Tips Guides

Greek Fire, also known as Byzantine Fire, Greek Byzantine Fire, and Sea Fire, was a terrifying naval weapon mastered by the Greeks and the Byzantines during early Medieval times.

This may be the earliest form of naval napalm, and allowed their ships to fight with fire, with some claims that there was so much fire that it seemed like they could light the water itself.

The Byzantines usually used it in naval battles to great effect, and their opponents’ ships generally couldn’t escape it since the Greek fire would continue to burn, even on water. As the fire spread, more and more ships would be consumed by the fire.

By what few surviving historical accounts we have left, Greek fire could continue burning even on water and was largely responsible for many Byzantine military victories, extending the life of the empire several centuries.

During many early battles with Islamic nations over Constantinople, victory was assured only because Greek fire could not be countered, and was used to devastating effect.

What is really interesting is that accounts have the fire being transmitted in streams of fire from enemy ships, almost like a flame thrower. The exact formula for this naval medieval weapon was a secret, and actually remains a mystery to this day.

Scientists can only guess as to what it was, and how it was shot in a flame thrower form. The funny thing is, they really have no clue, showing that in some ways, our ancestors were certainly had technologies we don’t have today!

There are varying accounts of where Greek fire came from, though many believe that it was invented in Constantinople by chemists who studied the early sciences. Accounts say putting water on the fire only spread it more widely, leading many historians to believe it was some form of oil.

While Greek fire gave the Byzantines a frightening weapon, they fell because they were surrounded on all sides, and eventually just ran out of population. This Greek fire was used against barbarians, Muslim invaders, and the Rus–not to mention the Venetians when the Fourth Crusade decided to sack Constantinople instead of continuing on.

Everyone knew to fear Greek fire, and it probably had the same effect that a well hidden sniper has on enemy forces in modern times.

The major down side was that Greek fire was very hard to control, and it would often accidentally set Byzantine ships ablaze, and an occasional accident could result in huge casualties in their own armies.

The effectiveness of Greek fire was obvious, but even so it had its own limitations. For example, because of its short range it was far more effective as a weapon in narrow straights or canals than in the open seas where there was room to maneuver.

From what we know, whatever the ingredients were, they were heated in a cauldron, and then pumped out of the ship in a fiery stream. Some degree of this was adapted for city use, and used in early “grenade” like form: terrifying cavalry and soldiers alike.

If you liked this article, please feel free to visit my Medieval Weapons.

When presidential candidates are asked why they are running they invariably say something like “I’m bursting with so much love for this great country and its people that running for President is the only patriotic thing to do”. These candidates are also quick to assure us that they do not simply love our country in the abstract, they love each and every one of us personally.

Of course our candidates are human (with the possible exceptions of Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton), so they do tend to love some of us more than others. While sometimes I feel a little bit slighted by this, I am comforted by the fact that politicians show special affection for America’s special victims. This is evidenced by the fact that every stump speech now includes a reference to a tale of at least one hapless citizen that provides the candidate with that extra motivation to soldier on to victory. Every presidential candidate nowadays is winning one for the “Gipper”.

George Gipp was just an unlucky football player. Today’s special victims have to have encountered evil forces that threaten the foundations of the republic. They also had to pass through metal detectors and encountered the candidate long enough to relate their tales of woe. This is more of a challenge than you might think, because listening closely and attentively to other people is not a skill that most politicians have in any great abundance.

It is also clear that not every victim’s tale of woe makes it into a candidate’s stump speech. We would never hear the candidates recount problems like, “your secret service detail had my car towed” or, “I don’t want to be photographed shaking your hand at this restaurant because the woman sitting next to me is not my wife.” Nay, such ordinary complaints do not warrant mention.

In order to make it into a stump speech as a special victim, a tale of woe cannot be trivial. It must be truly awful and most importantly it must underscore the correctness of the candidate’s campaign platform. Not surprisingly then, different political platforms call for different special victims. Republican special victims do not suffer the same woes as Democratic special victims.

From a Republican candidate you might hear about someone like this: ” I am running for President to help folks like Louella Farnsworth. Louella’s late husband Quincy was a great American innovator and entrepreneur. He invented the self fastening American flag lapel pin that I now proudly wear. Sadly Quincy’s company became the victim of a frivolous lawsuit brought by a rapacious trial attorney who falsely alleged that the pin was manufactured with trace metals that caused a rare but deadly skin condition”.

“Despite the frivolity of the claim, a punitive and compensatory damage judgment in excess of $100 million dollars was awarded and Quincy lost his company and most of his fortune. Disheartened and distressed by this gross miscarriage of justice, Quincy sank into a deep depression and died shortly thereafter”.

“Louella next suffered yet another calamity, this time at the hands of the IRS. Down to her last $50 million dollars in assets, she had to pay fully 40% in death taxes, leaving her not only heartbroken but nearly destitute. When I met Louella at a town meeting, with tears in her eye she pressed into my hand one of her few remaining $1,000 bills not taken by trial attorneys and the IRS. So ladies and gentlemen, I fight on not for myself but for those like the Farnsworths who were victimized by rapacious trial attorneys and the IRS”.

From the Democratic candidate you might hear about someone like this:” I am running for President for folks like Mavis Smith,a 70 year old former school teacher living on a fixed income in Cleveland. Last summer she was walking her beloved beagle, Bugle Boy, outside an abandoned chemical plant that had shut down and relocated to Mexico, costing Cleveland over 2,500 jobs. Her beloved dog accidentally waded into a toxic waste pool that the EPA failed to detect because of the administration’s war on the environment”.

“Bugle Boy was left gravely sick. Mavis dipped into her food budget to pay for the steep vet bills to save his life. Bugle Boy pulled through but several months later in an effort to economize Mavis bought a “Big Box” store brand of tainted dog food imported from China. And Bugle Boy died. I met Mavis a few weeks ago at a town meeting and she pressed Bugle Boy’s dog collar into my hand and told me not to forget. So ladies and gentlemen, I fight on not for myself but for those like Mavis Smith”.

Michael Sack Elmaleh is a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Valuation Analyst. His book, “Financial Accounting: A Mercifully Brief Introduction”, has received wide critical acclaim. He has nearly 30 years of accounting and 10 years of teaching experience.His web site is understand-accounting.net

This surely cannot be a good time for any new bod in government to try and prove himself? A recession is threatening the world over and all leaders are being held responsible but take a closer look. This has to be one of the hardest jobs on earth and we all need to remember that, although the buck stops firmly with the leaders, they are only human and we all need to do our bit.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been greeted with mixed feelings. His popularity among the ladies is no secret and he is on his third marriage, two of which were statuesque models so he must have certain something. He has been ribbed for his fashion statements but surely this is of no concern to us? If he runs his country well and does his best for the people of France, why should anyone care what watch or suit he wears?

More important are his political views on how he can help the economy so that it doesn’t get sucked into the downward spiral of recession with no foreseeable way out. Sarkozy wants to revive the work ethic and this hasn’t been that popular. But at the expense of losing popularity he knows that hard work is essential to re-building the economy.

Sarkozy has also introduced the idea of French leaseback. Tax allowances on French leaseback properties are to encourage more people into businesses of their own. It also goes a long way to making the nation a nation of property owners, one of Sarkozy’s visions and not such an easy target with today’s property market like it is.

A French leaseback property will provide tax advantages to those buying property with a view to providing an accommodation service to others. It is a way of easing the housing situation for those in need, such as students and the elderly and provides the investor with a way of saving huge amounts on a property while leaving themselves with a retirement place for the future.

As well as the property advantages, it also encourages the work ethic and opens the way for foreign investors. Overseas residents who wish to invest in a French leaseback property are free to do so, enjoying the same tax advantages as the French and also having the added advantage of possibly providing jobs to the French.
Sarkozys opinions on immigrants have left the people of France divided. Whilst wishing to curb illegal immigration, he also wants to integrate skilled migrants into French society. I, for one, cannot see the problem in this and think he has the right idea.

Or, he could behave like the British and just let anyone in to do whatever they want and not contribute towards the good of the country.

The French premier’s understanding of immigration is obvious when you look at his background as the son of a Hungarian immigrant and French mother of Greek Jewish decent. He grew up in France, training as a lawyer but has typically British political leanings. Maybe this early education aided his attitude towards French leaseback which not only helps his own nation but foreigners who wish to invest in his country.

Known country wide as a hard worker, Mr Sarkozy is a fine example for any government to follow - not taking the easiest, most popular route but knowing his own mind and his own country and following his own ideas to the best of his ability. And surely this is why he got the job in the first place.

Political expert Catherine Harvey looks at the way President Sarkozy is using French leaseback opportunities to help his citizens and others.

There were no Catholics in our town before JFK. If there were, none of the kids in my gang knew about them. It was rumored that they had a church in town somewhere behind the local A & P, but I never found it. I was already in my teens before I saw my first real life Catholic. He didn’t look much different than me, but my mother acted like I had spoken to the anti-Christ himself!

As a kid growing up in the south in the early ’60s, our church was the spiritual center of our universe. My family was all Southern Baptists, as were most of my friends. A few acquaintances of mine went to the Methodist Church and one to a Church of God. We just didn’t know any Catholics and probably would’ve been afraid of them if one had showed up on our door step.

I don’t think they were really hiding; it’s just that no one paid them any attention. That all changed when John F. Kennedy became President of the United States of America! My Sunday School teacher at that time, speaking for many in the south, declared in a fearful voice that the 1960 presidential race could mean the end to Christianity as we knew it! There was a catholic running for that high office and as far as she was concerned, he was the devil himself and she knew without a doubt that we would all go to hell if he were elected!

The Bible belt at that time was against anyone or anything that promised change. John Kennedy wasn’t a Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ or even Pentecostal! He was an outsider and not to be trusted with the leadership of our country!

These sentiments belonged to many in the south during that decade and they weren’t confined to Sunday school teachers. Social changes are often served on the same platter with fear of the unknown. A different wind was definitely blowing through our southern cotton fields.

With President Kennedy in the White House, attitudes in the south slowly began to change; not over night. There was civil unrest in many parts of the country, a war in Viet Nam and we began to find Catholics everywhere in our little town! In fact, folks we’d known for years were now proudly admitting to being Catholic! This was part of the change that was taking place throughout the country.

Most of the crowd I ran with, having been sheltered from anything that might have been considered social or spiritual advancement, soon found that our newly discovered Catholic friends were still the good folks they were before JFK! One of my pals at the time went to Mass every Sunday but I never knew that until after the John Kennedy was elected president.

Sadly in the south, President John F. Kennedy was blamed for every perceived difficulty that anyone faced at that time. While not through his first term as president, he was assassinated in Dallas, Texas one bright November afternoon in 1963.

Everyone who was living at that time knows exactly where and what they were doing when they heard news of the shooting. I was working for a residential construction company at the time, carrying unused concrete blocks to the back of the house we were building, where they would be hauled to the next job.

We had a radio setting on a stack of brick and George Jones was singing when the music was interrupted by a somber voice telling us that President Kennedy had been shot an hour before in Texas.

I recall as vividly as if it were yesterday that there was a dozen laborers and brick masons working, including me, when the announcement was made. There was a moment of shocked silence and then a loud and raucous cheer went up from the laborers and brick masons working on the house.

“I hope the S.O.B. dies!” yelled one of them.
“They ought to give the guy who shot him a medal!” screamed another.
“It’s about time someone had the guts to kill that S.O.B.” shouted a guy with a shovel in his hands.

Those were a few of the nicer comments from a blue collar working crew in the south at the time. I’ve often wondered if President Kennedy had announced that he was a Baptist, Methodist or Presbyterian, would he have sparked such outrage in the south. Maybe, maybe not. I guess I’ll never know.

Bob Alexander is well experienced in outdoor cooking, fishing and leisure living. Bob is also the author and owner of this article. Visit his sites at:
http://www.redfishbob.com
http://www.bluemarlinbob.com

We all know our Earth is in serious trouble. If there is one person who can really turn around things in our country it is the president. With elections round the corner and a line-up of presidential candidates, don’t all of us want to know who truly supports the green movement? Here’s a run down on the top candidates and their perspective of the environment:

Hillary Clinton
She has been known for citing serious environmental hazards in all of her speeches. However, it wasn’t until late 2007 that she actually drafted a comprehensive solution to the problem. This plan is essentially more like a cap trade mechanism which aims at reducing emissions by as much as 80%! A two-pronged approach focusing on investment and efficiency seems to be the primary strategy as of now. While the efficiency focus deals with elevating standards on vehicles, buildings etc. investment would focus on aspects like hybrids that are pluggable and also ensuring carbon seizures. Plans are also in the initial stages to form a NEC (National Energy Council) of sorts in order to segregate the responsibilities amongst agencies of the federal government. Clinton’s plan is pretty similar to the other presidential candidate lineups. However, it remains to be seen if any real implementation happens.

Barack Obama
Barack has been seen touting the usage of liquefied coal at one point which earned him a black mark amongst the green movers. Throughout his campaign he did not really devote time to focus on aspects about the environment or energy. It was only later during October 2007 that he finally released a detailed plan on energy conservation. In addition to the cap trade system promoted by Clinton, Obama also cited an investment of 150 billion to facilitate more green employment opportunities. His detailed plan also enlists aspects on improving efficiency creating a smarter electricity grid system and promoting public transportation.

John McCain
John McCain has been one of the few presidential candidates to truly voice his opinion on global warming issues. In 2003 he brought out the Climate Stewardship Act which was produced in 2005 and yet again in 2007. This proposal also focused on cap trade mechanisms while also cutting down emissions by 65%. He believes fuel efficiency must be raised in a gradual fashion instead of taking dramatic steps to change the existing system.

Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader is an Independent but has managed to carve a name for himself as far as environment protection measures are concerned. In the initial days of his career he started a movement that aimed at getting consumer protection and environment laws passed in parliament. He was also instrumental in getting acts such as Clean Water and Clean Air passed. Till date Nader has voiced his opinion strongly against the funding in favor of nuclear supplies. In addition Nader is also strongly against industries that pollute the environment. He believes aspects like imposition of carbon tax will help protect the environment to a certain extent. He also advocates the usage of solar power as an alternative fuel source.

Modernecohomes.com, offers a wide range of eco friendly office furniture and certified organic products. To stay up to date with the latest eco-friendly news, please visit this great eco friendly blog.

The deregulation of an industry only happens once, but in the case of energy (electric and natural gas services) it is a slow-release process migrating from state to state.

Energy deregulation revolves around the concept of allowing competition into the market place, giving consumers a choice of electricity and/or natural gas suppliers.

The $220 billion energy industry has been referred to as “the last great government-sanctioned monopoly.” To break it down simply, up until a few years ago, when you moved into a new house or apartment, you had only one option in energy provider whether you liked it or not.

Since the 1990s, however, in several states consumers have had a choice in energy providers, thus opening the market up to competition and driving down overall rates; but has it worked?

In Pennsylvania, electricity consumers were given choice starting in 1998, and by the end of 1999, nearly 500,000 residents had chosen a competitor over the local incumbent provider. On average, consumers who chose a competitive electric company were still getting the same service and reliability over the same physical lines, but at an average of $10 less per month.

On the flip side, California’s rush into energy deregulation in 1996 took a much different turn. Not long after the plan was voted into law, price gouging began to sour the pallets of many would-be money saving consumers, and within 2 years, lawmakers there sought to repeal deregulation legislation. Those measures failed, and by 2000, the price of electricity in California nearly doubled for residents of some communities. By early 2001, the electric utilities faced financial hardships to the point where electricity shortages occurred.

Good or bad, positive or negative, many states are still pushing the issue of energy deregulation. A couple have deregulated electricity in recent years to rousing success, including Texas and New York. Georgia and Illinois are moving forward in the deregulation of natural gas.

The key seems to be in a careful and slow approach, ensuring that competitive electric and natural gas companies seeking to do business within a particular state are able to meet standards of quality and customer service, as well as financial responsibility.
Illinois, for example, has allowed natural gas customers choice since 1993, though approval processes have been methodical and standards strict in order to protect consumers. This has created a very slow trickle effect that protects residents from companies doing under-handed business.

Consumers in Illinois still bare some responsibility and are encouraged to research any natural gas provider they plan to switch to. In addition, consumers are not encouraged to sign long-term contracts with new providers as this will lock them in and keep them from taking advantage of future savings.
Whether you are for or against the deregulation of electricity and natural gas, you should research the concept fully in light of your state’s provisions and make a decision based on the needs of your budget and family.

In short, deregulation of energy can benefit the consumer, as long as the deregulation process itself is well-regulated.

Al Haneson blogs about Illinois issues and life at Ambit Illinois Natural Gas and Midwest Lawn Tips