“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
by: Henry Kissinger (1923- ) Former US Secretary of State Source: Speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting.
What Is A Suitable Wedding Present?
As the poster-child for bad wedding etiquette I have found myself, once again, in the dreaded “wedding gift dilemma”.
What do you get the “happy” couple on the blessed day? A crock pot? A new car? Cash?
What is the correct gift and exactly how is this vital decision arrived at logically and practically?
I have decided that the best course of action is to base the gift on the characteristics of the couple themselves.
Key points of consideration in this case;
- Both are government employees
- Both are in their first marriage “experience”
- The marriage is viewed as a necessary prerequisite for children
- They have a dog
- The gender roles of the individuals are reversed in the relationship
- They completely coincidentally and accidentally bought my first house
To move the process forward, gifts for each individual characteristic should be assessed;
- Government Employees
- Ideal Gift – Nothing.. They are already spoiled.
- Practical Gift – Crock Pot
- First marriage “Experience”
- Ideal Gift – “Nerf” kitchenware and other “throw-able” household objects
- Practical Gift – Crock Pot
- Marriage As Child Prerequisite
- Ideal Gift – Gift Certificate For Vasectomy
- Practical Gift – Crock Pot (full of condoms)
- Ideal Gift – A cat
- Practical Gift – A leash (no symbolism here! J).. maybe in a Crock Pot
- Reversed Gender Roles
- Ideal Gift – Interchangeable Testicles
- Practical Gift – A “Strap-On” Penis (of dimensions comfortable for whomever decides to play the female)
- Own My First House
- Ideal Gift – Several sticks of dynamite
- Practical Gift – A Crock Pot full of oily rags and a lighter
Based on the preceding sound and reasonable assessment, it would make sense that a Crock Pot would be the best compromise and the ideal gift for the couple.
Whew! Logic and reason to the rescue again!
… I’ll just give them $50 bucks…. so they can pick out their own Crock Pot!
How to loose friends and not influence people.
Human nature is an abstract term, although you would think that it would be an easily definable and identifiable thing. After all, we’re all human and our “nature” should be intimately familiar.
If this was so simple, then we would all understand each other and there would be no need for psychology, psychiatry and the myriad of other “social sciences” for which I could devote an entirely separate rant. We would all get along and inter-personal relationships would be easy.
This particular babble is the result of my circle of close friends constricting and the realization that human nature is as irresistible a force as gravity itself. Let me start by describing how my particular inter-personal relationships work; you are simply either on the “inside” or the “outside”. An oversimplification you say? Nope. Think about this binary classification system thoroughly for a second and try to come up with a better way. My relationships are either high level, or they are not. This is not to say that there can’t be further classifications within those two groups, but the simple dividing line still makes sense. High level relationships could also be called “inner circle” relationships and are the ones where you let people “in” and develop a trust/bond with that person. Examples of this are family relations, romantic relations and close friends. All others are on the outside.
See…. very simple.
Also interwoven into these two categories are two very separate sets of criteria; two very different expectations. The “inner circle” requires a mutual trust, respect and accountability as well as all those intangible factors that bring people together in the first place. The outside simply requires a recognition of the other person’s existence.
Now for the catch, at least in my twisted view of the world, the “inner circle” is earned, and is neither an entitlement nor a permanent assignment. The term “what have you done for me lately” is very apt in this case as this position requires maintenance and ongoing consideration. This shouldn’t seem surprising as this is a similar component of a romantic relationship. I just apply this to everyone. Inner circle people can be “dumped” and re-categorized as “outside” just like a bad romantic relationship. At this point I should bring human nature into the equation. Specifically, the tendency of people to exploit other people where it suites them, do things in their own best interest, and what I like to call the “leopards don’t change their spots” phenomenon. None of these traits mesh well in my ‘inner circle” but are quite common on the “outside”.
In keeping with the title of this rant, I am a person who simply gives all of himself to the people on the inside. I would give a vital organ if needed. However, I also have the tortuous tendency to let people “in” based on expectation, not merit, and this has recently “bit me in the ass” twice. I too often overlook the “human nature” component, much to my detriment. In my opinion, the people on the “inside” MUST (not should) be there for you when you need them. It doesn’t matter how big, or small, the issue or how often you need them, but they must come through in the times of need. If they don’t, then they shouldn’t be on the “inside”, where I would do whatever was necessary for them. I don’t believe that I consciously “keep score”, but I am not ignorant to obvious inequalities in a personal relationship. I also am confident that I am a “giver”, on every level, to my “inner circle” relationships and have never failed to be available in a time of need. Given my limited resources, I always do what I can.
In closing, I have proven yet again to be the “giver” to far too many “takers” and have come to regret the personal investment and the naive perseverance. It is also fair to say that I miss those people, each in a different way, but I also know that I cannot change and maintaining them on the “inside” would only result in me giving more, and them taking more, all culminating in my eventual disappointment. At least I’m wise enough to know that I can’t change anyone or influence their outlook in any meaningful way.
I very much dislike being used and/or taken advantage of for my generosity and personal investment.
So, to those of you now on the “outside”, I truly hope that you will learn to appreciate that true friends are very hard to find and must be earned, and that the measure of such is not how much “shit” they will put up with from you, but by how much better your life is with them on the “inside” as well. I miss you both and each of you have been very significant in my life, but sometimes it is about me and I’m not going to take it anymore. In the end, it appears that even my sentiment has been disproportional and I’ve been easily replaced and/or easily forgotten. Either way, it seems that I’ve made the correct decision. Only time will tell.
Trust, respect, accountability.
By Shawn Barlow
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt."
– U.S. President John Adams
"Britain is the slave of an international financial bloc."
– British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, June 20, 1934
"If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning."
– U.S. President Andrew Jackson, 1829
"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or so dependent upon its favors that there will be no opposition from that class while, on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending…will bear its burdens without complaint."
– The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863
"There is a much larger group behind these [9/11 attacks] which is the international banking cartel which controls trillions of dollars and which has an interest in controlling countries in the Middle East which are not under their control."
– Professor Steven E. Jones on KUER (Salt Lake City’s NPR affiliate), September 5, 2006
This may be my last blog entry!
To top off my obvious (and nearly famous) inabilities to manage intimate female relationships, I have been suddenly confronted with the most dangerous mixed gender situation of all. Nope.. Not a jealous husband/boyfriend (I’m pretty good with those! LOL!), not an unexpected love-child J or even surprise gender identification L… I am, unexpectedly, face-to-face with the incredibly dangerous female cougar. Unfortunately, this particular animal has tasted (my) blood before as a kitten and is keenly aware of just how much of a delicacy it is! LOL!
I have wisely decided to consider many courses of action to defend myself, such as;
– Flee…. far away
– Roll-over and play dead
– Climb a tree and wait until she gets bored and moves on
– Change my name and identity
– Get married to someone else… anyone… immediately (then divorced ASAP)
– Hire a bodyguard(s)
Upon careful analysis of all the options, I initially decided that “rolling over and playing dead” is the best course of action here, but my consultants (who obviously don’t understand women, or survival tactics, to my level) have strongly recommended that I reconsider since, depending on the necessary duration, my personal hygiene may suffer from the implementation of my preferred choice. It has been suggested that I hire a bodyguard(s) since it is practical and will have a minimal impact on my day-to-day activities throughout the stalking period.
According to policy, the preferred type of bodyguard is a female of significant attractiveness to intimidate the cougar; ideally accompanied by some legitimate sexual tension for further “taint the meat”. Since that is an unrealistic expectation (I don’t have the time or money to brainwash a “hot” hooker) I have decided to implement the bodyguard(s) “Plan B” and simply maintain a “presence” of trustworthy associates at all times while staying within well lit public places.
Wish me luck!
Hypocrisy Reigns. "The World has been taken over by Lying, Hypocritical, Mass-murdering Madmen"
by William Blum
Global Research, June 11, 2010
The Anti-Empire Report – 2010-06-10
Things internationally are so dispiriting there’s nothing left to do but fantasize. I picture Turkey, as a member of NATO, demanding that the alliance come to its defense after being attacked by Israel. Under Article 5 of the NATO charter an armed attack on one member is deemed to constitute an armed attack on all members. That is the ostensible reason NATO is fighting in Afghanistan — the attack against the United States on September 11, 2001 is regarded as an attack on all NATO members (disregarding the awkward fact that Afghanistan as a country had nothing to do with the attack). The Israeli attack on a Turkish-flagged ship, operated by a Turkish humanitarian organization, killing nine Turkish nationals and wounding many more can certainly constitute an attack upon a NATO member.
So, after the United States, the UK, Germany, France and other leading NATO members offer their ridiculous non-sequitur excuses why they can’t … umm … er … invoke Article 5, and the international media swallows it all without any indigestion, Turkey demands that Israel should at least lose its formal association with NATO as a member of the Mediterranean Dialogue. This too is dismissed with scorn by the eminent NATO world powers on the grounds that it would constitute a victory for terrorism. And anti-Semitism of course.
Turkey then withdraws from NATO. Azerbaijan and five other Central Asian members of NATO’s Partnership for Peace with Turkic constituencies do the same. NATO falls into a crisis. Remaining member countries begin to question the organization’s policies as never before … like please tell us again why our young men are killing and dying in Afghanistan, and why we send them to Kosovo and Iraq and other places the Americans deem essential to their endlessly-threatened national security.
When Vice President Biden tells the eminent conservative-in-liberal-clothing pseudo-intellectual Charlie Rose on TV that "We have put as much pressure and as much cajoling on Israel as we can to allow them [Gaza] to get building materials in,"  Rose for once rises to the occasion and acts like a real journalist, asking Biden: "Have you threatened Israel with ending all military and economic aid? … Have you put the names of Israeli officials on your list of foreigners who can not enter the United States and whose bank accounts in the US are frozen, as you’ve done with numerous foreign officials who were not supporters of the empire? … Since Israel has committed both crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity, and since these are crimes that have international jurisdiction, certain Israeli political and military personnel can be named in trials held in any country of the world. Will you be instructing the Attorney General to proceed with such an indictment? Or if some other country which is a member of the International Criminal Court calls upon the ICC to prosecute these individuals, will the United States try to block the move? … Why hasn’t the United States itself delivered building materials to Gaza?"
When Israel justifies its murders on the grounds of "self-defense", late-night TV comedians Jay Leno and David Letterman find great humor in this, pointing out that a new memoir by China‘s premier at the time of the 1989 Tiananmen Square violent suppression defends the military action by saying that soldiers acted in "self-defense" when they fired on the democracy activists. 
When Israel labels as "terrorists" the ship passengers who offered some resistance to the Israeli invaders, the New York Times points out that the passengers who resisted the 9-11 highjackers on the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania are called "heroes". (As an aside, it’s worth noting that the United States uses 9-11 as Israel uses the Holocaust — as excuse and justification for all manner of illegal and violent international behavior.)
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reminds its readers that in 2009 Israel attacked a boat on international waters carrying medical aid to Gaza with former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney aboard; and that in 1967 Israel attacked an American ship, the USS Liberty, killing 34 and wounding about 173, and that President Johnson did then just what President Obama is doing now and would have done then — nothing.
And finally, Secretary of State Clinton declares that she’s had a revelation. She realizes that what she recently said about North Korea when it was accused of having torpedoed a South Korean warship applies as well to Israel. Mrs. Clinton had demanded that Pyongyang "stop its provocative behavior, halt its policy of threats of belligerence towards its neighbors, and take irreversible steps to fulfill its denuclearization commitments and comply with international law."  She adds that the North Korean guilt is by no means conclusive, while Israel doesn’t deny its attack on the ship at all; moreover, it’s not known for sure if North Korea actually possesses nuclear weapons, whereas there’s no uncertainty about Israel’s large stockpile.
So there you have it. Hypocrisy reigns. Despite my best fantasizing. Is hypocrisy a moral failing or a failure of the intellect? When President Obama says, as he has often, "No one is above the law" and in his next breath makes it clear that his administration will not seek to indict Bush or Cheney for any crimes, does he think that no one will notice the contradiction, the hypocrisy? That’s a callous disregard for public opinion and/or a dumbness worthy of his predecessor.
And when he declares: "The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground",  does it not occur to him at all that he’s predicting a bleak outlook for the United States? Or that his conscious, deliberate policy is to increase the size of America‘s army and its stockpile of missiles?
Comrades, can the hypocrisy and the lies reach such a magnitude that enough American true believers begin to question their cherished faith, so that their number reaches a critical mass and explodes? Well, it’s already happened with countless Americans, but it’s an awfully formidable task keeping pace with what is turned out by the mass media and education factories. They’re awfully good at what they do. Too bad. But don’t forsake the struggle. What better way is there to live this life? And remember, just because the world has been taken over by lying, hypocritical, mass-murdering madmen doesn’t mean we can’t have a good time.
Bad guys and good guys
In Lahore, Pakistan, reported the Washington Post on May 29, "Militants staged coordinated attacks … on two mosques of a minority Muslim sect, taking hostages and killing at least 80 people. … At least seven men armed with grenades, high-powered rifles and suicide vests stormed the mosques as Friday prayers ended."
Nice, really nice, very civilized. It’s no wonder that decent Americans think that this is what the United States is fighting against — Islamic fanatics, homicidal maniacs, who kill their own kind over some esoteric piece of religious dogma, who want to kill Americans over some other imagined holy sin, because we’re "infidels". How can we reason with such people? Where is the common humanity the naive pacifists and anti-war activists would like us to honor?
And then we come to the very last paragraph of the story: "Elsewhere in Pakistan on Friday, a suspected U.S. drone-fired missile struck a Taliban compound in the South Waziristan tribal area, killing eight, according to two officials in the region." This, we are asked to believe by our leaders, is a higher level of humanity. The United States does this every other day, sending robotic death machines called Predators flying over Afghanistan and Pakistan, to send Hellfire missiles screaming into wedding parties, funerals, homes, not knowing who the victims are, not caring who the victims are, many hundreds of them by now, as long as Washington can claim each time — whether correctly or not — that amongst their number was a prominent infidel, call him Taliban, or al Qaeda, or insurgent, or militant. How can one reason with such people, the ones in the CIA who operate the drone flights? What is the difference between them and a suicide bomber? The suicide bomber becomes one of the victims himself and sees his victims up close before killing them. The CIA murderer bomber sits safely in a room in Nevada or California and pretends he’s playing a video game, then goes out to dinner while his victims lay dying. The suicide bomber believes passionately in something called paradise. The murderer bomber believes passionately in something called flag and country.
The State Department’s Legal Advisor justifies the Predator bombings as … yes, "self-defense". 5 Try reasoning with that.
These American drone bombings are of course the height of aggression, the ultimate international crime. They were used over Iraq as well beginning in the 1990s. In December 2002, shortly before the US invasion in March, the Iraqis finally managed to shoot one down. This prompted a spokesman for the US Central Command, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East, to call it another sign of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s "campaign of military aggression." 6
This particular piece of hypocrisy may have actually been outdone by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s comment about the US flights and bombings over Iraq during that period: "It bothers the dickens out of me that US and British pilots are getting fired at day after day after day, with impunity." 7
Send me a stamped self-addressed envelope for a copy of the revised edition of "An arsonist’s guide to the homes of Pentagon officials".
When politicians misbehave. By speaking the truth.
The German president, Horst Koehler, resigned last week because he said something government officials are not supposed to say. He said that Germany was fighting in Afghanistan for economic reasons. No reference to democracy. Nothing about freedom. Not a word about Good Guys fighting Bad Guys. The word "terrorism" was not mentioned at all. Neither was "God". On a trip to German troops in Afghanistan he had declared that a country such as Germany, dependent on exports and free trade, must be prepared to use military force. The country, he said, had to act "to protect our interests, for example, free trade routes, or to prevent regional instability which might certainly have a negative effect on our trade, jobs and earnings".
"Koehler has said something openly that has been obvious from the beginning," said the head of Germany‘s Left Party. "German soldiers are risking life and limb in Afghanistan to defend the export interests of big economic interests." 
Other opposition politicians had called for Koehler to take back the remarks and accused him of damaging public acceptance of German military missions abroad. 
As T.S. Eliot famously observed: "Humankind can not bear very much reality."
What is the opposite of being a conspiracy theorist?
David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker magazine and former Washington Post reporter, has a new book out, "The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama". In the three pages Remnick devotes to Obama’s 1983-4 employment at Business International Corporation in New York he makes no mention of the well-known ties between BIC and the CIA. In 1977, for example, the New York Times revealed that BIC had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries during earlier years of the Cold War;  BIC also attempted to penetrate the radical left, including Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). 
Did Remnick not think it at all interesting and worthy of mention that the future president worked for more than a year with a company that was a CIA asset? Even if the company and the CIA made no attempt to recruit Obama, which in fact they may have done? It’s this kind of obvious omission that helps feed the left’s conspiracy thinking.
Because Remnick has impeccable establishment credentials the book has been widely reviewed. But none of the many reviewers has seen fit to mention this omission. And the way it works of course is that if it’s not mentioned, it didn’t happen. And if you mention such a thing, you’re a pathetic conspiracy theorist. Like me, who discussed it in the January edition of this report. 
William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir, Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire, Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org
1. Charlie Rose Live, June 2, 2010 program
3. State Department press conference, May 24, 2010
4. Talk given in Moscow, July 7, 2009, text released by the White House
5. National Public Radio, March 26, 2010
6. Washington Post, December 24, 2002
7. Associated Press, September 30, 2002
8. London Times Online, May 31, 2010
9. Associated Press, May 31, 2010
10. New York Times, December 27, 1977, p.40
12. William Blum, The Anti-Empire Report, January 3rd, 2009
By Shawn Barlow
Every once and a while, even in my advancing years, I get a “wake-up call” that seems to trigger a cascade of introspective self-analysis. Out of the resulting epiphany of universal wisdom, I occasionally come to the conclusion that my conventional positions are wrong, have been wrong, and will continue to be wrong. This puts me in the difficult position of having to admit that I was wr… wro…. wro.. wron…. wrong; ..sort of like the “Fonz” in Happy Days.
My latest realization is in the category of personal relationships and general human nature. These are the worst kinds of epiphanies because they not only invoke the disappointment associated with simply being wro… wron.. wrong, but tend to overlap into the emotional world and all that related crap.
Here is the short form;
Despite best efforts, people are “who they are” and they won’t/can’t change.
Here is a longer form… as a popular metaphoric story;
One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.
Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.
"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"
"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you won’t try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.
"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"
Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"
"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!"
"Alright then…how do I know you won’t just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.
"Ahh…," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"
So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog’s back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog’s soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.
Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drowning frog’s back.
"I could not help myself. It is my nature."
Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.
Self-destruction.. "It’s in my nature" … said the scorpion..
Ok… I’m assuming that I haven’t really succeeded in clarifying any wisdom.. just presented a little easily digestible philosophy. The most important thing to get from this rant is that this is actually wise! No doubt we all have a scorpion/frog story (or several) that we can attribute solely and inarguably to the inherent human traits of hoping and caring.
At the end of the day, we will never stop giving those scorpions a ride. Fortunately, most of us have built up a partial immunity to the venom so it usually takes more than one sting to drown us. The trick is being aware of just where that threshold is and getting that scorpion off our backs before that last, fatal jab.
I made it to shore… and my back is killing me!
Fri, 14 May 2010 08:18 EDT
London – Leaked reports reveal that on Wednesday, début Hawaiian novelist Barack Hussein Obama II, 49, will win the Lost Man Booker Prize, one of the world’s most prestigious literary awards, with "No Peace for the wicked!". It will be the first time in it’s 41-year history that an unwritten book will claim the award.
He will receive a designer bound copy of his novel (once it is published) at a gala dinner in London and can expect not only overnight literary fame but also a sharp rise in much needed popularity he has lost in the run-up to House of Representatives and Senate elections.
The Lost Man Booker Prize is a one-off prize to honour the books which missed out on the opportunity to win the Booker Prize in 1970.
To pre-empt any potential controversy, Booker organizers have announced that they have a written certificate dated 1970 that clearly shows Obama had an intention to write a book about peace one day. The organizers have stated however, that this certificate will never be released to the public and they should just take their word for it.
No Peace for the Wicked! is a semi-autobiographic novel that follows Barack Obama, the son of a government economist in Kenya, whose dream of winning a Nobel Peace prize takes him on a journey to the bright lights of Iraq and Afghanistan, where he will do almost anything to make sure continued failed promises of withdrawal enable American’s to believe that war, is in fact, peace.
"It was important for me to show the American people that I am worthy of a Nobel Peace prize by winning a prestigious award for a book about peace that I have yet to write," Obama will tell reporters after the awards ceremony.
"The book will tell the story of how troop surges to occupied lands create peace and tranquillity. How predator drones’ indiscriminate slaughtering of women and children can be joked about with Jay Leno and help everyone learn about American freedom and democracy. There’s been a need for a book like this," he added.
On October 9, 2009, Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Obama accepted this award with "deep gratitude, great humility and a puzzled grin." The award drew a mixture of disbelief and criticism from world leaders and media figures for downgrading the importance of an award that was usually given to people (Kissinger and Gore being obvious exceptions) who had actually achieved something towards peace and not just said that they hoped that they would some day.
Poet and novelist Tobias Hill, one member of the three-strong judging panel, praised No Peace for the Wicked! for promising to tackle important Orwellian double-speak in modern-day police-state America.
"What set this one apart was its originality," Hill said. "For many of us this was entirely new territory – awarding a prize to a book on double-speak that we only had the title of".
"It’s a good title though, the idiom accurately reflects the authors realization that his wicked actions of continuing wars based on lies require unrelenting media efforts that give him little peace. Turning war into peace is no easy task and addresses an important social issue — the division between media fiction and the reality of CIA-lead covert operations that provide excuses to assist in persuading the public that extending the illegal occupation is necessary."
Obama was one of six novelists on the short-list for the unique Lost Man prize amongst a highly contested competition. The main Man Booker Prize, awarded in December, is the world’s most important literary award and has the power to transform the fortunes of authors and possibly presidents.
He beat bookmakers’ favorite lost man – George Bush of Texas (When We Talk About War, We’re Really Talking About Peace).
Also nominated were BP’s CEO Tony Hayward (Don’t Worry, It’s Only a Wee Drop in the Ocean), Britons Gordon Brown (Hope You Public School Boys Have a Fabulous, Romantic Honeymoon on a Budget), Michael Mann (Hide the Decline), Dick Cheney (Raiders of the Lost Government) and Donald Rumsfeld (Psycho-pathernetics – A New Way to Get More Money Out of Taxpayers).
Later this year, Obama is also set to publish his as yet unfinished non-fiction book "How to Win Friends on Wall Street and be Influenced by Big Pharma".