 level it is the highest event on the World RX calendar and engines need to be finely tuned to deal with the high altitude.
Featuring all-wheel drive and a 0-60 mph launch time of less than two seconds, the Focus RS RX vehicles are optimized for rallycross battle. The Focus RS RX development was a global collaboration between Ford Performance, Block’s Hoonigan Racing Division and U.K.-based M-Sport.
Twenty-three supercars each equipped with a staggering 600 horsepower will go head-to-head in Portugal over four qualifying sessions, two semi-finals, and one final. The team starts in Portugal fresh out of a test at Kirkbride airfield in Cumbria, U.K.
The Focus RS RX cars will qualify on Saturday, April 16 and the semi-finals take place on Sunday, April 17. The final takes place on Sunday as well.
Meanwhile the Ford GT will also be making its European debut at the 6 Hours of Silverstone, U.K., in the FIA World Endurance Championship. Qualifying is scheduled for Saturday, April 16, and the 6-hour race starts on Sunday, April 17.Documents filtered by: Recipient="Ellery, Christopher"
Among the distinguished honors which have a claim to my gratitude since my arrival I have seen...
I have lately recieved a letter from Ingraham, who is in prison under a ca. sa. on a judgment...
William Martin, keeper of the lighthouse in the district of Newport is dead, and mr Ellery the...
When I thought of removing the loan office of R.I. to Newport, the object was to give to that...
Altho’ I studiously avoid taking any part in the schisms & contentions which arise among our...Internationalists find fault with this line of thinking, believing that it was the U.S. failure to promote democratic values and build a rules-based world order that led to the horrors of World War II. Malinowski surmises this view as arguing that “building up the military and defending the homeland, not wasting America’s strength abroad, would safeguard its freedom.” But the idea that the alternative to internationalism is a sort of global chaos caused by American isolationism is just not true; countries can interact with each other on the basis of realism and the balance of power and still maintain the peace, as was the case in Europe between the Napoleonic Wars and World War I. In the absence of a global policeman, new equilibriums and paradigms of stability would come about, filling the vacuum.
The irony, of course, is from the get-go, internationalism created more problems than it solved. To begin with, Wilson insisted on regime change in Germany as the price for peace; the end result was the abdication of the Kaiser and the transformation of a highly functional state into the chaotic Weimar Republic, which of course was hijacked by the Nazi Party after a decade. By acquiescing in the dismantling of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, Wilson did nothing to strengthen world peace, but instead created dozens of small states (i.e. Czechoslovakia) that were either dysfunctional or prone to be dominated by larger neighbors, thus requiring exterior protection. Thus, in the name of internationalism, the roots of World War II were laid, and the chaos is still continuing in the Middle East.
One hardly need to describe the various occasions throughout the 20th century, in places like Iran, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, in which promoting something beyond the United States’ “immediate self-interest” didn’t go quite as planned. On the other hand, when the United States restrained itself in the name of self-interest, as Eisenhower did with Hungary in 1956, or actively pursued closer relations with a power with different values out of self-interest, as Nixon did with China in 1972, the results were positive: no blood or treasure spilled, while American interests were served.
So what is more destabilizing and threatening to peace and security: not interfering in the internal affairs of other states, or U.S. efforts to promote liberal democracy and American values throughout the world? Can America be a great power that can deploy force in the world when its interests are at stake without the Wilsonian hubris?
The American order is already showing major strains after a mere 70 years, whereas the world order maintained by the previous global hegemon, Great Britain, lasted much longer. This was because, as Henry Kissinger pointed out in his book Diplomacy, the British understood the notion of a balance of power, and pursued a strategy in favor of its preservation for over two centuries, rather than a strategy of open-ended alliances.
The British Empire, though it promoted liberalism and markets, rarely intervened in foreign places to set up liberal regimes. On the contrary, the British supported various native monarchs and traditional political norms in their colonies, and rarely tried to remake societies in their image. For example, British interference in the social and religious lives of their colonial subjects, in places that today form the modern countries of Iraq and Pakistan, was relatively light, despite the fact that the British had the power to attempt to force social change, had they wanted to. Later attempts by the United States to promote from certain “universal values” in those and other societies proved to be mostly exercises in futility, a waste of effort and money.
If, following the British, the United States pursued a balance of power strategy, relations would improve with countries like Russia, China, and Iran, as may of the tensions between the United States and those countries stem from either U.S. pressure to remake the political structures of those states or U.S. infringement on those states’ perceived spheres of influence. A different paradigm would reduce overall tensions throughout the global order, because the ambitions of rising powers would no longer be constantly running up against American-imposed constraints.
Although the British did not remake their colonies in their image, they remained a global power for several centuries by picking their battles (for the most part), co-opting colonial elites, and by controlling key locations around the world, such as the Suez Canal, the Strait of Aden, and the Strait of Malacca. This goes to show that a country’s global position can be maintained by deploying military forces in a few important locations, rather than everywhere.
(1) maintaining American forces near key chokepoints, such as the Gulf of Hormuz and the Malacca Straits to ensure the freedom of the seas; (2) shoring up relations with close allies in prosperous and free rimland of western Europe and East Asia that give the international system global staying power; and (3) only using force to prevent any power from using armed force to seize enough territory and resources to threaten the world order.
Regardless of whether or not one believes in internationalism, the era of American hegemony is clearly drawing to an end—though the United States will remain a great power. Now is a good time to outgrow the dangerous, failed Wilsonian ideology that we can longer afford to maintain, and instead adapt the now timely and relevant views of Theodore Roosevelt and the lessons of the British Empire. Kissinger wistfully noted that Roosevelt was a “century too early…no significant school of American foreign policy has invoked him since.” The good news is that Roosevelt’s time has now come.
Continued adherence to Wilsonian norms only sets the United States up for continued disappointment as such an ideology compels the U.S. to pursue goals it cannot possibly achieve. But by understanding and mastering realist geopolitical notions and the balance of power between nations, the United States can remain both secure and a great power for a very long time.
A workshop for the upcoming Meath Arts Group Exhibition, in January 2013, will be held in Solstice Arts Centre on June 16th. The Title “Changes” The Evolution of Meath will be discussed under the following headings Cultural, Landscape, Population, Economy and, Environment.
The workshop will include brainstorming and research. It is hoped that this first, in a series, of workshops will help to bring cohesion to the exhibition.
 They are a little shy until they get to know you, but they are gentle and love to run around their pen and chase each other! They need to stay together, and are very happy bunnies.Event-Specific Prevention with Tavis Glassman, Ph.D., MS.Ed., MPH, CHES
Tavis Glassman, Ph.D., serves as an Assistant Professor at the University of Toledo where he teaches courses in drug awareness and human sexuality. He is a Certified Health Education Specialist with a doctorate in Health Education and Behavior from the University of Florida (UF). Dr. Glassman also holds a Master of Public Health degree from Ohio State University and Master of Science and Education degree from the University of Toledo. He has over a decade of experience working in the health education field and currently serves on campus, community, and state coalitions that address alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use. Dr. Glassman has extensive experience with campus event-related health issues, having worked at four different Division I higher education institutions (such institutions have large collegiate athletic programs and budgets, and therefore more sports-related event activities). He also has community health experience working at the American Red Cross where he served as an instructor and trainer for various health and safety courses for over five years. His research focuses on these areas of interest: alcohol consumption on game day; 21st birthday celebrations among college students; and the design, implementation, and evaluation of social marketing messages. Prior to his current position, Dr. Glassman served as UF's Coordinator of Alcohol & Other Drug Prevention. In this capacity he