Paul McCartney / Memory Almost Full

(For Macca maniacs)
Since Paul McCartney's newest album "Memory Almost Full" was released on June 6th , I have soaked in his music everyday. I feel happy not only for the short interval from the former album - only two years - but also for the fulfilling and fascinating contents.

1. Dance Tonight
First, my feelings about this song are "weak" and "not suitable for the first single". This tune needs more gimmicks. It is too simple, but iPod + iTunes video featuring Paul and this tune changed my impression. This song transformed from a simple and somewhat boring song to a flowering and cute pop tune. The power of the video to my mind was strong.

2. Ever Present Past
Needless to say, the unique sound (like 80's?) and free melody lines are the characteristic of this song. My favorite point of this song is Paul's double track vocals. They show the wellness of Paul's vocals even though he is over sixty.

3. See Your Sunshine
Bass lines are remarkably charming. This song has high quality as a whole, but my ears want to chase only the bass line.

4. Only Mama Knows
I suppose that many Macca maniacs have longed for a song like this. I also have. This song has many characters of "Paul's rock music" - apparently straight and simple, but in fact having many gimmicks, what's more, so awesome! This song is one of my most favorite since I have listen to this album.

5. You Tell Me
Sorry Paul, this tune counted the lowest times played by my iPod and iTunes at the present time. I feel this song also has high quality, but I am too busy listening to the other delicious dishes.

6. Mr. Bellamy
Interesting. Paul showed us a new face of his talent. In addition to this, he composed and sang several unforgettable melodies.

7. Gratitude
Strong positive power flows from this song and its lyrics. Great. However, I feel that Paul strained to sing his high pitch vocal line. A great song but strained vocals. Whenever I listen to this song, I have complicated feelings.

8. Vintage Clothes
I love some of this song's faces - melody, lyrics, and sound composition. In particular, Paul's whistle, which reminded me of his another excellent song "Little Lamb Dragonfly"

9. That was Me
The lyrics are interesting, but the music isn't, I feel.

10. Feet in the clouds
I can't help loving this tune. Normal cutting guitar chords, simple rhymes such "-ed" and "-er", childish lyric like "very very very very very...", Paul's multi chorus changed by a vocoder: above all points fascinated me.

11. House of Wax
Personally, this song is the best for its respects of music completion degree and Paul's new frontier of music. Some of the sublimity and fear were born from this tune. Poetic deep lyrics and spirited and powerful guitar solo make the song more splendid. Paul and his band members are so great.

By the way, I have a question about this song's title for English native readers. What is "House of Wax"- Japanese translated lyrics says that it is "the house made by wax". When I googled this title, I find a horror movie "House of Wax", its Japanese title is "The house of wax figures". Which is true? or isn't the meaning clear even for English native reader?

12. The end of the End
I can't listen to this song with calm. Can Paul's other fans feel this song as an ordinarily good ballad, even though the lyrics describe Paul's life ending?

13. Nod Your Head
Yes, welcome such a "hard" rocking by Paul. Sorry for his vocals... not so strained like "Gratitude" His vocal is so strong and high even though he is over sixty years old, it's unbelievable, just not enough for this song.
On the other hand, I want Paul to write and sing hard songs. Contradiction.

Bonus Track: Why so Blue
Why is this deep song out of the album's normal tracks- I like, especially, the last half of this song, positive lyrics on minor chords. It convinced me that as Paul has gotten older he has acquired a deeper character.

Bonus Tracks: "In Private" and "222"
Both songs are boring for me. I can't find any interesting points in these tunes.

Comprehensive impression
Personally, "Memory Almost Full" is Paul's greatest album since "Flaming Pie". The former album "Chaos and the Creation in the Backyard" is also good because it showed us Paul's new music world. But I feel "monochrome" from the album. The newest album is "colorful". Paul is cheerful, deep and awesome. Only additional one would want is for Paul to do a world tour with the songs of this album.

How do Japanese think about the Pacific War?

Outline
I think most Japanese people think the Pacific War was a folly, in which the military was out of control and must not be repeated . Elder people tell us how hard life was under the war. Shortages of many things, military controlled education, hunger, fear of death. Ex-soldiers experienced pain beyond description. Their stories make us (post-war generations) believe the war is the most horrible act a human-being can participate in or condone.

Let's see the Japanese words we use now whose origins are from the old Japanese military. These words are considered to have a negative image. "Doing something like the old Japanese Army" means a reckless act without scientific and logical thinking. Due to the fact, that the old Japanese Army soldiers were educated by a self-sacrificing mind but with poor weapons and a thoughtless war plan, many of them (about two million) became victims who were killed by not only enemies but also starvation and disease. "Announcement from the old Japanese Army Headquarters" means a censored and untrue official announcement. In the Pacific War era, the Japanese Army Headquarters kept reporting war plan success to citizens. In fact, the Japanese army lost most of the area. These examples show that Japanese people think that the Pacific War was stupid.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Pearl Harbor
Japanese people have special feelings that Japan is the only nation attacked by Atomic bombs. They think A and H-bombs are absolutely evil because they are an indiscriminate use of force and an utterly inhuman killing machine. Japanese people feel a mission to educate the evils of the A & H bombs all over the world. If you don't want to break a friendly relationship with Japanese people, you may not want to talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs as peacemakers. Japanese people cannot accept such thought, without memory of the victims. Personally, I understand that US people have such intellectual thoughts, but I have been shocked to see a scene at the Smithsonian National Air Force Museum. The boy made a V-sign with a smile in front of the plane, Enola Gay. I saw the scene as an innocent boy who made a smile in front of 250,000 victims.

On the other hand, Japanese people feel little pangs of conscience about the Pearl Harbor attack. All Japanese know the attack was a sudden offensive and the US was very angry with that. Contrary for the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think it was an unfair attack intellectually, but I feel that the Japanese don't talk about the unfairness of Pearl Harbor or admit its atrocity.

After the 90s
Maybe you find points in the above sentences. Yes, people tend to talk about their own damage, but not making damage to others. The Japanese Army created tremendous damage to Asian countries. For three decades, some Asian countries made comments that the war (invasion to Asia) part of the Japanese history textbook were inappropriate and insufficient. Like so, it is a controversial subject on how the Japanese government educates students to understand the Asian-attacker-side of Japan.

After the 90s, a movement broke out. It is "The society of making the New History Textbook". They said: The current Japanese history textbooks are over emphasizing Japan's masochistic Asian-attacker side. Therefore, we make a new textbook, which describes Japan's good side as Asian-modernizer and releaser from western countries colonization. The Pacific War was inevitable under US pressure. To know these cases makes students feel proud of Japan.

I think such a movement has relationship to Japan's huge recession through the 90s and some Japanese feel losing their pride. Under such conditions, people tend to want "national pride". In 1999, when a member of this society released a book of Japanese history, the book became a bestseller. But The New Textbook was selected by under 1% of all schools. This case means many people want "national pride" after the 90s but most schools recognize the New Textbook as inappropriate for history education.

My Opinion
I think the Pacific War and Asian-invasion by Japan were an utterly stupid act with a view from a now standard of values.
What way should Japan have gone? I can't reply a proper answer for that question. When I can answer that, I will have evaluated the war appropriately. I need to study the true history.

Related posts

-How do Japanese think about the Pearl Harbor attack?
-Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor?
-The Great Tokyo Air Raid - More Victims than the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb
-Which was the best era in Japan? An interview with my grandparents who were born in the early 20th century

The Constitution of Japan and the Self-Defense Forces

The Constitution of Japan, the 9th Article:
1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Japan Self-Defense Forces
Japan has the Self-Defense Forces. It consists of 240,000 soldiers.

Ground forces of other nations:
No.1 China 2.2million
No.2 North Korea 1.15million
No.3 India 1,1million,
No.7 the US 495,000
No.24 Japan 153,000

As for appropriation for defense:
No.1 US $262billion
No.2 Japan $43billion
No.3 France $37billion

From the year the Forces were established until 2001, Japanese government would always announced that the Forces have not been against the 9th article of the Constitution because it maintained exclusively defense-oriented policy: the Force can't attack enemies unless they attack Japan. In fact, the Force has never attacked enemies (but done warning shots), their main acts except defense and patrol are disaster relief and applying to Peace Keeping Operations, (PKO), etc.

The controversial topic
This relationship - the Constitution and the Forces is one of the most controversial political topics in Japan. Many people have their own opinions. In 2001, the Prime Minister Koizumi vowed that the Forces are forces therefore the Constitution must be revised for fitting reality. Some people say that the Forces are needed, but the 9th article of the Constitution is solemn and very important, so the Japanese government has to keep it. Other people argue that the Forces are obviously against the Constitution, therefore the Forces have to change themselves into troops for the UN.
I would like to refrain from making comments on this topic now. Instead, I will explain why on earth the Forces were set up and grown up even though the Constitution says "war potential will never be maintained." Because, in my opinion, this fact may be the basis and the hint for thinking on the topic of the Constitution and the Forces.

The birth and growth of Japan Self-Defense Forces under the US control
On Aug. 15 1945, Japan surrendered herself to the Allies. After that, the US occupied and controlled Japan. Due to the US's apprehensiveness for the Japanese Army, the US virtually made the draft of the Japanese Constitution which has the articles of renunciation of war. It was February of 1946. The next month of that, Churchill gave the address about "the iron curtain" It was the beginning of the cold war era. Since that time, the US changed her political lines to rule Japan and other lost nations under her control. If the draft of the Constitution was written after that time, the US may have not admit such a democratic one. In that regard, the article of renunciation of war was a production dependant on good timing.

As the cold war era proceeded, the US clarified the policy for Japan from "disarmament" to "raising to be an alliance partner of anti-communism". The Japanese government accepted (virtually, having no choice) the policy. In 1947, the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs made a document wishing that the US army stay in Japan. In June of 1950, the Korean War, which meant an intensity in the cold war, broke out. As early as the next month, The National Police Reserve was established in Japan. The reserve was on a paper the group of "police", but it even had tanks. It became the Defense Agency, which was the controller of the Self Defense Force. In short, both the Constitution which has the articles of renunciation of war and the Forces were fruits of international policy of the US.

Points of controversy
As I mentioned above, the points of controversy about the relationship between the Constitution and the Forces are as follows: Japan has stronger military capability than many other nations, yet on the other hand, the Constitution has the articles about war renunciation. Both the Constitution and the Forces were established by the US.

My opinion
Then, should we Japanese revise the Constitution for fitting reality - turning the Self-Defense Forces into actual forces? In my opinion, this revision has a big demerit, therefore, we had better not change the articles of war renunciation. The demerit I think: If the Constitution admits the Self-Defense Forces as forces, the US will ask the Forces to cooperate with wars of the US, and the Japanese economic burden will increase. In 1952, the Japanese government made a secret promise that the Forces of Japan is controlled under the US military in case of emergency. Now the Constitution works as a certain brake against the US's military request.

Some people say that the articles of war renunciation should be revised because it doesn't fit the reality (Japan has strong military power). I think many other articles don't fit the reality. For example: the 15th Article All public officials are servants of the whole community and not of any group thereof. Fundamentally, the Constitution, laws and so on, should not be revised for fitting the reality.

Then, should the Self-Defense forces be maintained? I think they should be reduced. This is the reason why: After the end of the cold war, many other countries reduced their forces, however the Self-Defense Forces only reduced slightly. As most members in the Forces wanted to continue living off the Forces salary, they didn't quit as other official servants did. Of course, even though after the cold war, there is an imaginary enemy near Japan (North Korea). She has only old weapons, so a military expert said that the Self-Defense Forces could guard Japan from North Korea by 1/10 of the Forces power.

The birth, growth and relationship between the Constitution of Japan and the Self-Defense Forces isn't normal, however I think the articles of war renunciation shouldn't be revised. It should maintain its position as a brake for the US.

[more]

Women's rights in Japan

Many westerners seem to think that women in Japan are discriminated against. When my wife and I went on a trip to Ireland for our honeymoon, my wife had just quit her work. Some Irish people heard that and thought my wife had been forced to quit her job by her company as sexual discrimination although my wife had quit her job on her own will. Some other westerners point out the labor force participation rate (labor force population / population over fifteen years old) of Japanese women is low; Japan: 48.2%, the USA: 60.2% and Sweden: 75.5%. They say Japanese women are forced to be housewives against their will.

Certainly, you can sometimes see examples that women are located in status lower than men in Japan. For instance, in a train, a couple is standing, and there is only one empty seat. If a couple is over seventy years old, a wife gives the seat to her husband and he sits down there taking it for granted. In January 2007, Japanese Minister for Work and Pension said, "Women are machines to produce children." and he seems to not be obliged to resign from the Cabinet even for his stupid words. A few years ago, the Tokyo governor said, "It's both wasteful and sinful for women to live beyond menopause... such useless human beings are extremely harmful to the whole planet" He was sued for these words, but still works as the governor.

However, the Japanese man's school of thought regarding women rights depends on their generation. All the shamed people described above are over seventy years old. In my opinion, some of them still look down on women (Of course, many men over seventy have a proper mind of equality regarding human rights, but unfortunately, some men don't.)

How about younger generations? I have talked with some families who lived at the same company dormitory house my wife and I lived at 6 years ago. There were two couples who were nearly 50 years old at the time, a couple and my wife and I were 28 and 30 years old. We talked about taking garbage out in the morning. Couples of 30 years old think that it is a work for men or women, both are OK. If a husband goes out of the house first, he should take garbage out. If a wife goes out first, she should take. I take it for granted. But wives in their 50s didn't think so. They said, "If our husbands take the garbage out, we are considered bad wives, because such chores belonged to housewives. So we should take the garbage out in spite of husbands going out of the houses first." We, couples in their 30s, were astonished to hear that. We just don't have such a thought.

Like this, there is a big generation gap in thinking about women's rights, but it is getting better, I think. In my childhood, I have heard many words of disdain for women from people of my parents generation. I never have heard such words from my friends of the same generation. We are in the last generation that high school curriculums are different between girls and boys (Girls had to complete domestic science, but boys didn't have to.). Since 1994, boys also have to complete domestic science. Many people are disagreeably surprised at and angrily at ashamed politicians who say words against women's rights now.

As above, in my opinion, Japanese people's school of thought regarding sexual equality is getting better, although behind western countries. The question then is why do Japanese women tend to be housewives and not like their western counterparts?

I asked a friend of mine who is a housewife whether she and her housewife friends (about 10 ladies) wanted to be housewives or were forced to be. Her answer was all of them wanted to be housewives.

Her reasoning for this was as follows: 1. Their husbands can earn enough money to survive without partners' earnings. 2. The works they did was simple - not challenging, so they couldn't find a proper reason to continue with their works. 3. They feel the time they spend with their children is precious.

Do Japanese companies really give challenging work to women employees? In my opinion, some companies do so, but nowadays, most companies make some layers of employee's responsibility depending on their status, not on gender. Proper employees are in charge of works of heavy responsibility and decision making, temporary employees are given not so challenging work. This system has become popular in the middle of 90s in Japan. (Before that, many companies in Japan set employee's responsibility depending on their gender.)

However, even in the environment that companies give challenging work to women employees, we can still see many examples of women employees quitting their jobs when they get married. For instance, the company I work for used to be a government corporation (means there are little gender discriminations since the era of older Japanese companies), there are many administrative women. Thus, it seems that the company has a better working system for women, but in reality, many women employees quit the company when they get married. Women employees who started a job at the same time and same area of me were ten, all of them got married, and only three ladies still work for the company, maybe seven of them are housewives.

Why do many women employees quit their jobs when they get married? Maybe the first reason is their working time and men's ability to do the housework and cooking. Japanese company employees tend to work overtime (For example, I take 200 to 300 overtime hours in a year, but it is not so much among my friends who work for other companies). In addition to this, many Japanese men cannot cook well. So women in Japan who are married and work bear a heavy burden. If she and her husband have a small child or children without help from their parents, that burden becomes heavier. Of course, in Japan, there are many child-care centers but not enough and some parents think that they should take care of small children by themselves or by help from their parents for good growth of their children. (Maybe for that, the babysitter system is very rare in Japan. At least, all my family, friends and co-workers never used that system.)

How about the companies' side? Do they appreciate women's abilities appropriately? An article about that appeared in April 1st 2007 issue of The Nikkei (Japanese newspaper). It said that big companies are preparing a system to hire and keep excellent women employees. For example, Nissan plans to raise the proportion of women administrators from 3% of all administrators to 5% by 2008. Toshiba is preparing a system that women who retired from raising children can be rehabilitated. These systems might be behind western countries, but I appreciate these trials of Japanese companies.

On the other hand, Japanese housewives can receive their pension even though they don't pay a pension fee. They can say that Japanese housewives are accorded precedence for economical respect.

I think these are the main reasons that women employees tend to quit their jobs when they get married.

To conclude, Japanese women were discriminated against, but now it is getting better (depending on the generation). Meanwhile, for the economical respect, work problem, and child care system, many women selected to be housewives.

I enjoy the fact that women and men can select their own lives without fool discriminations, conventions and social problem. Therefore, my first thing to do... seems to learn how to cook.


P.S. My feeling about gender discrimination is one in an urban area. In Japanese rural areas, there may still remain discriminations, unfortunately.

[more]

The End of Poverty

I have private English language lesson, every two weeks, for two hours. During a conversation at this lesson about a topic of the world's development gap, I commented on the book "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond as my most impressive book and explained the contents of the book. My teacher then recommended "The End of Poverty" by Jeffery Sachs. I was strongly interested in the book because not only was the introduction written by Bono of U2, but I felt reliance in my teacher. I got this book as soon as possible.

I haven't read this book completely, but I think it will be "the best book I have read in 2007" even though it is just January now. the reason I feel so is as follows:

1. Subject of this book
They say that people should help poor people. Of course, I agree for some time I have been interested in people from very poor countries, for example, Africa. I know that there are many poor people all over the world, even in developed countries. However, I think that there is a vast difference between most poor people in developed countries and poor people in very under developed countries. The point is "they can live and develop by themselves or not". "The End of Poverty" concentrates on these kinds of people.

2. "Calm optimism"
The subtitle of the book is "How we can make it happen in our lifetime". Yes, this book isn't for people who keep grieving the world's problem, but for people who have the will to change it better.
This book has many data and chart (fortunately, they are easy to understand even for people who feel allergic to mathematics like me). They sometimes show tragic present state, sometimes a bright possibility. Jeffery Sachs emphasizes that we can change the world in our lifetime in both cases. Such "calm optimism" is the reason I love this book.

3. Exciting case studies
This book is not just only data, theory, and proposal. Dr. Sachs is an active, practical economist. His career as a consultant for some countries economical politics is broad, beginning in Bolivia, Poland, Russia, etc. These case studies are excellent; both as interesting documentaries and a friendly political economic textbook. I have no knowledge of political economic, but I can feel excited by Dr. Sachs's adventure.

4. New viewpoints and information
I am learning many viewpoints and information on this issue of the world's poverty. I will write about them in detail in my next entry, but the most surprising hopeful information I have learned is that "the wealth of the world isn't constant." Dr. Sachs says that the world economy is developing entirely, not dependent on only depriving the third world's wealth by developed countries. I think it is the fundamental fact of believing in the phrase "change the world", because if the world's wealth is constant, the only solution to make poverty history is to decrease population. We human beings can develop together all over the world –unfortunately, we cannot vanish economic differences among many countries immediately but I think it is very big and good news.

What kind of people are those? An example of Malawi people is introduced in this book. People cultivate crops, but there aren't enough to sell to other people because the amounts are very small, even for family members. To make matters worse, even if they can product enough amounts of crops, they have no road or car to sell them to market.

Reasons of cultivating production shortage are two; The first is the low technique of agriculture. People have less chance of higher education, cannot afford effective fertilizers. The second is epidemic. AIDS massacres adults, malaria kills all ages, even though we have a method to cure both diseases. Such epidemics make desperate cases; Because of dying all sons and daughters, a grandmother is left to raise as many as 15 grandchildren. Under conditions like these, people cannot live and develop by themselves.


New viewpoints and information that "The End of Poverty" brings to me

1. Solutions for economic crisis of developing countries are very similar to clinical medicine.
Dr. Sachs says the reasons for failures while helping developing countries are due to a lack of fundamental viewpoints as follows;

1) The human body (economy) is composed of complex system. There is not only one failure. In addition to, one failure tends to cause other failures.

2) An individual diagnosis is important because of the complex system. Doctors know that fever symptoms have many causes. There are many diagnoses for that, so doctors have a checklist to diagnose precisely.

3) All medical treatments are family treatments. If a doctor treats a child properly, only a diagnosis isn't enough. He / she needs to understand the child's family environment.

4) Observation and feedback are necessary. A good doctor knows each diagnosis is not the final answer but hypothesis. If he / she finds out a failure, he /she changes their treatment flexibly.

5) The doctor is considered specialist personnel.
I was a consultant for call centers to construct or to diagnose them. These five points convince me very much. I find it difficult to believe that the IMF or other organization didn't have such a basic method, because of this, it has been a tremendous tragedy for the world. They are the doctors of the country and its many people.

2. The reason for Africa's poverty
They guess many reasons for Africa's poverty. The two biggest of these reasons are "History of Western countries plunder" and "corruptions of politicians" But both of these are wrong, says Dr. Sachs. Some countries, which have had harsh periods of westerners' plundering, are developing. A good example is Vietnam. According to the research by Transparency International, some African countries are less corrupt than some Asian countries. However, as to economic development, Asian countries are higher than African countries. If these opinions are correct, what is the true reason for Africa's poverty?

The answers, according to Dr. Sachs, are epidemics, droughts and distance from the world's market. Tremendous people have died from AIDS and malaria in Africa. Most of the African people live in rural areas, which have few infrastructure systems. It means they are vulnerable to droughts and have difficulty participating in market – no available transportation. These answers are easy to understand and convince me, as a reader of "Guns, Germs and Steel", whose theme is geographical features have made the world's development gap, not biological gap of human races.

3. The reason for the different results between China and the East European / Russian countries
Dr. Sachs, as an economical politics consultant, managed to plan successful economics growths of Bolivia and Poland, but failed in Russia. (He wrote it in this book frankly, it made a favorable impression on me.)
I had a question in association with this case. Why did Russia (the Soviet Union) fail in and China succeed in developing economics? Both were similar socialist countries. This book has a clear answer about this:

1) The Soviet Union had a huge amount of external debt but China didn't.

2) China had long coastlines that supported an economic development dependent on exporting. However, the Soviet Union and East European countries didn't have such long coastlines, therefore they also didn't have an advantage to access international trading at low costs.

3) China had co-operators who lived in overseas countries and made Chinese communities. They played the roles of overseas investors and became role models. On the other hand, generally, the Soviet Union didn't have such overseas communities.
4) The Soviet Union encountered a steep decline of producing oil at the starting point of their innovation, but China didn't.

5) The Soviet Union proceeded with their own industrialization that depended on original technologies that were not compatible with the West (the USA, EU and Japan). However, China's technologies still stayed at a low level, so she introduced machines and processes to the West easily.

I feel it is an irony that the Soviet's industrialization annoyed their development. To change the subject, personally, I think Stalin's only good deal was the propulsion of Soviet's industrializations. Now that I found out the propulsion was not profitable, what was Stalin's good works?
4. How can we make extreme poverty end?

Dr. Sachs' answer to this question is also clear. He said that wealthy countries should support extreme poverty with countries 0.7% GNP. (Of course, it is important to know not only "how much" but also "how". This entry focuses on "how much". For your information, Sachs said this about "how" - the first priorities to invest in are roads, electric power, transportation, soil, drinkable water, sanitary accommodations and disease control.) If wealthy countries proceed this program till 2015, the cost to support extreme poverty countries will decrease.

How much is lack? The USA has the largest amount of lack for 0.7% GNP, 38 billion dollars. Japan has lack for 13 billion dollars, about 100 dollars per person. For this situation, Dr. Sachs proposed a new tax system for collecting more money from billionaires.

In this book, he wrote nothing like "we shall begin to act for making poverty history personally" Instead, he proposed readers to move governments to support poor countries. I found out that realistic solutions to exterminate extreme poverty are by politics, which is more powerful than people's acts.

The power of this book
I wrote a lot about this book. The biggest impression was that I could realize make extreme poverty end, which was something that weighed on my mind. Dr. Sachs provides hope and a solution to this problem through his calm optimism. I think we will be proud of our generation if it will be the generation to make extreme poverty history.

For that, I have applied to donate money to the UNHCR. Next, I feel the need to watch politicians and reflect on it for the purpose of voting or for signatures. I am an ordinary man who manages to support my family and myself. This book made me solve the problems of poverty.
That is the power of this book.

[more]