nd military parades to showcase the phallic emblems of power, a measure of international potency is achieved. Kim Jung Il knows well that national will underwritten with implied menace can influence adversaries to sign treaty agreements and make concessions, that would be less likely to happen in the absence of these overt demonstrations of power.

Modern nations are obsessed with weaponry. At some point it makes you wonder if this doesn't speak to some profound impotence we are afraid to address. When is big, big enough? Where will it all end?

Such reflections are rhetorical at best, because nothing it seems can

Camille Paglia has had some insightful and amusing things to say on the subject of guns and penises.

She recalls a time during her adolescence when she stumbled upon a comic that depicted an infantryman with one hand gripping a gun and his other hand gripping his penis as he shouted - "this is my rifle; this is my gun. One is for shooting; the other's for fun!"

There is no doubt though that gun ownership and by extension the ownership of high tech weaponry influences how we view both individuals and nations. Size does count. The bigger the missile, the greater the clout.

Despite all of the high sounding talk about the brotherhood of man and the many tokens we lay at the feet of the new internationalism - that some associate with the UN and the work of cross-border NGO's - the fact remains, weaponry still calls the shots when it comes to power and influence. The larger the arsenal ... the greater your presumed potency.

The psychology behind shows of power certainly suggests that it's the aggressors who have the whip hand. It was interesting to watch the fall-out following the poisoning death of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko. The trail of evidence led back to Moscow, and Putin was less than transparent in the manner in which he responded to the investigation. Many people have little doubt he was involved at some level in the killing of Litvinenko and other dissidents - most of whom had an issue with his quasi-dictatorial style of governing. Has the perception that Putin aids and abets the murder of his political opponents hurt his image abroad? Not in the least. He is still after all a head of a state with oil reserves to exploit and most are eager to stroke him the right way. Much like a mafia don, the legend of his ruthless ways precedes him, and in the eyes of some, even adds a touch of glamor.

People who engage in ruthless behavior and get away with it, acquire an aura of power that the less ruthless seem eager to accommodate, and even cater to.

I came across an interview with a member of the crips who said that at one time he was "a zero", but when he became a gang banger and armed he got respect. By stepping out and choosing the wild side, he discovered that a lot of people are easily manipulated by a player who is obviously "connected" and dangerous to know.

Kim Jung Il's tantrums and provocative missile testing, is all about intimidation. The message is that despite the weakness of N. Korea in every other regard, with weapons and military parades to showcase the phallic emblems of power, a measure of international potency is achieved. Kim Jung Il knows well that national will underwritten with implied menace can influence adversaries to sign treaty agreements and make concessions, that would be less likely to happen in the absence of these overt demonstrations of power.

Modern nations are obsessed with weaponry. At some point it makes you wonder if this doesn't speak to some profound impotence we are afraid to address. When is big, big enough? Where will it all end?

Such reflections are rhetorical at best, because nothing it seems can d

k about the brotherhood of man and the many tokens we lay at the feet of the new internationalism - that some associate with the UN and the work of cross-border NGO's - the fact remains, weaponry still calls the shots when it comes to power and influence. The larger the arsenal ... the greater your presumed potency.

The psychology behind shows of power certainly suggests that it's the aggressors who have the whip hand. It was interesting to watch the fall-out following the poisoning death of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko. The trail of evidence led back to Moscow, and Putin was less than transparent in the manner in which he responded to the investigation. Many people have little doubt he was involved at some level in the killing of Litvinenko and other dissidents - most of whom had an issue with his quasi-dictatorial style of governing. Has the perception that Putin aids and abets the murder of his political opponents hurt his image abroad? Not in the least. He is still after all a head of a state with oil reserves to exploit and most are eager to stroke him the right way. Much like a mafia don, the legend of his ruthless ways precedes him, and in the eyes of some, even adds a touch of glamor.

People who engage in ruthless behavior and get away with it, acquire an aura of power that the less ruthless seem eager to accommodate, and even cater to.

I came across an interview with a member of the crips who said that at one time he was "a zero", but when he became a gang banger and armed he got respect. By stepping out and choosing the wild side, he discovered that a lot of people are easily manipulated by a player who is obviously "connected" and dangerous to know.

Kim Jung Il's tantrums and provocative missile testing, is all about intimidation. The message is that despite the weakness of N. Korea in every other regard, with weapons and military parades to showcase the phallic emblems of power, a measure of international potency is achieved. Kim Jung Il knows well that national will underwritten with implied menace can influence adversaries to sign treaty agreements and make concessions, that would be less likely to happen in the absence of these overt demonstrations of power.

Modern nations are obsessed with weaponry. At some point it makes you wonder if this doesn't speak to some profound impotence we are afraid to address. When is big, big enough? Where will it all end?

Such reflections are rhetorical at best, because nothing it seems can

nner in which he responded to the investigation. Many people have little doubt he was involved at some level in the killing of Litvinenko and other dissidents - most of whom had an issue with his quasi-dictatorial style of governing. Has the perception that Putin aids and abets the murder of his political opponents hurt his image abroad? Not in the least. He is still after all a head of a state with oil reserves to exploit and most are eager to stroke him the right way. Much like a mafia don, the legend of his ruthless ways precedes him, and in the eyes of some, even adds a touch of glamor.

People who engage in ruthless behavior and get away with it, acquire an aura of power that the less ruthless seem eager to accommodate, and even cater to.

I came across an interview with a member of the crips who said that at one time he was "a zero", but when he became a gang banger and armed he got respect. By stepping out and choosing the wild side, he discovered that a lot of people are easily manipulated by a player who is obviously "connected" and dangerous to know.

Kim Jung Il's tantrums and provocative missile testing, is all about intimidation. The message is that despite the weakness of N. Korea in every other regard, with weapons and military parades to showcase the phallic emblems of power, a measure of international potency is achieved. Kim Jung Il knows well that national will underwritten with implied menace can influence adversaries to sign treaty agreements and make concessions, that would be less likely to happen in the absence of these overt demonstrations of power.

Modern nations are obsessed with weaponry. At some point it makes you wonder if this doesn't speak to some profound impotence we are afraid to address. When is big, big enough? Where will it all end?

Such reflections are rhetorical at best, because nothing it seems can

behavior and get away with it, acquire an aura of power that the less ruthless seem eager to accommodate, and even cater to.

I came across an interview with a member of the crips who said that at one time he was "a zero", but when he became a gang banger and armed he got respect. By stepping out and choosing the wild side, he discovered that a lot of people are easily manipulated by a player who is obviously "connected" and dangerous to know.

Kim Jung Il's tantrums and provocative missile testing, is all about intimidation. The message is that despite the weakness of N. Korea in every other regard, with weapons and military parades to showcase the phallic emblems of power, a measure of international potency is achieved. Kim Jung Il knows well that national will underwritten with implied menace can influence adversaries to sign treaty agreements and make concessions, that would be less likely to happen in the absence of these overt demonstrations of power.

Modern nations are obsessed with weaponry. At some point it makes you wonder if this doesn't speak to some profound impotence we are afraid to address. When is big, big enough? Where will it all end?

Such reflections are rhetorical at best, because nothing it seems can

nd military parades to showcase the phallic emblems of power, a measure of international potency is achieved. Kim Jung Il knows well that national will underwritten with implied menace can influence adversaries to sign treaty agreements and make concessions, that would be less likely to happen in the absence of these overt demonstrations of power.

Modern nations are obsessed with weaponry. At some point it makes you wonder if this doesn't speak to some profound impotence we are afraid to address. When is big, big enough? Where will it all end?

Such reflections are rhetorical at best, because nothing it seems can divide us from the devotion to weaponry and the will to power.