text:
Єлюй Яньсі (), храмове ім'я Тянь-цзу (; 5 червня 1075–1128 або 1156) — 9-й і останній імператор Ляо.

Він став наступником свого діда Дао-цзуна  і царював з 1101 по 1125 роки. Прийняв послаблену  кіданську державу, так як армія розучилася воювати за часи довгого перемир'я і лише деякі війська погодилися на придушення повстань підлеглих кидані народів. При династії процвітав фаворитизм. Прийнявши державні уповноваження, Яньсі не виявив ні здібностей, ні бажання покращити державні справи.

Життєпис
Був онуком і спадкоємцем Єлюй Хунцзі. У дитинстві був розбещений вихователями, оскільки батьки були вбиті під час палацової змови. Більшість свого часу присвячував полюванню та розвагам, постійно вимагав надавати йому мисливських соколів, чим сильно дратував чжурчженів, які сплачували данину цими птахами.

Він прийшов до влади у 26 років. Правління Єлюй Яньсі почалось зі зведення храму його батька, якого було вбито під час палацового перевороту. Під керівництвом нового імператора кидані поступово втрачали військові навички, тому навіть невелика перемога над племенем зубу варта була значних труднощів. Невдовзі у Цяньчжоу підбурив повстання Сяо Хайлі, який захопив зброю й обладунки, після чого втік до чжурчженів. Єлюй Яньсі, всупереч порадам його генералів, вирішив не йти походом на чжурчженів.

У 1105 році Тяньцзи-ді видав заміж дівчину Елюй Наньсянь за імператора Ся Лі Цаньшуня.

1112 року вождь чжурчженів Ваньянь Агуда відмовився вшановувати імператора на урочистому заході. Імператор хотів його вбити прямо під час застілля, однак його відмовили. Брати Агуди продовжували служити в оточенні імператора, тож він почав потай збирати прибічників проти Єлюй Яньсі.

1114 року проти Агуди повстав вождь Хешилє Асу, але був змушений тікати до киданів. Агуда зажадав видати йому заколотника, погрожуючи війною. Військо Ляо почало готуватись до бойових дій.

Після того чжурчжені захопили округ Нінцзянчжоу та завдали перших поразок ляоській армії. Імператор відхилив (за порадою Сяо Фенсянь) доповідь міністра Сяо Таосуво, який пропонував направити на чжурчженів всю кіданську армію, поки інші племена приєдналися до них. Проти Агуди було відряджено Сяо Сисяня на чолі 7-тисячного загону, що зазнав нищівної поразки. За місяць у Воліньле був розбитий Сяо Ділі. Племена Кі і уже приєдналися до чжурчженів, які тепер контролювали три округи. Сяо Ісе був розбитий наступного місяця. Імператор заявив, що особисто розіб'є Агуду, але натомість наказав розпочати перемовини, що були безрезультатними. Агуда зажадав видачі Асу й виселення киданів з Хуанлунфу. Тим часом киданська армія продовжувала зазнавати поразок. Це призводило до заворушень, але кидані намагались тримати ситуацію під контролем.

Через місяць в Воліньле був розбитий Сяо Ділі. Приїзд імператора не підняв настрою воїнам. Племена Кі і уже приєдналися до чжурчженів, які тепер контролювали три округи. Сяо Ісе був розбитий наступного місяця. Імператор оголосив, що особисто розіб'є Агуду, але замість цього наказав почати переговори, які ні до чого не привели. Агуда вимагав видачі Асу та виселення киданів з Хуанлунфу. Незабаром був розбитий Елюй Елідо у місті Далугу. Деякі хвилювання стали відбуватися і в Бохан, але поки кідани змогли утримати ситуацію спокійною.

1115 року Ваньянь Агуда заснував власну державу Цзінь, а на території Ляо вже впродовж 11 років тривали повстання. Наприкінці того ж року імператор на чолі 700-тисячної армії вийшов проти 20-тисячного війська Агуди. Проте, отримавши звістку про нове повстання, Єлюй Яньсі розвернув свої війська. У місті під назвою Хубудаган Агуда, наздогнавши їх, завдав нищівної поразки. Рештки імператорського війська все ж зуміли наступного року придушити повстання.

1116 року Гао Юнчан підбурив повстання й оголосив про відновлення царства Бохай. За кілька місяців землі Бохаю захопили чжурчжені, яких не влаштовував такий розвиток подій. Імператор поспіхом проводив мобілізацію й конфіскацію майна, при цьому він не припиняв розважатись і полювати.

1117 року Агуда захопив Чуньчжоу, Сяньчжоу, Цяньчжоу, Ічжоу, Хаочжоу, Хуйчжоу. До кінця року Агуда відрядив послів до Ляо з метою встановлення умов визнання Цзінь. До Агуди почали тікати цілі родини киданів. 1118 року імператор Цзінь уклав союз із Сун.

1120 року Агуда, втомлений перемовинами, без особливого спротиву захопив Верхню столицю Ляо (Елюй Тобое здався разом з гарнізоном після першої спроби штурму) та розграбував мавзолеї імператорів. Єлюй Яньсі на той момент перебував у Західній столиці.

До 1121 року половина Ляо була захоплена чжурчженями. Окремі губернатори почали проголошувати себе ванами.

1122 року Агуда захопив Середню столицю. Єлюй Яньсі був змушений тікати до місцевості Юньчжун. Вважаючи, що імператор загинув, частина киданської знаті проголосила новим імператором Єлюй Чуня. Таким чином під владою Тянь-цзу залишились тільки дві північні області й частина союзних кочівників із цзубу й монголів. У четвертому місяці Агуда захопив Західну столицю. Єлюй Яньсі втік до пустелі. Єлюй Чунь невдовзі захворів і помер. Ще за кілька місяців Тянь-цзу бився з чжурчженями, втім зазнав нищівної поразки та знову втік.

На початку 1123 року чжурчжені захопили всю родину Єлюй Яньсі. Останній знову був змушений тікати до Юньнею. У 5-му місяці посли з Сі Ся умовили Тяньцзи-ді сховатися. Другий син Тяньцзи-ді на ім'я Елюй Ялі був проголошений імператором частиною знаті. У 9-му місяці Даші зміг звільнитися з чжурчженського полону.

У 1124 році Тяньцзи-ді сховався у Могос (мабуть союзний вождь киданів). Восени до нього приєднався Елюй Даші з шівейськими військами і вони разом обговорювали план відвоювання деяких областей.

За підтримки Західної Ся Єлюй Яньсі переховувався на західному кордоні до 1125 року. Навесні його захопив Ваньян Лоуші на території сучасного Їнсяня.

Відповідно до деяких джерел він помер у полоні за 3 роки з невідомої причини, інші ж джерела вважають, що він помер 1156 року. В будь-якому разі, достовірних відомостей про його смерть наразі немає. Таким чином династія Ляо припинила своє існування.

Примітки

Джерела

 Biran, Michal (2005). The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World. Cambridge University Press. p. 20. ISBN 0521842263

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


"Dear Mr. Coban, I wanted to send a note of thanks to you and your organization for being able to produce a quality product of musical memories from four (4) 78s, of which there was only one record produced of each! Having exhausted all other avenues of producing the CD on my own, I was fortunate to discover your website on the Internet. Thanks ..."
Tapes submitted on a hub only need flanges to be mounted on the hub before they can be recorded: a delicate and time consuming job.
It takes more time (and costs more) to process tapes on a hub only.
If you are submitting a tape pancake, please select Mount flanges to NAB hub.


Uttar-Pradesh, and Bihar. The medicinal properties of Ganga Water are ascribed to the several herbs that mix with waters which already have a mineral content. It is for these reasons that antibiotics factory has been set up in Rishikesh at Virbhadra about six kilometers away from Rishikesh on Haridwar Road.


It still took me three tries to get this ice cream just right, with a creamy, full flavor, a detectable level of booze that still allowed the ice cream to set, and ruby bits of cherries that stay soft and gooey. As a result, we now have three quarts of ice cream living in our freezer. When I explained this to my friend Vanessa, she said, "Ah – three days worth of ice cream." I like the way she thinks.
Indeed! This is a beautiful, well thought out, relatively complicated ice cream that looks absolutely fantastic! Make this once and I doubt you will ever buy Cherry Garcia again.
The combination of flavors is as good as it gets, a bourbon vanilla ice cream base, bourbon roasted sweet, fresh cherries and bittersweet chocolate. This recipe is a first rate example of how to use of liquor in ice cream.
The care with which they are combined to maximize both palate and eye appeal. For example, mixing in the roasted cherries after the bourbon ice cream is almost done churning, in order to get a marbled look to ice cream, rather than the uniform pink of a regular cherry ice cream. Also, rather than adding the chocolate as a mix-in of small chunks, as you would see in Cherry Garcia, Alanna adds beautiful alternate layers of drizzled chocolate, when she moves the ice cream to a container for freezing.
With 4 tablespoons of bourbon, it should maintain a very nice scoop-able consistency in your freezer. The author notes that this ice cream is good for a month of storage, and I believe it, though there is no way an ice cream this good would last a week, even in a single person household.
What do I mean by relatively complicated?
Pit and roast the cherries, and then chill them. Chilling them is essential because of when they are added to the ice cream.
Make an egg custard based vanilla ice cream.
Shave and melt the chocolate. The chocolate needs to be runny but not to hot to melt the ice cream. If you follow the instructions given, it should be fine.
Assemble the ice cream and chocolate in layers, fairly quickly; ice cream has this unfortunate tendency to enjoy melting faster than you would like, especially right out of the ice cream maker. A good spatula will be a must, pre-freezing your container will help, and doing this with a friend should help a great deal.
I wouldn't let any of this intimidate you, I mean look at the photograph! If you are a fan of these flavors than click over to Alanna Taylor-Tobin's blog The Bojon Gourmet for the full recipe.
This is recipe with at least 3 simpler knockout variations readily available just by leaving out one or more ingredients.
Bourbon vanilla with layers of drizzled chocolate.
This entry was posted in Ice Cream and tagged bourbon, cherries, chocolate, vanilla. Bookmark the permalink.


text:
GMO GENIE – Part 1: Is Monsanto to blame for Bee Colony Collapse Disorder?
On April 14, 2013 April 15, 2013 By Steve Busch
Bee – by Maciej Czyżewski
(Photo is in the public domain)
Bees don't just make honey, they are critical to sustaining life on planet earth. These tireless workers pollinate over 80 percent of our flowering crops which constitute about one third of everything we eat. Bees are critical to the annual production of some $19 billion dollars worth of crops in the United States. But a still undiagnosed lethal phenomenon affecting bees called "Colony Collapse Disorder", or CCD, is causing widespread alarm throughout the agricultural community.
Many people concerned with food quality and food safety are blaming the bee death problem on the overuse of chemical treatments and/or the widespread introduction of genetically modified organisms. They point out that Monsanto's MON810 corn technology combines the genes of a corn plant with the genetic material of an insect killing bacterium that may prove harmful to non-targeted species.
Although wind is the primary pollination mechanism for corn, the wind does carry corn pollen and deposit it on many of the flowering plants bees do pollinate. Our food safety and regulatory agencies consider it imperative that any new genetically modified (GM) product that contains insect killing properties be assessed for potential impacts on bee health.
Many people are leery of GM technology and simply do not want to eat genetically modified organisms – especially vegetables and fruits that incorporate genetic material from non-plant species. There is a growing popular uprising calling, not just for additional consumer product labeling (which constitutes informed consent), but the wholesale banning of GM crops.
In 2012, a panel of technology and food safety experts appointed by the Supreme Court of India unanimously recommended that all GM field trials in India should be stopped until certain considerations were met. Concerns about safety, the monopolization of the food supply, and cross-contamination of traditional non-GM crops are increasing. For instance, Peru has adopted an outright ban on all GM products primarily because of the threat they pose to locally produced unique crop varieties. Unfortunately, countries that are resistant to having genetically modified organisms in their food supply, such as France, Poland, Austria, New Zealand, Scotland, Japan, India and Peru, are finding out that the GM genie may be impossible to contain:
"While the ban will curb the planting and importation of GMOs in the country, a test conducted by the Peruvian Association of Consumers and Users (ASPEC) at the time of the ban's implementation found that 77 percent of supermarket products tested contained GM contaminants. " Research by ASPEC confirms something that Peruvians knew all along: GM foods are on the shelves of our markets and wineries, and consumers buy them and take them into their homes to eat without knowing it.. GMOs are so prevalent in the Americas that it is virtually impossible to truly and completely block them, whether through pollination or being sneaked in as processed foods."
http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2012/03/10/peru-passes-monumental-ten-year-ban-on-genetically-engineered-foods/
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13231-peru-approves-10-year-ban-on-gm-crops
Bee colony collapse disorder is likely caused by a combination of factors, however there is a growing body of evidence that certain pesticides or herbicides may play a significant role. Monsanto creates many varieties of Round-Up ready seed, which has led to huge increases in the use of that particular herbicide. Their MON810 corn, is a patented product which has been heavily marketed throughout the world for more than 16 years. It contains genetic material from Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium that produces a chemical that when ingested ruptures the stomach lining of certain types of insects.
http://www.npic.orst.edu/factsheets/BTgen.pdf
Companies that produce GM seed technologies are under a legal and ethical obligation to prove that their products are safe. There are numerous studies showing that Monsanto's Bt corn is safe for human consumption and has no effect on bees. But can these studies be trusted? The fact is, consumer safety often takes a back seat to economic or political expediency.
While Monsanto may have met its legal obligations by submitting MON810 for testing by regulatory agencies and numerous "third parties", tacit approval of any product with such potentially serious impacts on cultures and the environment should be highly scrutinized and re-examined in light of new research as it becomes available. There simply is no justifiable reason to push unnecessary and potentially dangerous products through an approval process especially when that process may not be sufficient for the task.
We should also consider the role of duplicity and corruption in the process. Many high ranking employees staffing U.S. government regulatory agencies swap jobs and end up with lucrative careers in the very corporations they were charged with regulating. These corporations have huge lobbying budgets, and often provide grants to some of the same "third party" universities and research facilities that end up testing their products.
Here's how Monsanto describes their GM corn:
"MON810 is an insect-protection corn product developed through the use of biotechnology that was launched in 1996. The product works by enabling corn plants to produce a protein that comes from a naturally-occurring bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis, commonly known as Bt. This protein provides protection against damaging corn borer pests that can significantly impact both yield and quality."
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/mon810-background-information.aspx
Notice how Monsanto describes the Bt bacteria as "naturally-occurring", even though the incorporation of Bt genetic material into the maize genome is anything but natural! Such cross species transgenics would never occur in nature, not even in a million years. MON810 is a wholly new creation, a patented new life form created in a laboratory. Its release into the environment should have been handled with much greater concern than this typical rubber stamp from the European Food Safety Authority:
"No potential public health and safety concerns have been identified in the assessment of insect protected corn line MON 810. Based on the data submitted in the present application, food derived from this corn line can be regarded as equivalent to food derived from conventional corn in respect of its composition, safety and end use."
(Note the qualifier, "based on the data submitted…" Whose data? What data?)
Yet another study concludes:
"The MON 810 plants have demonstrated effective control of the targeted insect pests in corn field trials since 1993. The cry 1ab gene has been crossed into commercial corn inbreds to produce hybrids of superior agronomic performance with resistance to lepidopteran insects. Detailed food, feed, and environmental safety assessments have confirmed the safety of this product and supported the regulatory approval of insect-protected corn line MON 810."
Click on the link below to read this 2008 Meta-Analysis of 25 safety assessments regarding the effects of MON810 on bees:
While the synopsis supports the conclusions of previous studies, it concludes with an admission that the research conducted "in the vast majority of studies to date have been largely limited to the laboratory." The authors point out the need for additional large scale field studies since conditions in the field are considerably different and include many factors and "stressors" on bee populations that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. However that admission brings to light the problem already mentioned above, which is that for obvious safety reasons, open field studies of GM products have been banned in many countries. For example, the only country that allows open field studies of GM products in Central America is Honduras.
It is ironic that these researchers point out the need to conduct additional field studies on MON810 twelve years after it was released into the global marketplace. This is really an astonishing and noteworthy admission considering that two of the meta-study authors, Jian Duan and Joseph Huesing, are Monsanto employees.
Researchers have noted that there is a sub-species of Bt that is deadly to bees. What happens if we discover that the Bt genetic material in Monsanto's corn or in their Bt cotton, both of which have now been spread over millions of acres around the world, cause mutations that become toxic to bees? What happens when researchers discover a previously "unknown route of transmission" for a chemical treatment that was previously deemed safe for bees? What if the "safe" Bt species combines with (fill in the blank) in the field and actually does kill bees or creates some other serious environmental problem? Will Monsanto simply say, "Oops! Sorry we destroyed the food web causing billions of people to starve"?
In some respects, the introduction of GM products is very similar to the introduction of wolves into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. People are slowly waking up to the far reaching impacts of these deceitfully marketed introductions. In both instances the genie has already been let out of the bottle (or the animal transport cage, as the case may be), with potentially irreparable and devastating consequences.
I contend that the public has been hoodwinked into believing "science" has proven something when it has not. There is no general scientific consensus on the safety of GMO's. In fact just the opposite is true. Here are just some of the conclusions detailed in a report compiled by Michael Antoniou, PhD, molecular genetics and head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group, King's College London School of Medicine, London UK:
"Genetically modifying crops, which involves the transfer of genes between biologically unrelated species, is not an extension of traditional plant hybridization, but a radical departure which can produce new toxins or allergens in food that are unlikely to be spotted in current regulatory checks."
"GM foods have not been adequately safety tested. There has been no long term research, and the few short term studies have been inadequate. In many cases proprietary restrictions put in place by biotech companies like Monsanto have prevented independent research by scientists not connected to the corporations which are making claims about their safety."
"Animal studies of the effects of GM foods have disclosed clear signs of toxicity– notably disturbances in liver and kidney function and immune responses."
"Over 75% of gene modifications are [designed] to increase crop tolerance of herbicides. Where these crops are grown there has been massive increases in herbicide use."
"Over half of GM crops are engineered to withstand application of Monsanto's best selling Roundup. Contrary to the company's claims Roundup is not safe at the levels it is being use, but has been found to be associated with miscarriage, birth defects, neurological development problems, DNA damage, and certain types of cancer. A public health crisis has occurred in GM soy-producing regions of South America, where people exposed to spraying with Roundup and other agrochemicals report escalating rates of birth defects and cancer."
"There is insufficient evidence that the BT toxin engineered into the plant structure of corn and cotton (whose seeds are used in food oil production) is safe for human consumption. Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials. These toxins have also been found circulating in the blood of pregnant women in Canada and in the blood supply to their foetuses."
"GM crops have not been shown to offer higher crop yields, enhanced nutritional value or greater drought tolerance, as they have been hyped to do. The products of conventional breeding continue to outstrip GM in all of these arenas."
"Conventionally bred, locally adapted crops, used in combination with environmentally sustainable farming practices, offer a safer, cheaper and more efficient way to ensure global food security than genetic modification."
To conclude part one, we simply do not know if Monsanto is responsible for the phenomena known as "Bee Colony Collapse Disorder" or not. But it may be prudent to ban GM crops for at least a decade or more, or until science has proven or dis-proven their safety. To pretend all is just fine now, when it may not be, could prove fatal.
REWILDING THE INTERIOR – Beware the LCC's
GMO GENIE: Part 2 – Did God really say, "Don't!"
10 thoughts on "GMO GENIE – Part 1: Is Monsanto to blame for Bee Colony Collapse Disorder?"
Well done Steve – Very unsettling to come to terms with the reality of what this means in regard to food production/supply and the way it will impact the lives of American's in the very near future.
Linda Moulton Howe/Earthfiles has a very recent report covering Monsanto GMO's impact on the Monarch, another pollinator.
Frankencorn or whatever, it just seems wherever you turn men are trying to do all things without God, which is the natural outcome of having banished Him from consciousness; the results will be horror-able, and then we'll blame Him for that horror.
Did Monsanto order the Illinois government to confiscate this man's research?
The Terrence Ingram story: http://foodfreedomgroup.com/2012/05/22/illinois-illegally-seizes-bees-resistant-to-roundup-kills-remaining-queens/
Should Monsanto lead a summit to investigate it's own products? Is the "we care" ploy enough to convince consumers that GM products are harmless? http://www.nbcnews.com/business/monsanto-bayer-seek-answers-bee-losses-6C9996526
This film has been released for free viewing for a limited time. Must see.
Steve, do you have any idea why monolithic Monsanto is allowed to run roughshod over the world and especially over North America? Could it be population reduction? Where are the courts, the judges who themselves will be judged? Finally, has there been any comments on this from the Vatican?
Sorry for this kind of open-end barrage of questions, and don't feel compelled to answer them, because we do know that in "The Last Times" evil will on the increase.
Often I have pointed to Hollywood as giving some answers to the why of things like Monsanto, and when one considers that Hollywood considers human beings to be as a "Virus" , then my guess is that they feel some kind of "anti-biotic" is called for.
In 2009 the Pontifical Academy of Sciences gave a fairly luke-warm endorsement of GM crops citing their industry "advertised" potential. However, these folks are largely lay persons with no authority to speak for the Vatican. They do NOT set official church policy. Suffice to say these advisors were swayed by industry propaganda. It will be interesting to see if they come out with a different recommendation as new evidence citing the dangers of GM is revealed.
Thanks to Wikileaks we do know that there was a great deal of pressure placed on the Vatican to come out in support of GM during the Bush administration. However there is no official Church policy or statement on the issue one way or the other far as I know. There are a large number of Catholic Bishops (and the number is growing rapidly as new information emerges) who are strongly opposed to GMO's, particularly in S. America.
http://news.msn.com/us/kansas-farmer-sues-monsanto-over-rogue-wheat-release
A Kansas wheat farmer filed suit Monday against biotech giant Monsanto alleging that he and other wheat farmers have been hurt financially by the company's unapproved biotech wheat.
"Monsanto has released GE (genetically engineered) wheat into the non-genetically modified wheat population," the petition states.
The "plaintiff has been harmed by any and all Monsanto GE wheat because it has impacted wheat exports and the price of wheat," the petition also states.
It is not known how widespread the unapproved wheat is, or if it has contaminated food supplies. But some buyers of U.S. wheat have backed away from purchases. South Korea and Japan immediately suspended their U.S. wheat purchases and European Union officials have said they want to test all incoming shipments and block any containing genetically modified wheat.
NO GMO's AT SVALBARD DOOMSDAY SEED VAULT
I contacted the folks in charge of protecting the world's seed supply at Crop Diversity Trust asking if they were storing GM seeds at the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. The Senior Scientist in charge, Luigi Guarino, sent me back a one word reply, "NO."
The bunker in Svalbard is a repository of seeds that has been built deep inside a mountain on a remote island in the Svalbard archipelago, halfway between mainland Norway and the North Pole. It exists in order to protect and replenish seed supplies should a natural or MAN MADE catastrophe wipe out regional or global food crop production. Reports that GM seeds could wipe out pollinators, threaten global crop diversity, or destroy the world's food supply certainly fall into the category of a potential man-made catastrophe.
http://www.croptrust.org/content/svalbard-global-seed-vault
http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol67-2014-125-130lu.pdf
Pesticide usasge, not mites, to blame for increase in CCD.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl