I’m planning to enter the world of VR with Meta’s Oculus 3, that’s expected later this year but if I had a PS5, I would definitely go for this puppy.
Color Me Curious
The Bowery Presents

bliss lane

oozey mess

blake kathryn
No title available

Andulka
RMH
noise dept.
Mike Driver

ellievsbear
One Nice Bug Per Day

Origami Around
almost home

#extradirty

pixel skylines
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year

gracie abrams
The Stonewall Inn
Interview Vampire Daily

seen from Ecuador

seen from United States
seen from Lebanon

seen from Lebanon
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Russia

seen from Brazil

seen from United States
seen from Morocco
@aymanofhisword
I’m planning to enter the world of VR with Meta’s Oculus 3, that’s expected later this year but if I had a PS5, I would definitely go for this puppy.
Inspirational quotes from Rumi.
Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.
If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?
Don't be satisfied with stories, how things have gone with others. Unfold your own myth.
You were born with wings, why prefer to crawl through life?
Forget safety. Live where you fear to live. Destroy your reputation. Be notorious.
Where there is ruin, there is hope for a treasure.
I want to sing like the birds sing, not worrying about who hears or what they think.
DeLauer dives deeper into fish oil products. He says most store-bought fish oil may be poor quality because of rancidity and toxicity and suggests the pure triglyceride forms and cod liver oil may have fewer risks.
Fasting without water might be more beneficial
While I am incredibly grateful to live through the blessings of another Ramadan, I’ve often struggled with the physical aspect of fasting for 30 days straight. I have no issues going without food; the lack of water and dehydration causes roadblocks across daily responsibilities. I’ll admit that it is hard to accept that regular and repeated dehydration will negatively impact my health during the holy month.
Recently, I came across an Instagram post about a new study presenting the benefits of “dry fasting”. I’ve always been interested in fasting for health purposes, but most research has focused on intermittent and extended water fasting. You would see the odd study on Muslim athletes’ performance during Ramadan but nothing that indicated material differences in outcomes from other fasts.
I dug deeper and found some preliminary research indicating that Ramadan or extended dry fasting may accelerate many typical benefits of a hydrated fast. Across these studies (listed below), dry fasting demonstrated fat loss and short-term antioxidant, anti-ischemic, immune-stimulating, anti-edematous, and anti-inflammatory effects. This includes two meta-analyses and other preliminary research on dry fasting; it may be a new direction for fasting therapy. This is another sign that humans still have more to learn about our bodies.
Some theories attribute these accelerated benefits to the following:
- Cell dehydration inhibits mTOR signalling and raises AMPK, which is the prerequisite for increasing autophagy
- During dry fasting, your cortisol and glucagon may be higher than when hydrated because the body must break down more internal fuel to produce energy. This will result in increased fat oxidation and potentially more autophagy as well.
- Deuterium-depleted water inhibits cancer growth and regulates the cell cycle. The metabolic water created during beta-oxidation is depleted deuterium, promoting mitochondrial functioning and health.
Studies I examined:
1. Data from 70 studies on Ramadan fasting: Even with no advice on lifestyle changes, there are consistent albeit transient reductions in weight and fat mass with the Ramadan fast, especially in people with overweight or obesity. Meta-analysis/systematic review - 2018.
2. Meta-analysis of 33 studies showed beneficial effects of Ramadan fasting on blood pressure independent of changes in weight, total body water, and fat mass. Meta-analysis/systematic review - 2021.
3. In 14 subjects with metabolic syndrome, 4-week dawn-to-dusk dry fasting induced anti-atherosclerotic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-tumorigenic PMBC proteome. Single study - 2022.
4. Across 10 subjects, dry fasting for five days demonstrated short-term antioxidant, anti-ischemic, immune-stimulating, anti-edematous, and anti-inflammatory effects. Single study - 2020.
5. 10 healthy adults who fasted for five days without food or water found it safe, decreased weight and all measured circumferences, and improved renal function considerably. Single study - 2013.
6. 15 women performed intermittent dry fasting over weeks, which was shown to be safe, has no adverse effects on hydration, can improve fat metabolism and can cause transient phase shifts of circadian rhythms. Single study - 2021.
He was widely seen as the preferred candidate of the SNP establishment - including Nicola Sturgeon.
A Muslim leader of a western nation; I didn’t think I’d live to see this day. One step closer to being rid of the English-speaking world’s plague of Islamophobia. Hope he brings good health and prosperity to the people of Scotland.
Why the Jerusalem declaration is Trump’s cruelest move yet
medium.com - Ben Wolford
A father and mother are in the middle of a difficult discussion over the custody of their child. They’ve both been crying. It’s the most critical moment of their lives. Suddenly, a preposterous man sits down at the dining room table, issues a legally binding order in favor of the father and then abruptly changes the subject: “Big crowd expected today in Pensacola, Florida, for a Make America Great Again speech!”
If you can imagine the way the mother feels, you can begin to imagine how Palestinians feel today.
The U.S. conversation has moved away from Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The story was way down on the home pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. I couldn’t even find stories about it on the leftist front pages of Mother Jones and Jacobin. A Latterly contributing editor in Washington just told me that “it’s barely being discussed.”
The arrogant nonchalance is part of what’s so infuriating to Palestinians. Trump’s declaration was a gut punch to 12 million people that left them feeling sick, morose and angry in a way that’s difficult for non-Palestinians to understand. And we don’t even bother trying. Indifference is America’s ultimate act of cruelty.
But in fact, this is the worst thing the Trump administration has done. Worse than the Muslim ban, worse than repealing DACA and worse than walking away from the Paris Agreement.
Twenty thousand people assembled in downtown Amman today—and thousands more protested around the world—because one more piece of land has just been taken away from them. They did not elect the person who took it from them. The Israelis did not elect that person. And not even a majority of American voters elected that person. Fewer still among those who voted for Donald Trump know anything about the Israel-Palestine dispute or care.
Yet the images streaming out of today’s protests can give you an idea how much Trump’s 12-minute speech on Jerusalem matters.
If you think this demonstration has the look and feel of the protests that led to the Arab Spring, you’re not wrong. There’s a direct link between the way these protesters feel now and the way the protesters felt in 2011.
I’ll explain that, but first the requisite background. Jerusalem is a divided city. Both Israel and Palestine claim the whole municipality, but for now, after decades of gridlock, each side is mostly content to grasp a portion: the Israelis in West Jerusalem and the Palestinians in East Jerusalem. Palestinians wanted East Jerusalem to be part of Palestine in any two-state agreement.
Trump, by himself, for no apparent reason, has imperiled that arrangement by declaring (or rather, slurring) “Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.” He didn’t say West Jerusalem. He said Jerusalem.
Journalists yesterday tried to make David M. Satterfield, the acting assistant U.S. secretary of state for the Middle East, clarify the president’s statement. It ended with Satterfield attempting to say grammatically acceptable sentences while at the same time saying nothing at all:
QUESTION: Could you explain the distinction between recognizing the capital and not deciding anything on borders as it refers to a deal? Because if you’re saying that this is a final status issue to be negotiated at the table, how does either (a), this not prejudice a deal when Jerusalem is a final status issue, or (b), how is it not a meaningless declaration that could be negotiated at the table? It has to be one or the other.
AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Elise, final status negotiations are going to deal with those boundaries of sovereignty, border questions that the president spoke to as not addressed by his recognition. The president thought it was the right thing to do for the United States, after all these years, to acknowledge the fact, the reality, that Jerusalem is the seat of government of the state of Israel, the capital of the state of Israel. That’s it.
QUESTION: But it’s — respectfully, it’s inconsistent with the idea that you would also be negotiating at the table unless you can acknowledge what we’re all trying to get you to say, which you artfully are not —
AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Thank you, Elise. You may well think that. Thank you.
QUESTION: Well — but the idea that it may — that is — that Jerusalem is the capital, but perhaps in final status negotiations that it might be not the united capital.
AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Elise, I will only address one more point on this. What were the words the President used? It was a very simple statement: recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. There are words you might want to put in there; he didn’t. There are words you might want to take out; he didn’t. That statement was very carefully made, as was the comment we are not prejudicing addressing by this decision final status issue.
When asked in what way the statement was carefully made, he said “I’m not going to get into a tick-tock on this.” Asked if he personally agreed with the decision, Satterfield gritted his teeth: “Oh, now. I am an employee of the U.S. government. … This is a decision which we will work our best to execute and advance.”
In the absence of any clarification from the Trump administration, Palestinians have intuited what’s going on here: The United States, which was supposed to be mediating a deal, has suddenly awarded a city it doesn’t own to a people that doesn’t deserve it, as one Amman protester put it.
The chief Palestinian negotiator told The New York Times he’d given up on hope for a two-state solution and was shifting strategy toward simply making life better for Arabs stuck under Israeli occupation. “This is the reality,” he said. “We live here. Our struggle should focus on one thing: equal rights.”
The people he represents—those thousands marching in Palestine, Jordan and elsewhere today—aren’t ready to give up. But they, too, have undergone a shift. To speak with them, it feels like more than a mere shift in strategy, though that’s part of it: They’ve steeled their hearts and clenched their fists to a new reality in which no one—not the U.S., not Israel and not the Arab leaders who govern the Palestinian diaspora—is dealing with them honestly.
Remember, this is a people that understands all of Palestine to be its territory, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea. They understand Zionists and the West to have stolen this place where Jews, Muslims, Christians and others once lived together; imposed a religious state; and subjected the local inhabitants to second-class status or worse. They understand that they will one day reclaim this land, no matter how long it takes. The dream is to establish a democracy where Jews, Muslims, Christians and others can again live peacefully—a state where they can pay taxes and elect officials that work for everyone.
Today that dream seems further away. The Palestinian Authority, a governing body set up in 1994 to manage the transition to a Palestinian state, and its Fatah party leadership are seen as failing. The alternative, a Hamas-led vision of armed struggle, begins to appear as though it were necessary all along.
“They … have been told that their only hope is to create such pain for Israelis and unrest throughout the region that their needs will have to be addressed,” writes Mitchell Plitnick, former vice president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace.
This isn’t to say that Palestinians are the violent, extremist hotheads that Israeli and American propaganda would have you believe. (For instance, the U.S. embassy here in Amman ordered the children of government employees to stay home from school on Thursday. As far as I know, this wasn’t based on any intelligence that kids were in danger. Rather, it smells more like racist fear-mongering: “Those reactionary Arabs will kill your children.”)
On the contrary, Palestinians who aspire to nationhood view—with good reason—the Israeli occupation of Palestine as a violent, military project. Therefore, right or wrong, arguments for a violent, military response are at least understandable and should not be conflated with terrorism, as the editor of The Jerusalem Post does.
Such a conflict would be devastating. More than 1,500 civilians died in the 2014 Gaza War, almost all of them Palestinian, including some 500 children. But Palestinians are willing to die for statehood. Already, I’ve just seen a report of two killed by Israeli forces in Gaza during protests.
Such demonstrations could keep growing, especially as they relate to U.S.-allied Arab dictators in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are not only repressive (in a variety of ways) but are seen as increasingly cozy with Israel as a counterweight to Iran and Islamic extremist groups. It’s in this sense that many Palestinians are calling for a second Arab Spring, in the hopes that such an uprising would spawn a dozen Tunisias. But it could also spawn a dozen Syrias.
That predictions falls at the cataclysmic end of the spectrum of possibilities. So far, the “three days of rage” Palestinian leaders called for have been mostly peaceful. There’s still plenty of room for the parties to salvage the nonviolent resolution that Trump’s action threatens to destroy. But it would be a mistake to discount Palestinians’ feelings of powerlessness—and the power such a feeling creates.
Why would Trump even want to mess with that? “It is almost impossible to see the logic,” wrote Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution. Sixty-three percent of Americans opposed the move, according to a University of Maryland poll.
Trump’s motives for anything are a mystery, and he likes to keep it that way. He prefers chaos to continuity, and he likes to do things that make him the center of attention. He’s also been the target of an intense pressure campaign by right-wing American Jewish organizations, Evangelical Christians and wealthy donors like casino owner Sheldon Adelson, who made the Jerusalem embassy relocation a focus of their lobbying efforts. It worked.
The biggest reason this was such an irresponsible decision is simple: It didn’t have to be made.
It was a cruel decision because the majority of Americans aren’t effected and don’t care, while for so many people in the street today it felt like everything.
We talk a lot about ‘the policy process’ without really saying what it is. If you are new to policy studies, maybe you think that you’ll learn what it is eventually if you read enough material. Thi…
I often get asked what I do for work and note faces of bewilderment until I strike a familiar chord with the other person (or they just aren’t that interested and agree anyway). There are typically a number of reasons why my role is hard to explain. The first often being that not many people actually know what policy is and if they do, the complex process that evolves around it. In this day and age of right wing populism becoming democratically elected and ultra-left liberal values dominating social media, it is important to understand how problems are defined, ideas are entertained and certain agendas are prioritised...so for those who would like to know what drives every decision in any potential sphere; here is a quick 1000 word wrap up.
Good enough to eat: the EU & Japan
Living in Australia where the sushi and Japanese fish is plentiful, I never had any idea that wartime bans on Japanese food still existed in the Western world. But as of recent, it’s happy times for European lovers of Japanese cuisine. Today the bloc will lift most restrictions on food from Fukushima and other Japanese prefectures—including on rice, crab and tuna—that were imposed after the 2011 nuclear disaster. The move follows years of lobbying by the Japanese government, which says its produce is safe. Large areas of countryside were showered with caesium and other toxins after the triple meltdown, prompting concerns about local rice, fish and vegetables. The EU had demanded that Japanese food imports carry documentation proving they were checked for radiation. Restrictions on wild vegetables from several prefectures will stay, and several countries, mainly in Asia, continue to restrict or ban Japanese produce; Hong Kong, a big importer of Japanese food, continues a partial ban, as does China, Japan’s second-largest trading partner. Japan has taken South Korea to the WTO over its prohibitions. Sushi lovers in such places must still make do with local fare.
Fission mission: Bangladesh
Today the country will edge closer to realising a dream that pre-dates its independence in 1971, when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina launches the construction of a $15 billion, Russian-backed nuclear power plant. With it, Bangladesh will become Asia’s sixth country producing nuclear power—joining China, India, Japan, South Korea and Pakistan. Located 50km from the Indian border, the Roopuur plant will produce 2,400MW by 2025. Bangladesh is running out of natural gas, its main fuel; it has coal, but too many people live atop it. Nuclear is a pricey solution to power scarcity in a place where poverty has stunted the growth of 7m children. No matter. The plant will boost electricity supply by 15%, pushing up the country’s foreign debt by an eye-watering 60% and making Russia the country’s top creditor. Public protests, like the one in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu over the same type of Russian reactor, are already planned.
Review: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People is considered by many to be one of the most famous business and self help books of all time. The first time I heard about this book was on recommendation from a mentor of mine at a consultancy firm I worked at several years ago.
It may have been because I was a younger and more impressionable lad back then but from the moment I met this man and through all my dealings with him, I couldn’t help but feel an aura of drive, positivity, generosity and general all-round warmth. Not to mention he had one of the largest workloads of any executive in the firm and oddly did not seem to have any issue balancing his work and life commitments. I one day simply asked him, “Why and how?”
He told me that he used to struggle with procrastination, juggling tasks and finding a sustainable balance in his relationships in and out of work. To enable true change in his life, he had to be honest with his true desires and dedicate himself life to certain values that he chose for himself, the ones that would be needed to become what he ultimately has always wanted to be. He went on to say the concept wasn’t new and that there was a lot of great literature about how to understand these commonplace problems and guide yourself through the process required to eliminate them. The 7 Habits was the first book he pointed me towards.
I read the book within the week and like the many who picked it up before me, felt a light bulb moment. But it wasn’t one that flickered on and off in an instant, it more resembled a resonating, glowing warmth fuelled by feelings that were always present but never focused. The thoughts continued to actively linger and I think they were part of the decision process that helped me give up vices, change careers and move to a different city; essentially starting a new life. A lot of things have changed since then, if you were to tell that young lad I would be sitting where I am now; you would likely have been met with doubt and disbelief.
This book might just have fallen in my lap at a time where I was maturing and being more true to myself or, it could have played a part in pushing me towards certain life decisions I was about to make. Either way, I think all people could benefit from its teachings, and many of you will recognise these core values in separate forms that have transitioned through time across the belief systems of various peoples and cultures. Truly one book that is worth your time.
The key message:
Being truly effective means being clear about what it is you want to achieve, and being proactive in putting your goals into action. This is best achieved by striving to synergise with others, to invest in lasting relationships and to maintain a balanced lifestyle.
This book answers the following questions:
How can you make lasting changes to yourself and stay productive on a long-term basis? • In order to change, you have to address your character and not your behaviour. • Working on character involves aligning personal paradigms with universal principles. • Continue to ‘sharpen the tools’ at your disposal if you want to keep using them effectively.
How can you achieve great things and shape the world around you effectively? • “Be proactive” and take control of your own fate. • “Begin with the end in mind” - if you want to achieve something, you need long-term goals and a mission statement. • In order to attain your goals, you need to visualize the outcome of every action as clearly as possible before doing it. • If you want to be truly effective, always “put first things first.”
How can you integrate and synergise successfully with others? • “Think win-win” to get your share of the cake and build lasting relationships at the same time. • Forming stable relationships with others means investing in emotional bank accounts. • If you want to be able to influence others,“seek first to understand, then to be understood.” • “Synergise” by treating others with openness and respect.
In 2018 space tourism will take off. Private companies are vying to get paying customers into lower orbit and even around the moon, but it doesn't come cheap.
NGOs making an impact during the world’s fastest growing humanitarian crisis
More is needed to support the 600,000+ Rohingya refugees that have fled to Bangladesh since August, but at least the local authorities are supporting the NGOs efforts to provide some much-needed relief. Great work BRAC. The situation sadly continues to be another clear illustration of the failure of international law, to be enforced only when there is a direct incentive. While the systematic persecution of the Rohingyas follows a textbook pattern of genocide and satisfies the vast majority of UN genocide criteria, no able sovereign state complies with the “responsibility to protect” UN doctrine of which they are party. China shields Myanmar from the UNSC and along with India and Russia, continue to work with the regime.
The rest of the world is tiptoeing around decisions to cut off Myanmar in fear of undermining the supposed democratic gains made by Suu Kyi’s government. What a democracy she has produced- one that advocates for the slaughter, rape and expulsion of citizens. And she was elected by the people as a freedom fighter, politically imprisoned by her persecutors because of her beliefs. Never before has the world seen a greater irony. Recent US economic and political sanctions against Myanmar are a small step in the right direction but their effectiveness is questioned without China’s participation; the regime’s main lifeline.
It sounds all too familiar, just like Rwanda and the Balkans, we are once again seeing a genocide happen before our very eyes and nothing is being done about it.
One can only be optimistic that in the longer term, diplomatic and financial pressure, as well as the possibility of indictment for crimes against humanity, may convince Myanmar’s military leaders to cease the ethnic cleansing and allow some Rohingya to return, and hopefully to a safe place at that.
If anyone is able, I urge you to take a short moment to read and sign this Change.org petition in support of UN intervention: https://www.change.org/p/united-nations-general-secretary-stop-genocide-of-rohingya-muslims-put-sanctions-on-myanmar
How the world's wealthy could help millions more people for free
theconversation.com: Theron Pummer (5 minute read)
EasyJet founder Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou has pledged to give away half of his £2 billion fortune. He was inspired by Bill Gates to join the Giving Pledge, an organisation that encourages the world’s wealthiest people to publicly commit to giving at least half of their wealth to charity.
Founded in 2010 by Bill and Melinda Gates (Microsoft), together with Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway), the Giving Pledge now has 169 signatories, including Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Richard Branson (Virgin), Sara Blakely (Spanx), and Elon Musk (Tesla, SpaceX). The list continues to grow.
No less important than whether to join the Giving Pledge is which charities to give to once you have joined. Many well-intentioned charities fail to have any positive impact, and of those that do, some have far greater positive impact than others, per dollar received. People with money to donate must choose carefully if they want their giving to be cost-effective.
For example, dollar for dollar, some HIV/AIDS interventions produce 1,000 times the health benefit that others do. And while around $100,000 could be used to help two blind people by training their guide dogs, the same amount of money could prevent at least 1,000 people from suffering trachoma-induced blindness.
Such striking facts about the “cost-effectiveness landscape” are well-known to members of the Giving Pledge who have been keeping up with the Effective Altruism movement, like Bill and Melinda Gates or billionaire couple Cari Tuna and Dustin Moskovitz. Effective Altruism promotes the use of reason and evidence to work out how to help others the most with limited resources – be it time, money, or effort.
Head and heart
Joining the Giving Pledge does not require an individual to support any particular causes or organisations, but instead “encourages signatories to find their own unique ways to give that inspire them personally and benefit society”. Recently, New York Times’ David Brooks illustrated how fun it is to engage in heartwarming fantasies about how to use billions for good. But successful giving involves the head as well as the heart.
It is crucial that signatories take full advantage of the “opportunities to gather throughout the year to learn from experts about how best to leverage their philanthropy to address some of the world’s biggest challenges” that the Giving Pledge provides, and that they seek out the best available data and advice from independent charity evaluators such as GiveWell. Failing to do this may be both irrational and wrong.
Consider the following analogy. A runaway train is headed towards one child trapped on the north track. There is another runaway train headed towards three children trapped on the south track. You can place your arm on the north track and stop the first train from killing one child, or you can place it on the south track and stop the other train from killing three children. Either way, you will sacrifice an arm. There is no other way to stop either train, and you cannot stop both in time. All other things are equal – for example, all four children are strangers to you.
Even if it’s not wrong to decline placing your arm on either track, it would be wrong to sacrifice your arm to save only one child, when you have the opportunity to save three children.
Similarly with charity. Even if it is not morally wrong to decline giving away half of your fortune, it would be wrong to give it to some charities when it’s clear that by giving to others you would be helping substantially more people, and at no extra cost.
Bigger and better
This conclusion is at odds with a fairly common assumption in the ethics of giving that, if it is permissible to keep some money for yourself, then it is also permissible to donate it to any charity you choose. In my recent research paper, I argue this assumption is false.
I am not arguing that it is always clear which charities will most effectively use your money – although often it is. Nor am I arguing that it is wrong to give to causes close to your heart over more cost-effective ones that aren’t. After all, not giving to your favourite cause in favour of one that will help many more people may come at a significant personal cost to you.
Investigating matters of cost-effectiveness can itself be an expense to consider. But surely it is worth signatories to the Giving Pledge subtracting a very small fraction of the sum they’re pledging and putting it towards working out how they could give in the most effective way? By doing this, they could dramatically multiply their money’s positive impact at no extra cost.
In addition to encouraging signatories to give as effectively as they can to their favourite causes, the Giving Pledge should consider providing them with the option of adding a clause about cost-effectiveness.
Those signing up to such an “Effective Giving Pledge” would publicly commit to giving away half their wealth to whichever organisations they believe would “most effectively use it to improve the lives of others, now and in the years to come”.
If billionaires took this pledge they would simultaneously become the wealthiest individuals to take the Giving What We Can Pledge, from which the clause above is quoted. An Effective Giving Pledge could supplement, rather than replace, the Giving Pledge.
Just as the Giving Pledge has successfully inspired many of the wealthiest people to give bigger, an Effective Giving Pledge would help inspire them to give better.
Helping millions of people is good, but helping billions is much better.
Click title link for something a bit different from his standard- chilled beat and vocals that sound a bit like Hide & Seek Imogen Heap remix from back in the day.
Hope there's someone who'll take care of me When I die, will I go? And hope there's someone who'll set my heart free Rest alone when I'm tired There's a ghost on the horizon When I go to bed How will I fall asleep tonight? How will I rest my head? And that sin, I don't want to go To the seals of war through shame And there's a ghost on the horizon When I go to bed Oh I'm scared of that middle place Between light and nowhere I don't want to be the one Left in there, left in there There's a man on the horizon Wish that I'd go to bed And if I fall to his feet tonight Will allow rest my head And godsend I don't want to go To the seal's watershed And there's a ghost on the horizon When I go to bed...
New Swedish research on Viking funeral clothes raises questions about the potential Islamic influence in Scandinavia. [See title link to BBC article]