, I think, to reduce the number of uninsured. The question is, what is the best way to do that?
That President George W. Bush, Tom Delay and Paul Broun among other Republicans also claimed "people have access to health care in America...after all, you just go to an emergency room" doesn't make it any more true. As the numbers show -- 50 million uninsured, another 25 million uninsured, 45,000 unnecessary deaths, one in five Americans "self-rationing" care and 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies being related to medical bills -- the crisis is far worse than the one Mitch McConnell pretends doesn't exist.
The Public Option "May Cost You Your Life"
While Mitch McConnell insisted that the lack of insurance doesn't prevent anyone from getting health care, in 2009 he suggested having coverage could prove fatal . Months before the passage of the Affordable Care Act without the so-called "public option," Minority Leader McConnell said it would be deadly.
That irresponsible fear-mongering came during an appearance on Dennis Miller's radio show in October 2009. Blasting the "opt-out" version of the public option then being considered in the Senate bill, the Senator from the state ranked 45th in health care performance insisted access to coverage could kill you : >
MCCONNELL: Well, it doesn't make any difference frankly whether you opt-in or you opt-out, it's still a government plan. You know, Medicaid, the program for the poor now, states can opt-out of that, but none of them have. I think if you have any kind of government insurance program, you're going to be stuck with it and it will lead us in the direction of the European style, you know, sort of British-style, single payer, government run system. And those systems are known for delays, denial of care and, you know, if your particular malady doesn't fit the government regulation, you don't get the medication. >
MILLER: Right. >
MCCONNELL: And it may cost you your life. I mean, we don't want to go down that path.
As a Harvard Medical School study found, each year the path of no health insurance leads 45,000 Americans to the grave.
Democrats Are "Sticking It to Seniors with Cuts to Medicare"
For two years running, Mitch McConnell has been among the 40 GOP Senator voting for Paul Ryan's House budget plan to privatize and inevitably ration Medicare now used by 46 million American seniors. In the late 1990's, McConnell joined in Newt Gingrich's effort to slash almost 15 percent from the Medicare budget so that the program would "wither on the vine." But when the Affordable Care Act called for savings from the private Medicare Advantage program used by only 15 percent of elderly beneficiaries, it was Mitch McConnell who warned seniors about the mythical danger.
In July 2009, McConnell tried to scare America's 46 million Medicare beneficiaries by declaring, "The administration plans to use Medicare cuts to fund yet another new government program." Hoping to build on the momentum of the GOP's disgusting and demonstrably false " euthanasia " talking point, McConnell cautioned: >
"Some in Congress seem to be in such a rush to pass just any reform, rather than the right reform, that they're looking everywhere for the money to pay for it -- even if it means sticking it to seniors with cuts to Medicare."
That salvo comes just two weeks after McConnell promised to defeat health care reform in the Senate, warning America's highest turnout voting block: >
"They are going to pay for this plan by cutting Medicare, that is cutting seniors."
Those claims, the New York Times pointed out the day after the Republicans' overwhelming triumph in the 2010 midterms elections were misleading at best and false at worst. But, sadly, they worked .
And so it goes.
As Joshua Green documented last year in the Atlantic , "Mitch McConnell is a master manipulator and strategist" whose "relentless tactics have made his party victorious." But that doesn't make him a truth-teller, except on those rare occasions when he reveals his true motivations. During the debt ceiling stand-off last summer , McConnell briefly got weak in the knees at the prospect of U.S. sovereign default not because it would be a disaster for the nation, but because it could damage his Republican Party : >
"I refuse to help Barack Obama get re-elected by marching Republicans into a position where we have co-ownership of a bad economy. ... If we go into default, he will say that Republicans are making the economy worse and try to convince the public -- maybe with some merit, if people stop getting their Social Security checks and military families start getting letters saying service people overseas don't get paid. It's an argument he could have a good chance of winning, and all of the sudden we have co-ownership of a bad economy," he said. "That is very bad positioning going into an election."
Especially an election which marks the culmination of Mitch McConnell's work over the past three and a half years: >
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
0 Views
17:00:23 05/17/12
Meet Pete Peterson, Architect of Social Security and Medicare Cuts
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 17:00:23 05/17/12
enlarge Click for a larger idea of Peterson's world Just after the disastrous midterms in 2010, I wrote a lengthy post about who Pete Peterson was , and why he is exactly the wrong guy to be having a "bipartisan summit" on so-called "entitlement reform." Here's a snippet from back then: >
The Peter G. Peterson foundation claims to be bipartisan, yet their former CEO is out pimping a book, a new advocacy group and a position . Peter G. Peterson served as Secretary of Commerce under Richard Nixon. He claims to be very, very, very concerned about our deficit, yet not one word is uttered in this report about Wall Street's contribution to the deficit, the collapse of our economy, or any responsibility on the part of the financial industry to help reduce the deficit they helped create .
Ryan Grim at the Huffington Post has updated that information with some more current relevant facts and data: >
According to a review of tax documents from 2007 through 2011, Peterson has personally contributed at least $458 million to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to cast Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and government spending as in a state of crisis, in desperate need of dramatic cuts. Peterson's millions have done next to nothing to change public opinion: In survey after survey, Americans reject the idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare. A recent national tour organized by AmericaSpeaks and largely funded by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation was met by audiences who rebuffed his proposals.
But Peterson has been able to drive a major shift in elite consensus about government spending, with talk of "grand bargains" that would slash entitlements, cut corporate tax rates and end personal tax breaks, such as the mortgage deduction, that benefit the middle class.
Peterson's deficit hawkery drives the narrative away from fairness right into the arms of willing Republicans. So this week, he held a "summit" of Washington elites to pearl-clutch over the deficit and debt in order to bolster their case. We can thank Bill Clinton for contributing to that narrative, too, since he was one of the featured speakers. The entire interview is at the end of this post.
Thanks to Peter Peterson, we have a country full of people who actually believe the national debt is the single biggest issue this country faces, and because he's put a "bipartisan" face on the dialogue, he gives the appearance that Democrats and Republicans alike should abandon Social Security and Medicare because they are, in his opinion, the primary drivers of the deficit. Worse yet, he's pimping those ideas to kids in order to drive a wedge between generations in the hope of succeeding at eroding these fundamental safety nets. >
Another effort to persuade America's youth about the shakiness of the entitlement programs is a joint venture between the Peterson Foundation and mtvU, the campus-based network created by MTV Networks, called Indebted . Peterson has already shelled out nearly $2 million to fund this effort to convince college students that Social Security won't be there for them, so therefore it should be slashed now -- a self-fulfilling policy prescription if ever there was one.
The educational website for Indebted , which borrows its look of revolutionary activism from contemporary stencil-based art made famous by graffiti artists Banksy and Shepard Fairey, explains that the inevitable and unavoidable debt burden to be shouldered by college kids through student loans, credits cards and a poor job market make it all the more important to cut entitlements now.
I like Seth Michaels' answer to that over at Working America : >
Peterson—a billionaire—never has to worry about dignity in retirement, about choosing between food and medicine, about having to work even when your health won’t allow it. Nor do members of Congress with their taxpayer-funded pensions, or well-paid TV hosts, lobbyists and think-tank presidents. They also feel the pressure of paying into the system much less than the majority of working people, since they only pay Social Security tax on the first $110,100 of their income .
So here’s a modest proposal for Peterson and the networks that advance his message. You can raise the retirement age to whatever you want—as long as, at age 65, every think-tanker, pundit and politician who pushes the fake crisis gets to swap places with a 65-year-old nurse, truck driver, hotel housekeeper or drill-press operator. Sound good?
Better yet, any lawmaker who thinks it's a good idea to raise the Social Security retirement age and erode Medicare should agree to relinquish their federal pension and health insurance retroactive to the day they take office. If they can't do that, then they recuse themselves from any vote concerning Medicare or Social Security. Seems like a fair deal to me.
0 Views
23:56:36 05/14/12
New Releases For May 15, 2012 - Press Pause Daily
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 23:56:36 05/14/12
This week brings quite a few high profile releases to help unburden your wallet of all of that pesky money.
SHOW NOTES:
GAME 1: Diablo III - PC, MAC
First up is the much anticipated action RPG Diablo 3, which brings players back to the land of Sanctuary.
20 years have passed since the end of the last Diablo 2 expansion, and the Demon Lords Azmodan and Belial make a return.
The game will feature five character classes including: the Barbarian, the Monk, the Wizard, the Witch Doctor, and the Demon Hunter.
You’ll be able to use the environments as a weapon by setting traps, or using destructible objects and environmental obstacles to your advantage.
The game’s multiplayer will utilize a new and improved version of Blizzard’s Battle.net that will make connecting and plyaing with your friends a lot easier.
You’ll also be able to utilize in game artisans that can you to craft new weapons and items, and the in game auction house will let you sell items for in game as well as real world money.
The single player game will let you use up to three AI followers, and skills and abilities will unlock as soon as you level up. You will also be able to use many more of your new skills simultaneously.
Gamers have been patiently waiting for this game for over 10 years. I’m sure there are a lot of people who won’t be heard from for a few weeks after they get their hands on this.
GAME 2: Max Payne 3 - PS3, Xbox 360, PC
Next up is the return of the popular third person shooter Max Payne.
Max Payne 3 sees an older and slightly more broken Max as he decides to take a job down in São Paulo, Brazil, protecting the family of wealthy real estate mogul Rodrigo Branco.
Of course, as things usually go in this type of story, everything turns to shit, and now Max finds himself alone in an unfamiliar city, and he’ll have to find out the truth in order to survive.
The game will feature cutting edge shooting mechanics for precision gunplay, advanced new Bullet Time and Shootdodge effects, full integration of Natural Motion's Euphoria Character Behavior system for lifelike movement.
This will also be the first Max Payne game to feature multiplayer. It will feature the same Bullet Time as the single player game. It will also have many weapons, characters, locations, and more to choose from.
A lot of people were skeptical about a new Max Payne game, especially one not developed by Remedy. However, things are looking pretty good for this release, and it might just be one to take a closer look at.
GAME 3: Game of Thrones - PS3, Xbox 360, PC
Our next game is based on the wildly popular book and television series Game of Thrones.
This 30 plus hour game will take gamers into the George R. R. Martin created world of Westeros as one of two original characters who were both once part of Robert’s Rebellion.
As you play you will forge alliances and wage battles as they play a pivotal role in the ongoing war for power of the Seven Kingdoms.
Feel time slow in the heat of battle: Combat mirrors the series' thoughtful approach to war and politics: fighting slows but never stops entirely, forcing the player to make quick, pressured choices before their enemy strikes again.
If you’re a fan of both the books or the TV series, and want to spend more time in the land of Westeros, then go ahead and grab this title today.
GAME 4: Battleship - PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, 3DS, DS
And lastly today we have a tie-in to the upcoming movie based on the classic boardgame Battleship.
Step into the role of Cole Mathis, the U.S. Navy's "boots on the ground," and experience thrilling gameplay as you combat a deadly alien invasion in this game inspired by the upcoming Universal Pictures film.
Command real-time control of naval units, strategize a map-wide plan of attack and direct your fleet to launch air strikes, conduct radar sweeps and engage in high-seas combat.
Battle against the invading threat on the shores of Hawaii as a member of the elite E.O.D. Arm yourself with an arsenal of deadly weapons and upgradeable naval units, all with special attacks and attributes.
The movie itself looks like good dumb fun in the vein of a Michael Bay film, and hopefully this game can be just as entertaining. It is a movie tie-in game though, so I don’t hold out much hope.
Be sure to catch past episodes of Press Pause. To do that, you just need to go to presspause.mevio.com , or our YouTube channel youtube.com/presspausemevio .
0 Views
09:01:45 03/26/12
euronews reporter - Sarajevo - a city under siege from its past?
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 09:01:45 03/26/12
euronews reporter - Sarajevo - a city under siege from its past?
www.euronews.com Sarajevo is a city which over the centuries has been called the Jerusalem of Europe - a symbol of multi-cultural and ethnic unity where those of Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox and Jewish faith lived together. But in April 1992, it became another symbol: one of the tragic wars that erupted when Yugoslavia broke apart and nationalism and ethnic hatred pointed its guns to this city. For more than three and a half years, Sarajevo was under siege. The Bosnia Serb army, with its Yugoslav heavy artillery, surrounded the Bosnian capital. Civilians became open targets for the snipers. When the siege ended in February 1996, more than 11000 Sarajevans had been killed. Thousands more had been wounded and displaced. Sarajevo, like Bosnia and Herzegovina, became more divided along ethnic lines. These photographs of Sarajevo during the siege are part of a permanent exhibition at the city's history museum. It shows how Sarajevans lived during the war. Because they were surrounded and because of the UN arms embargo, not only was defending the city difficult but also getting food, water and electricity were all part of a daily struggle. But for many Sarajevans the feeling of isolation was worse. Of an international community, especially the west, which reacted too slowly and too late to stop the siege. Elma Hasimbegovic of the History Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina explains, "That was a major issue or major accusation that the people of Sarajevo were left by the world, let ... From: Euronews Views: 11 0 ratings Time: 09:05 More in Shows
12 Views
23:00:43 12/13/11
Out of Control NYPD: 'I Have a Gun on Me, Okay?'
[LESS INFO] 12 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:43 12/13/11
Watch as NYPD officers violently arrest 17 members of a peaceful and festive gathering of Occupy Wall Street protesters in the Winter Garden atrium, owned by Brookfield Properties, in lower Manhattan. The 10-story atrium is part of the World Financial Center and is near the World Trade Center site. The atrium is used for musical performances, art shows and other events.
“Don’t get in my face,” one officer told a citizen trying to observe the arrests. “I have a gun on me, okay? I don’t want any people coming that close to me.”
In this video, you'll see several people arrested with no clear pretext...police seem to be randomly grabbing people from the crowd and throwing them to the ground. Anyone with cameras attempting to film are then blocked from doing so. As one man is arrested at just past the 10:00 mark, NYPD horrifyingly shove people down a staircase. Then again, just before the video ends, police give chase to a man who seems to be attempting to flee. As the officers involved in pursuit catch up with him, they appear to throw him into a glass wall causing it to shatter.
If you view part two of this video here , the NYPD aggressively usher those who witnessed the man being thrown head-first into a wall of glass outside, where they congregate around the glass to observe the aftermath.
Earlier Monday, protesters held a demonstration outside the offices of Goldman Sachs investment bank. Protesters pretended to interview a fellow protester dressed as a squid . The protest was inspired by a 2010 column in Rolling Stone magazine that described Goldman Sachs as a giant vampire squid.
[Hat tip to videographer diceytroop .]
0 Views
20:05:33 09/07/11
World War II: How Did It End?
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 20:05:33 09/07/11
Almost six years to the day after it began, the bloodiest war in history drew to a close. In Part 8 of our series on WWII, http://www.WatchMojo.com looks at the final days of the Second World War and how it finally came to an end.
46 Views
22:30:00 06/28/11
Studio Guest of the Week: Albrecht Ritschl
[LESS INFO] 46 VIEWS | ADDED 22:30:00 06/28/11
Ritschl is economic history professor at the London School of Economics.DW-TV: For more we're joined by Albrecht Ritschl, economic history professor at the London School of Economics -and he says that back in the 20th century, no other European country received as much aid as Germany did. So, Professor, is it pay-back time now? Albrecht Ritschl: That's probably for the Greek thing. I'm not quite sure what they think, but let's say, from a historical vantage point, it is, to some extent. DW-TV: What do you make of the views expressed in the report we've just watched? Albrecht Ritschl: It's all very understandable. If people take your money and run, nobody can expect you to be enthusiastic about it, so that's clear. The big question's of course, what to do now, and can we learn for the present crisis from previous ones from history. DW-TV: At the moment what we can see is a kind of anti-Greece movement going on in Europe - while at the same time, there are angry Greeks protesting on the streets of Athens. Is democracy as we know it in danger right now? Albrecht Ritschl: I am a little bit worried about it. If one takes a close look, Greece has a complex history. It had a civil war after World War Two. It had a pretty nasty military dictatorship. And it has lots of tensions - polarization. It's not like Western Europe, where all this is a thing long past. It's all still very much there, and it's not quite clear how society - how its institutions will respond to the crisis. DW-TV: So it's still quite volatile. Nevertheless, we have to deal with the situation right now because a lot of people say, if Greece goes under, the Eurozone goes under, as well. That's why there are these bailout packages, but where did the first tranche end up? Albrecht Ritschl: Well, probably where it should, and that is, to some extent, in the salary payments and whatever of the Greek ministeries and, to some extent, in the coffers and vaults of European banks, because right now, what we are talking about it not so much giving fresh money to the Greeks, but rather, rolling over existing debt. And if we don't do this, it will mean that Greece cannot really meet its obligations to European banks, and that will cause a bigger crisis in Europe - that's the problem. DW-TV: OK, let's look at it the other way around and, just briefly, what do you think Greece itself could do and must do in order to out of the doldrums? Albrecht Ritschl: Well, of course, they must implement reforms; they must try to streamline the economy; they must make sure there is less wasteful spending. But, of course, all this is fraught with social and political conflict. So it's not quite easy to predict what the outcome of all this is going to be. DW-TV: What do you make of the solar power-idea for Greece? Albrecht Ritschl: It's a little bit romantic. I mean, this is a very small drop in a very big bucket. What is important in Greece right now, is to get the public sector right, to make sure that it imposes fewer obstacles on the working of entrepreneurs, of markets, of firms. It's important to get the credit sector right, so that credit can flow to the industries where productivity growth is actually possible. And if, in the end, solar power is a part of that success story, fine! But I don't see it as anything that is going to pull us out of this mess, right now. DW-TV: So, money should flow into industries where productivity is possible, which are, for Greece? Albrecht Ritschl: We don't know! We will see! This is why we have something called a market system. There are lots of people out there with clever ideas - cleverer than the ideas that I have right now, or that you might have. Who knows? And the important thing in a free market is to find these people, and for money to flow in the right direction. Bureaucrats are notoriously not very good at deciding that. DW-TV: So, my favorite question: short and brief: will the Greek economy be a success story in our lifetime? Albrecht Ritschl: It depends. There is an off chance that the lights are going out in Greece right now, and that they won't come back on in our lifetime. But let's be optimistic about this: let's hope that they will sort this out and that the Greek economy will rebound from that, and that it will be a a success story in the end. DW-TV: Let's hope for the best. Professor Ritschl, thank you very much for being here.
23 Views
22:30:00 06/28/11
Studio Guest of the Week: Albrecht Ritschl
[LESS INFO] 23 VIEWS | ADDED 22:30:00 06/28/11
Ritschl is economic history professor at the London School of Economics.DW-TV: For more we're joined by Albrecht Ritschl, economic history professor at the London School of Economics -and he says that back in the 20th century, no other European country received as much aid as Germany did. So, Professor, is it pay-back time now? Albrecht Ritschl: That's probably for the Greek thing. I'm not quite sure what they think, but let's say, from a historical vantage point, it is, to some extent. DW-TV: What do you make of the views expressed in the report we've just watched? Albrecht Ritschl: It's all very understandable. If people take your money and run, nobody can expect you to be enthusiastic about it, so that's clear. The big question's of course, what to do now, and can we learn for the present crisis from previous ones from history. DW-TV: At the moment what we can see is a kind of anti-Greece movement going on in Europe - while at the same time, there are angry Greeks protesting on the streets of Athens. Is democracy as we know it in danger right now? Albrecht Ritschl: I am a little bit worried about it. If one takes a close look, Greece has a complex history. It had a civil war after World War Two. It had a pretty nasty military dictatorship. And it has lots of tensions - polarization. It's not like Western Europe, where all this is a thing long past. It's all still very much there, and it's not quite clear how society - how its institutions will respond to the crisis. DW-TV: So it's still quite volatile. Nevertheless, we have to deal with the situation right now because a lot of people say, if Greece goes under, the Eurozone goes under, as well. That's why there are these bailout packages, but where did the first tranche end up? Albrecht Ritschl: Well, probably where it should, and that is, to some extent, in the salary payments and whatever of the Greek ministeries and, to some extent, in the coffers and vaults of European banks, because right now, what we are talking about it not so much giving fresh money to the Greeks, but rather, rolling over existing debt. And if we don't do this, it will mean that Greece cannot really meet its obligations to European banks, and that will cause a bigger crisis in Europe - that's the problem. DW-TV: OK, let's look at it the other way around and, just briefly, what do you think Greece itself could do and must do in order to out of the doldrums? Albrecht Ritschl: Well, of course, they must implement reforms; they must try to streamline the economy; they must make sure there is less wasteful spending. But, of course, all this is fraught with social and political conflict. So it's not quite easy to predict what the outcome of all this is going to be. DW-TV: What do you make of the solar power-idea for Greece? Albrecht Ritschl: It's a little bit romantic. I mean, this is a very small drop in a very big bucket. What is important in Greece right now, is to get the public sector right, to make sure that it imposes fewer obstacles on the working of entrepreneurs, of markets, of firms. It's important to get the credit sector right, so that credit can flow to the industries where productivity growth is actually possible. And if, in the end, solar power is a part of that success story, fine! But I don't see it as anything that is going to pull us out of this mess, right now. DW-TV: So, money should flow into industries where productivity is possible, which are, for Greece? Albrecht Ritschl: We don't know! We will see! This is why we have something called a market system. There are lots of people out there with clever ideas - cleverer than the ideas that I have right now, or that you might have. Who knows? And the important thing in a free market is to find these people, and for money to flow in the right direction. Bureaucrats are notoriously not very good at deciding that. DW-TV: So, my favorite question: short and brief: will the Greek economy be a success story in our lifetime? Albrecht Ritschl: It depends. There is an off chance that the lights are going out in Greece right now, and that they won't come back on in our lifetime. But let's be optimistic about this: let's hope that they will sort this out and that the Greek economy will rebound from that, and that it will be a a success story in the end. DW-TV: Let's hope for the best. Professor Ritschl, thank you very much for being here.
13 Views
09:26:12 06/09/11
Verdi's "AIDA" At the Foot of Masada Mountain
[LESS INFO] 13 VIEWS | ADDED 09:26:12 06/09/11
Verdi's "AIDA" At the Foot of Masada Mountain
For more news and videos visit ? english.ntdtv.com Follow us on Twitter ? http Add us on Facebook ? facebook.com The Italian composer Verdi wrote his opera "Aida" in 1871, and since then it has been performed throughout the world. This time the Israeli Opera chose to perform it in an impressive production at the foot of a historic mountain -- the Masada. Our correspondent was there. Here, at the foot of this powerful mountain which is currently a candidate for the prestigious list of "Seven Wonders of the World," the Israeli Opera has chosen to perform the opera "Aida." Thousands of workers, hundreds of participants and soloists from around the world took part in a huge, uniquely artistic production. "Aida" is the story of an impossible love in the shadow of war between Egypt and Ethiopia in the period of the ancient Pharaohs. It is love between the commander of the Egyptian army who is leading his army to war against the neighboring Ethiopia, and an Ethiopian captive -- the Ethiopian king's daughter. It is love that transcends nations and borders, yet it ends tragically. [Kristin Lewis, Aida, Aida Soprano]: "Aida is a person who shouldn't love the man that she loves because he is her enemy, her country's enemy - the person chosen to lead the army against her people. And yet this is the man that she loves and what it shows us is that love has no boundaries, it has no borders. She ends up making the largest sacrifice of all because of it, and so it just proves that no ... From: NTDTV Views: 126 4 ratings Time: 02:41 More in News & Politics
0 Views
14:55:29 05/25/11
The Last Nail - Floor Speech May 25 2011
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 14:55:29 05/25/11
The Last Nail The last nail is being driven into the coffin of the American Republic. Yet, Congress remains in total denial as our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes. The process is propelled by unwarranted fear and ignorance as to the true meaning of liberty. It is driven by economic myths, fallacies and irrational good intentions. The rule of law is constantly rejected and authoritarian answers are offered as panaceas for all our problems. Runaway welfarism is used to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class. Who would have ever thought that the current generation and Congress would stand idly by and watch such a rapid disintegration of the American Republic? Characteristic of this epic event is the casual acceptance by the people and political leaders of the unitary presidency, which is equivalent to granting dictatorial powers to the President. Our Presidents can now, on their own: 1. Order assassinations, including American citizens, 2. Operate secret military tribunals, 3. Engage in torture, 4. Enforce indefinite imprisonment without due process, 5. Order searches and seizures without proper warrants, gutting the 4th Amendment, 6. Ignore the 60 day rule for reporting to the Congress the nature of any military operations as required by the War Power Resolution, 7. Continue the Patriot Act abuses without oversight, 8. Wage war at will, 9. Treat all Americans as suspected terrorists at airports with TSA groping and nude x-raying. And the Federal Reserve accommodates by counterfeiting the funds needed and not paid for by taxation and borrowing, permitting runaway spending, endless debt, and special interest bail-outs. And all of this is not enough. The abuses and usurpations of the war power are soon to be codified in the National Defense Authorization Act now rapidly moving its way through the Congress. Instead of repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), as we should, now that bin Laden is dead and gone, Congress is planning to massively increase the war power of the President. Though an opportunity presents itself to end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Congress, with bipartisan support, obsesses on how to expand the unconstitutional war power the President already holds. The current proposal would allow a President to pursue war any time, any place, for any reason, without Congressional approval. Many believe this would even permit military activity against American suspects here at home. The proposed authority does not reference the 9/11 attacks. It would be expanded to include the Taliban and "associated" forces—a dangerously vague and expansive definition of our potential enemies. There is no denial that the changes in s.1034 totally eliminate the hard-fought-for restraint on Presidential authority to go to war without Congressional approval achieved at the Constitutional Convention. Congress' war authority has been severely undermined since World War II beginning with the advent of the Korean War which was fought solely under a UN Resolution. Even today, we're waging war in Libya without even consulting with the Congress, similar to how we went to war in Bosnia in the 1990s under President Clinton. The three major reasons for our Constitutional Convention were to: 1. Guarantee free trade and travel among the states. 2. Make gold and silver legal tender and abolish paper money. 3. Strictly limit the Executive Branch's authority to pursue war without Congressional approval. But today: 1. Federal Reserve notes are legal tender, gold and silver are illegal. 2. The Interstate Commerce Clause is used to regulate all commerce at the expense of free trade among the states. 3. And now the final nail is placed in the coffin of Congressional responsibility for the war power, delivering this power completely to the President—a sharp and huge blow to the concept of our Republic. In my view, it appears that the fate of the American Republic is now sealed—unless these recent trends are quickly reversed. The saddest part of this tragedy is that all these horrible changes are being done in the name of patriotism and protecting freedom. They are justified by good intentions while believing the sacrifice of liberty is required for our safety. Nothing could be further from the truth. More sadly is the conviction that our enemies are driven to attack us for our freedoms and prosperity, and not because of our deeply flawed foreign policy that has generated justifiable grievances and has inspired the radical violence against us. Without this understanding our endless, unnamed, and undeclared wars will continue and our wonderful experience with liberty will end.
45 Views
00:39:14 10/20/10
Daniel Ellsberg: What if Hitler Had Dropped the Bomb?
[LESS INFO] 45 VIEWS | ADDED 00:39:14 10/20/10
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2010/09/29/The_Bomb_Daniel_Ellsberg
Daniel Ellsberg, the man responsible for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the press in 1971, imagines how nuclear weapons would be viewed today if Germany had used them in World War II. Because they would not have changed the outcome of the war, Ellsberg claims they would be branded "criminal, murderous" tools of Nazi desperation.
-----
This excerpt is taken from a discussion on Howard Zinn's "The Bomb," featuring Daniel Ellsberg. This program was recorded in collaboration with City Lights Bookstore, on September 29, 2010.
As an active WWII bombardier returning from the end of the war in Europe and preparing for combat in Japan, Howard Zinn read the headline Atomic Bomb Dropped on Japan and was glad—the war would be over. "Like other Americans," writes Zinn, "I had no idea what was going on at the higher levels, and had no idea what that 'atomic bomb' had done to men, women, children in Hiroshima, any more than I ever really understood what the bombs I dropped on European cities were doing to human flesh and blood."
During the war, Zinn had taken part in the aerial bombing of Royan, France, and in 1966, he went to Hiroshima, where he was invited to a "house of rest" where survivors of the bombing gathered. In this short and powerful book, the backstory of the making and use of the bomb, Zinn offers his deep personal reflections and political analysis of these events, and the profound influence they had in transforming him from an order-taking combat soldier to one of our greatest anti-authoritarian, anti-war historians. - City Lights
Daniel Ellsberg is a former United States military analyst who, while employed by the RAND Corporation, precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of US government decision-making about the Vietnam War, to The New York Times and other newspapers.
8 Views
17:50:08 07/05/10
World War I - Treaty of Versailles
[LESS INFO] 8 VIEWS | ADDED 17:50:08 07/05/10
Signed in June of 1919, the Treaty of Versailles ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers. In Part 4 of our series on WWI, http://www.WatchMojo.com learns more about the controversial Treaty of Versailles.
0 Views
00:11:57 06/29/10
World War I - How Did It End?
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 00:11:57 06/29/10
Several key events are considered crucial in the effort to bring to a close this bloody military conflict. In Part 3 of our series on WWI, http://www.WatchMojo.com explores how and why the First World War ended.
6 Views
10:55:24 06/02/10
Duties Of Young Muslims
[LESS INFO] 6 VIEWS | ADDED 10:55:24 06/02/10
2. Duties of Young Muslims The first duty of the Muslim youth is to rectify their views and thoughts with a view to knowing their din on the basis of clear evidence and Understanding and according to a proper methodology. The right start is acquiring the proper methodology of comprehending Islam, and of dealing with themselves, people and life. Historically, Muslim scholars have established certain principles and methods which have enhanced the proper comprehension, and deduction of matters and issues whether supported by texts or not. This led to the establishment of the science of usul al fiqh: a discipline which studies the methodology of deriving laws from the sources of Islam and of establishing their juristic or constitutional validity. Thus, they established the principles of the controlling and controlled evidence, the subject and object of controlling aspects of evidence: the main and the subsidiary, the imperative and the negative, the general and the particular, the absolute and the restricted, the pronounced and the comprehend. They also established the total aims of the Shariah, such as safeguarding people's welfare, counteracting evil and harm; they divided needs into: essential, necessary and comforts. This is indeed a unique science of which there is no equal, and of which Muslims have the right to be proud. In addition, there are other principles and rules of fiqh which may not be available in the books of usul but are found in various books on usul al tafsir and Qur'anic sciences, as well as usul al hadith, and Hadith sciences. In addition to these, there are various rules and principles scattered in books of beliefs, hadith interpretation, and jurisprudence which can be observed by those who have acquired an insight into the purpose of Shariah and its innermost recesses. What is required, therefore, is not a shallow understanding of the texts but rather a deep knowledge and a genuine comprehension of the purposes of Qur'anic verses and the ahad'ith. The fiqh, the awareness, and the knowledge required must take the following into consideration First: Knowledge of and insight into Shariah cannot be complete without considering all the particular aspects in relation to the general context of the entire truth of Islam. To issue a judgment a Quranic verse or a hadith must be interpreted in the light of other ahadith, the Sunnah of the Prophet (.SA'AS) as well as the practice of the companions (RA'A), and must be understood in the light of the Qur'an and the general context and purposes of Shariah. Otherwise there will be a defect in this understanding, and a confusion in deduction and derivation which could create contradictions in Shariah and subject it to ridicule and to calumniations. For this reason, Imam al Shatibi set two conditions for ijtihad: (1) understanding the purposes of Shariah in its totality, and (2) the ability to derive and to draw conclusions on the basis of this understanding.' This can only be fulfilled when there is a deep and wide knowledge of the texts, especially the ahaith and the traditions, in addition to an insight into the reasons, the events, the circumstances, and the purposes of each text, as well as an ability to distinguish between the eternal and unalterable and those formulated to meet a temporary need, an existing custom or tradition, or certain transient circumstances which can be changed when the latter change. One day I was lecturing on proper Islamic dress for women, according to the Qur'an and Sunnah, when a person in the audience said that the hijab mentioned in the Qur'an must include an additional outer covering. I replied that the hijab is not an end in itself, but rather a means for decently covering those parts of the body which the Shariah prohibits to be exposed. In this sense, it can differ from one place and time to another. But the man shouted furiously that the garment required is very clearly specified in a Qur'anic text, and we therefore have no right to change it. He cited the following verse: O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad). That is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. I replied that the Qur'an sometimes specifies certain means and methods that were suitable and common at the time of the revelation, but were never meant to become permanently binding if better or similar ones are found. The following example is sufficient enough to demonstrate my point. Allah (SWT) said: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies. The steed is specifically mentioned above because it was?at the time of revelation-one of the most powerful means known at the time. But there is indeed no reason why Muslims in our times and in earlier days should not use tanks and armored vehicles to achieve the end referred to in the above verse, i.e., to strike fear into the hearts of the enemies of Allah (SWT) and of the enemies of Muslims. Similarly, the woman's outer garment could be any dress which satisfies the objective expressed in verse that Muslim women should be recognized and not molested. If such is the case of the Qurian, which has an eternal and comprehensive nature, it is only logical that the Sunnah is even more open to such an examination. The Sunnah comprise a multitude of teachings, the legislative and the nonlegislative, the general and the specific, the eternal and the changeable: a change necessitated by a change in the reasons and the exigencies. In issues and matterrelated to eating, drinking, and dressing, for example, there are legislative as well as nonlegislative Sunnah. Eating with the fingers rather than with silverware is not compulsory. The former method was more natural and suitable to the simple life and nature of the Arabs at the time of the Prophet (SA'AS). However this does not mean that using a spoon is haram (unlawful) or makruh (condemned or discouraged), since it is now so widely available that it in no way indicates any extravagance or excess. But this does not apply to silver or gold tableware, the use of which has clearly been forbidden. Similarly we have to abide by the injunction to eat with the right hand as the purpose of this teaching is fundamental and unalterable, and because it seeks to establish a uniform custom among Muslims, directing them to follow a right?hand approach in everything. The Prophet (SA'AS) ordered us: "Say bism Allah [before you begin] and eat with your right hand." In another hadith he said: "None of you should eat or drink with his left hand, because Satan eats and drinks with his left hand." Furthermore, during the Prophet's time, Muslims had no idea whatsoever of sieves, which were later known and used to advantage. Could this be regarded as a prohibited innovation or a hateful practice? of course not. Another example is the issue of wearing a short thawb (garment), which pious young Muslims adhere to and insist on wearing despite the problems which it creates for them, as if it was one of the fundamentals of Islam. These young people put forth two arguments: (1) The dress has to be a short thawb because this is the type of dress the Prophet (SA'AS) and his companions (RAA) used. They further believe that other costumes lead us to imitate the kufar, a practice prohibited in Islam; and (2) It has to be short because there are ahadith which prohibit wearing below?the?ankle izar or thawb such as: "The part of an izar which hangs below the ankles is in the Fire. With regard to the first argument, the Prophet's Sunnah knawn to us is that he wore whatever was available to him. For this reason, he wore shirts, robes, and izars. The Prophet (SA'AS) also wore garments and garbs made in the Yemen and Persia, which were embroidered on the sides with silk. He also wore Tmarnah (cap) with or without a turban. Al Imam Ibn al Qayyim says in Al Hady al Nabaw': The best guidance is the Sunnah of the Prophet (SA'AS), the things he regularly practised, ordered, and encouraged people to do. His sunnah in dressing is that he used to wear whatever was available for him whether made of cotton, wool, or linen. He is known to have worn cloaks from the Yemen, green cloaks, jubbah, garments with full?length sleeves, shirts, pants and robes, shoes and slippers. . . He used, sometimes, to grow a plait in the back. The textile industry was unknown then, so people used to wear clothes imported from the Yemen, Egypt, and Syria. In our time, we wear- without any inhibition-underwear, head coverings, shoes, etc., which were unknown during the Prophet's time. Why then this excessive fuss about the thawb in particular? As for the argument of imitating the kuffar, we are actually prohibited from imitating their distinguishing characteristics ? as followers of other religions-such as sporting the cross, wearing ecclesiastical costumes, celebrating non?Muslim festivals, all of which indicate adherence to a different religion. Ibn Taimiyah explained all this in detail in his book: Iqti'al Sirat al Mustaqim fi Mukhalafat Ahl al Jahim. With the exception of such conspicuous matters, judgment is made on the basis of intention and purpose. If a Muslim deliberately imitates the kuffar, he would be held blameworthy on the basis of his intention. But if a person unintentionally does things which the kuffar do, or chooses something which is easier for him, or for his job such as wearing the "overalls" by a factory worker or an engineer, he is not to be held blameworthy. Nonetheless, it is more becoming of a Muslim to distinguish himself from non?Muslims in all material and spiritual matters to the best of his ability. The gist of the matter is that wearing a short thawb is more desirable' but wearing a long one is not prohibited if it is just a habit and is not meant to show arrogance, as has already been pointed out. All the examples given above pertain to purely personal behavior. In that capacity they are less serious than the issues related to the community as a whole, the affairs of the state, and international relations which are more complex and constitute a danger to the community, the state, and humanity at large in the absence of an insightful jurisprudence which takes into consideration the proper dimensions of human needs and social interests. When we ca]l for the resumption of a true Islamic lifestyle and the establishment of a truly Islamic society led by an Islamic state, we must recognize the fact that we live in a world in which human relations are interrelated and complex, ideologies are numerous, distances are shrinking, and barriers are beginning to collapse. It is a world that has become smaller than ever before due to unprecedented technological progress We must also take into consideration the fact that the community includes the powerful and the weak, men and women, adults and children, the righteous and the transgressor. This diversity must be taken into consideration when we seek to guide, legislate, or give fatiawa. A Muslim who seeks Allah's pleasure may choose to place restrictions on himself and stick to the most extreme and cautious opinions in his endeavor. He can deprive himself of all the means of entertainment such as singing, music, photography, television, etc. But can any modern state afford to do without these? Can any effective journalism do without photography? Can any ministry of Interior?or passport office, immigration or traffic department-or an educational institution do without photography which has become the most important means of discovering and preventing crimes and forgery? Can any contemporary state ignore the times it exists in and deprive its subjects of the invaluable services of television and rely only on the radio, on the grounds that television depends upon photography which is haram as some students of "religious education" argue these days? In short, what I wish to emphasize here is that a person's restrictions on himself may be tolerated and accepted, but it would be intolerable and indeed unacceptable to force these restrictions upon the various groups in the community as a whole. The Prophet said: Whoever leads people in salah should shorten it because among them are the weak, the old, and those who have business to attend to. This guidance on leading people in salah is also applicable to leading people in any aspect of life. One of the most serious problems is the failure of some religious people to take account the fact that the ahkam of Shaniah are not equally important or permanent, and therefore different interpretations can be permitted. There are hypothetical judgments which mainly deal with transactions, customs' and manners. These are open to ijtihad. Disagreement-based on authentic ijtihad-on these issues represents no harm or threat. On the contrary, it is a blessing on the Ummah, and demonstrates flexibility in Shariah and a spaciousness in fiqh. There were indeed differences of opinion and disagreement among the Prophet's companions (RA'A)-as well as their successors ? on various issues. But such disagreement never caused or created ill?feelings or disunity among them. On the other hand, there are a.hkam dealing with matters of faith, belief, and 'ibadah which are firmly established in the Qurian and Sunnah and ijma'(consesus), and which have become definitive and categorical. Although they are not requirements of din, they represent the intellectual and behavioral unity of the Ummah. Deviation from these ahkam is a deviation from Sunnah: it is sinfulness, prohibited bida (innovation), and could lead to kufr. In addition, there are those a,hkam which must be necessarily known and obvious toall people, learned or otherwise. Rejection of these ahkam is a clear denial of Allah (SWT) and of His Prophet (.SA'AS). There should be differention between ahkam based on fundamental or subsidiary issues, whether proven textually or by ijtihad; there should also be differentiation between the categorial and the hypothetical ahkam in texts, and between the necessary and the unecessary ahkam in din. Each has its status. Our great fuqaha have differed widely in their interpretation of some issues, and one can indeed ftnd various opinions on a single issue. There is disagreement, for example, on the heinous sin of murdering a Muslim under duress. Should the punishment fall upon the murderer or upon one who compelled him to do it? or should it fall upon both or neither, since the crime was not completely premeditated and committed by a single person? All these possibilities were voiced and supported by some fuqaha' Even within each madhhab we find different opinions, narrations, ways, and approaches among the 'ulama' Suffice it to say that the subject of that disagreement within Imam Ahmad's madhhab-which is established on and follows tradition-has included enough opinions and narration to fill a twelve?volume book, al In.saf fi al Rajih min al Khilaf. In view of this, young Muslims should be fully aware of the issues which are open to disagreement and those which are not. But more importantly' they should know the standard norms of behavior practised in settling differences and disagreements. They must learn adab al khilaf (ethics of disagreement),'! which we have inherited from our a'immah and 'ulama' We must learn from them how to be open?minded and tolerant toward those with whom we disagree about subsidiary religious matters. How can we differ and disagree yet remain united brothers who love and respect each other and who refrain from exchanging accusations? First of all, we must realize that disagreements on marginal and subsidiary matters and issues are natural. There is indeed a Divine wisdom in making a few a,hkam in Shari'ah categorical in both their definitiveness and meaning, and in making hypothetical ones which constitute the bulk of a,hkam and on which there is broad scope for fruitful disagreement. It is a blessing that Allah (SWT) has bestowed on some Muslim ulama' the ability to ascertain, to examine closely, and to decide on matters of disagreement without prejudice against any madhhab or opinion. These include the following a'immah: Ibn Daqiq al 'Id, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Hajar al 'Asqalai, al Dahlawi, al Shawkani, al San'ani, and others. But differences are bound to arise and continue because they are deeply rooted in the nature of man, life, language and -Divine commandment. Attempts to eradicate these differences will fail, because they will actually be battling against human nature, against life, against all sunan. As we have already mentioned, disagreement based on authentic ijtihad which does not create discord or disunity is a blessing for the Ummah and an enrichment of fiqh. Objective disagreement in itself poses no threat if it is coupled with tolerance and openmindedness, and if it is free from fanaticism, accusations, and narrowmindedness. The Prophet's Companions differed among themselves on many issues and practical a,hkam, but they still never condemned one another and had very cordial and strong relations. 'Umar ibn 'Abd al 'Aziz said: "I never wished that the Prophet's companions had rot had disagreements. Their disagreement was a mercy." Different interpretations even emerged during the life of the Prophet (SA'AS). These were sanctioned by him, and he did not single out one party or group for blame. Immediately after the battle of the Akzab, the Prophet (.SAAS) said to his Companions: 'whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day must not perform ,salat al asr until he has reached [the dwellings of] Banu Qurayzah. Some of the Companions found. This practically impossible, and therefore performed salat al Asr before reaching their destination. Others?who were literalists-only performed salah when they reached the dwellings of Banu Qurayzah as the Prophet (SA'AS) had asked them. When the Prophet (SA'AS) was told, he approved of the action of both parties although one of them must have been wrong. This clearly indicates that there is no sin in acting upon an interpretation which is based on solid evidence, sincere genuine intention and ijtihad. Ibn al Qayyim described those who applied the essence of ahadith as Ahl al Qiyas (analogy applicants) and those who applied the letter of a,hadith as Zahiriyah (literalists). Unfortunately, there are people these days who not only assume that they know the whole truth and all the answers, but who also try to coerce other people to follow them, believing that they can eradicate all madhahib and disagreements and unite all people in one single stroke. They tend to forget that their own understanding and interpretation of the texts are no more than hypotheses which may be right or wrong. Moreover, no human (i.e., no 'alim) is infallible, even though he may satisfy all the conditions and requisities of ijtihad. All that is certain is the reward he will obtain for his ijtihad, whether it was right or wrong, should the intention be sincere. Therefore, such people would achieve nothing except the creation of an additional madhhab! It is strange and absurd that while they disapprove of people's adherence to different madhahib, they themselves try to persuade people to imitate them and follow their new madhhab. No one should jump to the conclusion that I reject their call for adherence to the texts or their own interpretations and understanding. This is absolutely the right granted to everyone who can fulfill the conditions of ijtihad and its means. No one has the right to close the gates of ijtihad which were opened by the Prophet (SA'AS) for the whole Ummah What I do reject is their self?presumption, arrogance, vanity, and disregard for the findings of their learned predecessors, their disrespect for the fifh we have inherited from our great forebears. I reject their false claim that they alone are right, as well as their erroneous impression that they can eliminate disparity and disagreement and unite people on one opinion-their own. One of the followers of this "one?opinion" school asked me once why all Muslims should not agree on the juristic opinion supported by the text I replied that the text first has to be authentic and accepted by all, its meaning has to be plain, and it should not be contradicted by another text, whether stonger or similar in evidence. There should be full agreement as regards the three preceding points. A text may be regarded as authentic by an imam, but another imam may see it as weak or as authentic but without proven evidence justifying its given meaning; a text may be regarded as general by an imam but as particular by another, or it may be seen as absolute or restricted; it may also be regarded as categorrical or abrogated. Such variance leads to producing different ahkam i.e. something may be wajib or haram, mustahabb or makruh. In short all these difference fall within the considerations pointed out by Ibn Taymiyah in his book, Raf al Malam an al A'immat al A'lam, and mentioned by Waliy Allah al Dahlaw' in his book, .Hujjat Allah al Balighah, and in his, al Insaf fi Asbab al Ikhtilaf, and detailed by al Shaykn 'Al. al Khafif in his book, Asbab Ikhtilaf al Fuqaha' Let us consider the following ahadah: 1. "Any woman who wears a gold necklace will be made to wear a similar one [made] of fire on the Day of Judgment. And any woman who wears gold earrings will have a similar one [made of fire] on the Day of Judgment. 2. "Whoever desires his beloved to wear a ring [made] of fire [on the Day of Judgment], let him give him [her] [to wear] a gold ring. And whoever desires his beloved to wear a necklace [made] of fire [on the Day of Judgment], let him give him [her] [to wear] a gold necklace. And whoever desires his beloved to wear a bracelet [made] of fire [on the Day of Judgment], let him give him [her][to wear] a gold bracelet. But you can do whatever you please with silver. 3. It is also related by Thawban (RA'A) that the Prophet (SA'AS) warned his daughter Fatimah (RA'A) against wearing a gold chain. In response, she sold it, bought a slave with the money, and set him free. When the Prophet (SA'AS) was told of this, he said: "Thanks to Allah (SWT) who rescued Fatimah from the Fire. Justists have different attitudes toward these ahadith: 1. Some have examined their isnad and, finding them weak, rejected them and considered them insufficiant for prohibition, which requires clear cut evidence and careful investigation, especially with respect to matters of general concern and which Muslims have generally accepted. 2. Others have agreed that the isnad is correct but that the ahadith have been revoked because other evidence in other sources have permitted women to adorn themselves with gold. Al Bayhaqi and others have reported the consensus on this matter which has been accepted in fiqh and become a standard practice. 3. Some considered the ahadith applicable to those who have not given zakah on the gold they have, basing their opinion on other ahadith which have not, themselves, escaped criticism. Furthermore. zakah on women's jewellery is a subject of disagreement among the different madhahib. 4. Some jusrists argue that these ahaith seek to warn women who vainly adorn themselves with gold, deliberately intending to draw attention to their wealth. Al Nasal also reported some ahadith which are relevant to this issue under the title: Bab al Karahiyah li al Nisa'.fi Ihar Hilal Dhahab (Disapproval of Women's Display of Golden Jewelry). Other jurists say that they are related only to excessive adornment out of vanity or pride. 5. In our own times, Shaykh Nasir al Din al Albani has come out with an opinion different from the consensus on permitting women to adorn themselves with gold, which has been accepted by all madhahib for the last fourteen centuries. He not only believes that the isnad of these ahadith is authentic, but that these texts are categorical in this matter; i.e. prohibiting gold rings and earrings. In this he disagreed with the consensus of the fiqh of all madhahib and the practice of the Ummah throughout the past fourteen hundred years. Has the existence of these ahadith prevented disagreement on their authenticity or guidance? Can the modern "traditionalist school" eradicate disagreement and unite all people on one opinion on the basis of ahadith or a tradition which they use as evidence? The answer is clear enough: people will continue to disagree and differ amongst themselves, and this will, in shaa Allah, pose no danger or problem. Allah ta 'ala says: "To each is a goal to which Allah turns him". In this respect, I feel inclined to admit that the religious leader who, in this age, has understood the essence and ethics of disagreements was hasan al Banna (d. 1949). He brought up his followers to believe in and adhere to these ethics. Despite his unflinching commitment to the cause of Muslim solidarity and his sincere efforts to unite the various Muslim groups and make them agree at least on minimum Islamic concepts and principals, as is clear from his own known work al Usul al 'Ishrun, he was convinced of the inevitability of disagreement on the subsidiary issues and the practical ahkam of Islam. This he has eloquently discussed in many of his messages which have proved to be useful In Dawatuna (Our Da'wah), al Banna spoke of the characteristics of his da'wah as being general ones which neither patronize a particular sect nor advocate a particular line of thought. Interest is in the core of din and its essence; it hopes that all endeavors are united so that a more fruitful work can be done to produce greater results; it supports truth everywhere; it likes consensus and dislikes eccentricity; it attributes a great deal of the mishaps which have befallen Muslims to misguided disagreement and to disunity; it believes that love and unity are the major factor of their victories, and that the only hope for invigorating and revitalizing the present?day Ummah lies in reviving and adopting the practice of the early generations of Muslims. But, in spite of his strong belief in the necessity of unity and dislike of disunity, al Banna wrote: We believe that disagreements on subsidiary religious issues are inevitable for various reasons, the most important of which are: Intellectual differences resulting from the level of intelligence and depth of knowledge, the multiplicity and interrelatedness of the facts, and the inherent ambiguities of the Arabic language which are bound to affect the interpretation of the texts. In all these people are different, and therefore disagreement is inevitable. The abundance of the sources of knowledge in some parts of the Islamic world and their scarcity in other places is also an important factor. Malik said to Abu Ja'far: "The Prophet's companions scattered into remote regions, each group possessing specific knowledge. If you were to force them to follow one opinion you would create fitnah. There are also cultural differences. Al Shafi'i (RA'A) used to give different fatawa in accordance with the different conditions prevailing in Iraq and in Egypt. In both cases he used to base his verdict upon what he believed to be truth. The opinion of the imam toward the narrator is another factor. One imam may consider a narrator fully reliable, but another may have doubts about the same narrator and consequently refrain from taking what he has transmitted in full confidence. Also, a cause of difference lies in assessing the evidence of ahkam; some give precedence to people's practices over ahadith narrated through by one single narrator, etc. For these reasons we believe that a consensus on subsidiary religious matters is not only impossible but incompatible with the nature of din, because such a demand is bound to generate rigidity and excessiveness, which are contrary to the Islamic imperatives of flexibility, facilitation, and simplicity. Doubtless, these virtues will enable Islam to meet the requirements of all times. Furthermore, we understand the reasons of those who disagree with us on subsidiary and marginal issues. Such disagreement does not affect our mutual love or cooperation, as we are all contained within the comprehensiveness of Islam. Aren't we all Muslim, required to like for our Muslim brothers what we like for ourselves? Why disagreement then, and why cannot each of us have our different opinions, and also try to reach an agreement, if possible, in an atmosphere of candor and love? The companions of the Prophet (SA'AS) had disagreed in fatwa, but that did not create any disunity or rupture. The incident of the salah and Banu Qurayzah is a case in point. If these who have known the ahkam better than us have had their disagreements, isn't it absurd that we maliciously disagree with each other on frivolous matters? If our a'immah, who more than any one else know the Qur'an and Sunnah, have had their disagreements and their debates, why cannot we do the same? If there was disagreement on even clear and well?known subsidiary issues, such as the five?times?a?day adhan, which were supported by texts and by tradition, what about the more delicate issues which are subject to opinion and deduction? We also need to remember that during the time of the Caliphate, disagreements were referred to, and settled by, the Caliph. Since there are no caliphs these days, Muslims must find a judge to which they can refer their case. Otherwise, their disagreement will lead to another disagreement. Finally, our brothers are fully aware of all this and have consequently more patience and open?mindedness. They believe that each group of people has specific knowledge and that in each da'wah there are elements of truth as well as falsity. They carefully investigate the truth and accept it, and they try with amicability to convince those who are wrong. If the latter are convinced it is indeed very good, but if they are not they remain our Muslim brothers. We ask Allah to guide us and to guide them. The above is a brief summary of Imam al Bannas views on juristic disagreements and his attitude toward them. It clearly shows his deep knowledge of Islam, of history, and of reality. I would also like to relate an ancident in al Bannas life-which could have been the experience of other 'ulama'as well-to illustrate these concepts and views. One day during Ramadan, al Banna was invited to deliver a lecture in a small village in Egypt. The people in that village were divided into two groups which held different opinions regarding the number of raka 'at in salat al tarawih. One group argued that according to the tradition of' Umar ibn al Khattab (RA'A), they should be twenty. The other group insisted that they must be eight, maintaining that it was known that the Prophet (SA'AS) never exceeded this number at any time. Accordingly, each group accused the other of bidah, and their disagreement reached a dangerous level, almost leading to open physical conflict. When al Banna arrived they agreed to refer the matter to him. The way he handled this event is instructive to all of us. He first asked: "What is the juristic status of salat al tarawih?" The answer was: "A sunnah, and those who perform it are rewarded, those who do not are not punished." He then asked: "And what is the juristic status of brotherhood among Muslims?" The people replied: "fard [Obligatory], and it is one of the fundamentals of Iman." He then concluded: "Is it therefore logical or permissible according to Shariah to abandon afard for a sunnah?. He then told them that if they preserved their brotherhood and unity and each went home and performed salat al tarawIh according to his own genuine conviction, it would indeed be far better then arguing and quarreling. When I mentioned this to some people, they said that al Bannas action was evasive?an escape from the truth, i.e., from pointing out the difference between a sunnah and a bidah. This, they insisted, is the duty of a Muslim. I replied that this is a matter where there is room for different opinions, and that although I perform eight raka 'at, I do not accuse those performing twenty of bidah. They persisted that making a decision on such matters is a duty which a Muslim must not evade. I insisted that this is true when the choice is between halal and haram, but in matters on which the juristic schools of thought have had their disagreements and, consequently, each one of us his own view, there is no need for bigotry or zealotry. Many fair Muslim ulama have clearly sanctioned this. The following quotation is from one of the .Hanabilah books entitled Sharh Ghayat al Muntaha: Whoever rejects an opinion reached by ijtihad does so because of his ignorance of the status of the mujtahidun who will be rewarded, be they right or wrong, for their laborious, timeconsuming findings in this respect. Those who follow them commit no sin, because Allah has ordained for each of them that to which his ijtihad had led him, and which becomes part of the Shariiah in that respect. There is an example in the permission to eat, out of dire necessity only, the meat of a dead animal. However, this is prohibited for a person who deliberately chooses to do so. Both of these are wellestablished juristic verdicts. Ibn Taymiyah says in al Fatawa al Misriyah: Consideration of unity [among Muslims] is the right course. The basmalah can be uttered loudly to fulfill a commendable interest. It is also advisable to abandon the preferable in order to create harmony and intimacy, just as the Prophet (SA'AS) gave up the re?building of the Ka'bah [on the foundations laid down by Ibrahim] so as not to alienate 1the people of Makkah]. The a immah, like Imam Ahmad, are of this opinion with regard to the basmalah, to replace the preferable with the acceptable in order to preserve unity. Ibn Taymiyah referred to the following hadith with regard to the building of the Ka'bah. The Prophet (SA'AS) said to 'Aishah (RA'A): "Had your ople not been in jahilyah (the attitudes and mentality of pre?Islamic time) until recently, I would have rebuilt the Ka'bah on the foundations [laid] by Ibrahim." Ibn al Qayyim also discussed the issue of qunut in Salat alfujr. Some people have considered qunut as bidah, others as supererogatory to be practised in times of hardships as well as other times. In his book Zad a1 Ma'ad, he argues that the Prophet's Sunnah sanctions qunut during the times of hardship, and that this has been accepted by hadith scholars who follow what the Prophet (SA'AS) did. They therefore did qanut at the times the Prophet (SA'AS) is known to have done qunut and abstained from it at the times he is known to have abstained from qunut They see qunut as a sunnah and abstaining from it as also a sunnah Therefore they neither object to those who continually do qanut or to those who abstain from it, and they do not consider it bidah. Ibn al Qayyim writes: A proper posture to ask Allah's blessings and to offer thanks to Him is when a person stands up after kneeling in Salah. The Prophet (SA'AS) did both in this posture. It is acceptable for the imam to utter qunut prayers these loudly so that the people behind him can hear. 'Umar ibn al Khatt.ab raised his voice when reciting the Fatihah, and so did Ibn 'Abbas during the salah for the dead in order to let people know that it is sunnah to do so. Such practices are subject to acceptable disagreement; neither those who do them nor those who refrain are blameworthy: the same applies to raising the hands during Salah, the various ways of tashahhud, adhan, iqamah, as well as the types of hajj as ifrad, qiran and tamattu' Our purpose is only to mention the Prophet's Sunnah, which is our guiding principle in this book and which we seek to investigate. Having said that, I wish to point out that I have not tried to deal with what is permissible and what is not. Our concern is with the permissible practice which the Prophet (SA'AS) used to choose for himself, and which is the best and most perfect. If we say that there is no indication in his Sunnah that he consistently performed qunut during Salat ul Fajr or uttered the basmalah loudly, this does not mean or indicate that we should consider consistency in performing them as makruh? or bidah. It only means that his guidance is the best and most perfect. Moreover, an individual is permitted to continue his salah behind an imam of a different madhhab even if he believes that the latter has done something which nullifies his ablution, or makes his salah nugatory, if the imam's madhhab permits that. Ibn Taymiyah says in al Fawakih al Adidah: Muslims are unanimous on the admissibility of performing Salah behind each other as was the practice of the Companions and the Tabi'un, as well as that of the four great jurists of Islam. Whoever rejects this practice is a straying mabtadi' who deviates from the teaching of the Quran, Sunnah, and the consensus of the Muslims. Although some of the companions and the Tabiun uttered the basmalah loudly and other did not, they nevertheless continued to perform Salah behind each other. So did Abu Hanifah and his followers, as well as al Shafi'i and others who used to perform salah behind the Malikiyah in Madinah, although the latter did not utter the basmalah, neither loudly nor in their hearts. It is said that Abu Yusuf performed Salah behind al Rashid who had been cupped.'9 Because al Imam Malik has given afatwa that there is no need to renew ablutions in thicase, Abu Yusuf continued his salah behind al Rashid. However, Ahmad ibn Hanbal was of the opinion that ablution must be done after cupping and nosebleeding. Confronted with a hypothetical situation whether a member of the congregation who notices a discharge of blood from the imam, who does not renew his ablution, should continue his Salah behind him, Ibn Hanbal said: "It is inconceivable not to perform Salah behind Said ibn al Musayyab and Malik." He then added that there are two considerations in this issue: (1) If the man is not aware of anything that invalidates the imam's Salah he should continue behind him. This is agreed upon by the forebears and the four great jurists; and (2) If he was sure that the imam has done something which renders him impure, such as touching his genitals or women out of sexual desire, cupping or vomiting, and did not renew his ablution, he then must act according to his best judgment, because this is an issue about which there is a great deal of disagreement. The majority of our forebears are of the opinion that the salah of those behind such an imam is valid. This is the opinion of Malik's madhhab, but a second opinion in al Shafi is and Abu Hanifah's. Most of Ahmad's texts support this opinion, which is the correct one.
70 Views
22:47:00 04/30/10
Rich Man, Poor Man, Marathon Man!
[LESS INFO] 70 VIEWS | ADDED 22:47:00 04/30/10
Spring has sprung in London and it's time to kick off a new season of London Landscape TV episodes.
We've just enjoyed hosting the 2010 London Marathon and on the day I went down to film along part of the route in the East end of London.
The episode starts in Poplar Park, a beautiful community park serving the relatively poor area of Poplar. Looming beyond the park, though, are the mighty towers of London's new financial district known as Canary Wharf.
The park looks peaceful, but hidden amongst the natural springtime birdsong are echoes of what sounds like music and an amplified human voice.
We observe echoes of Poplar's dark past, when some of its children died from a bomb in World War I. Now an angel watches over their memorial against a blue and white sky.
Soon we discover the source of the voices and cheering: just south of the Park is the route for the 2010 London marathon, and we watch runners plying their way along Poplar High Street. But where are they running from?
The answer lies in the mighty financial towers - the marathon runners are making their way to Poplar from Canary Wharf. So we leave the low brick housing of Poplar and arrive, via Billingsgate Market, to the home of the gleaming towers at Canary Wharf itself....
