Sparticus represented more than a gladiator-slave uprising. Sparticus represented the Italian's people dissatisfaction with the Roman Senate and the general corruption and impotence within the Senate.

Citizens once had a voice with the Senate and the Senate listened keeping the republic free. Now, the Senate caved to the demands of the dictators and military commanders and installed for the first time an Emperor giving him six legends too suppress the slave uprising.

In the end the slave and citizen uprising could not resist the Roman legions. Many of the people joining Sparticus were discontent citizens of Rome and individuals from countries that did not like Rome. Originally, the republic which was composed of strong free men. The military started the slow strangulation of the republic by replacing it with an empire. Julius Caesar was introduced as the shadow of the wings of power. Crassus was depicted as the total dictator who put oppressive demands on Rome and the Senate as the body that had lost its power. The Senate historically would have debated the issues and objected to outrageous demands. Instead, the Senate allowed the Emperor to rule Rome and the Emperor established the laws and source of the law and executed the law. The Emperor had power too repeal old laws and establish new laws, in place of the old ones. The punishments for violation of the law could be death and probably a Roman death on the cross demonstrating the Emperors absolute power. The Citizen did what they were told and they did not act without permission. Secret police reported any activity that could bring punishment on the citizen. The laws were supposedly designed to bring security. As the Emperor distrusted and feared the people this only accelerated the downfall of Rome.

The notion of divine right of kings was established. Taxes imposed on the people support the huge military appetite generated as Rome conquered many European countries. The government would become an autocracy and the Emperor the supreme commander.

Sparticus hoped to flee Rome, negotiated with pirates too build ships using gold taken during conquests that would take them from the tip of Italy away to a promise land. Instead, the pirates betrayed Sparticus and did not build the ships allowing the Roman legends to trap Sparticus from the South pushing him towards Rome and forcing a confrontation in the fields close to Rome.

Sparticus was defeated, his men cruxified along the way to Rome, when captured his men coined the phrase "I am Sparticus" when asked who was Sparticus. Sparticus wife would become a member of Crassus Heirloom yet the Senator would arrange for her escape and continue with his own suicide and Sparticus son would remain free.

1997, 30 year Treasury Bonds Fell to 5.58; traders were selling short to hedge against riskier bonds, treasuries rallied and spreads increased between bonds; Japanese bonds dropped opposite of the bet by LTCM.

Blame the Asian flu, IMF unresponsiveness, and Salomon Barney Smith abandonment of its arbitrage positions as causes for the evaporation of 4 billion dollars LTCM within months. LTCM was too big, possessing $128 billion in assets and $3.6 billion in the bank and 2/5 of money belonging to the owners. Notation derivates reaching leverage 100 to 1 preventing rapid sell off and bankruptcy out of question, for bankruptcy would have caused a world cascade economic crash and loses reaching above $1 trillion. Bankruptcy was not an option; LTCM was too big to fail and the Fed knew it. LTCM only chance was too secure money from warranties, loans, or a buy out; none of which in the end would save them. In the end, the Feds 16 banks would invest $250 million each with a total accumulation of $4 billion dollars rescuing LTCM and the partners would leave with relatively nothing in their pockets. How did smartest guys on Wall Street fail? How did the impossible happen?

1997, Indonesia, Rupiah dropped 85 percent as currency traders forced devaluation revealing a corrupt banking practices and overextension of bad credit; volatility rose to 27 percent.

1998 LTCM bet that no future recession would occur and believed the Bond margins would narrow. Instead, the world economy were experience new global forces as communism was breaking down, China's GNP was heating up, and East Germany was experiencing new economic freedoms. A U.S - 56 point margin increase on the swap, England - 45 point margin, and German - 20 point margin and LTCM was losing money on all of its markets. LTCM had previously negotiated a warrant by UBS and UBS was being seriously exposed while LTCM was claiming "Future expected returns are good" although Equity Volume was in trouble, Swap margins were increasing, and Treasuries were falling as investors fled to safer securities and as Treasuries were being bought up their rates dropping to 5.56.

With Indonesia falling - all eyes were turned to Russia. There was no rescue by the IMF for the Russian ruble. Shares in Europe and Turkey were weak and Venezuelans were buying dollars all the while swaps margins increased. Aug 21, the Dow fell 280 points and investors continued to prefer the safest bonds, the 30 year treasures, US swaps increased to 76 points, 20 points in one day, Britain swaps increased to 62 points and mortgage spreads spread to 121 points, high yield climbed to 276, and treasurers were at 13. LTCM lost $558 million in a single day, 15 percent of their capital. LTCM was certain the markets would correct rationally and the spreads converge. Losses accumulated faster because leverages increased. Additional $200 million in funding was requested from Merrill Lynch. Hedge funds were not considered a bank and so credit extension regulation was constrained. The drop in LTCM performance caused banks to tighten their credit lines to hedge funds. In fact, the hedge funds poor performance screamed default and banks demanded their entitlement to repayment. LTCM was very close to insolvency. Mattone told Meriwether, "when you're down by half, people figure you can go down all the way" and "your out". Aug 31, the DOW crashed 512 points, Hong Kong Authority stopped supporting local markets by buying local shares. For the month of Aug, LTCM had lost $1.9 billion, 45 percent of its equity capital, and still had $125 billion in derivative assets. Death was imminent, the leveraging could not be stopped, LTCM was immobilized by its size, and Bear was threatening to suspend trading. After reviewing LTCM books, Bear allowed LTCM trades and gave a harsh warning, if they dropped below $500 million all trades would halt.

Sep 10, LTCM experiences a sum lose of $500 million dollar for five days of trading. LTCM still has 7,000 derivative contracts totaling $1.4 trillion dollars.

In 1987, Alan Greenspan was appointed as chairman of the Federal Reserves. Greenspan did not totally understand hedge funds, they were fairly private, and the Fed had no authority over them. Greenspan was nervous about the credit lines extended too these funds. Some call the funds, banks. What were the hedge funds? What is a bank?

The New York Fed keeps in touch with its branches and they talk with private industry, so supposedly the Fed keeps a pulse on the private sector. The Fed has a trading desk and trades $450 billions in treasuries, buying and selling to affect the amount of available money supply. If the Fed buys treasures, this act increase money supply and gives banks more money for banks to loan, and interest rates decrease. If the Fed buys back treasures, this act decrease money supply and makes less available loanable money and interest rates rise.

The volatility of LTCM was rising because it was so vulnerable. LTCM was being pressured by Goldman as they continued buying down increasing spreads. Goldman exasperated the European bond market cutting apart LTCM.

Warren Buffet was a seemly friend but of no help to LTCM. Berkshire Hathaway made an offer: 250 million for $3.57 billion to stabilize the fund and all partners fired. Legal confusion forfeited the deal. The last thing the economy wanted was an economic meltdown, so the Fed offered a deal and the LTCM partners were out in the cold with tears in their eyes, a perfect model (Merton, Black, Scholes) and not enough liquid money to save them against the impossible.

Judges have become too powerful; they tell juries what evidence is admissible and which pieces of evidence must be discarded; judges instruct juries on the meaning and intepretation of the law; juries attempt to appease the judges by closely following the instructions and intrepretations in finding a verdict, their civic duty; the more constrainted the rules of law and admissible evidence the more influence the judge has over the outcome of the verdict; juries don't receive great threatment or financial compensation for their time and can be forced to remain silent, feed mediocre food, forced too appear in court with little regard too their personal considerations, and sequestered by confinement too a hotel.

I praise the author's courage in pointing out that juries have a responsibility to Justice and law secondary. Justice is the responsibility of the people. People's law guarantees liberty, justice, and truth. A jury is the people's last defense against a tyrancal government. If rules and evidence can be controlled, the final verdict of the jury can become predictable. I say, a jury should have the power too decided what evidence is admissible, a jury should have the power too decide, if a law is unconstitutional and have the right to dismiss the law according to their conscience.

A jury represents the finest power given too the people to administer Justice. Expediency is a power oriented goal for the law. Should a computer be given the power too decide guilt or innocence? The goal of law must always be too seek Justice. Objectivity and impartiality does not necessary guarantee justice. In any serious charge the defendant should always have the right to a jury. The power of Judges too administer Justice needs too be contracted and constrainted and the jury power expanded - maintaining the power too see Justice is served. Therefore, it seems the Judge and Jury are at odds with each other; the judge seeking more control over the jury by increasing his power and capability and the jury reliquishing its discernment power and confining itself too the boundaries of the law as explained by the judge. Can a judge rule on verdicts more wisely than a jury? Historically, for serious crime the English common law brought the King as a party in the criminal case? How did the crime hurt the king? Why did the king entangle himself into the criminal case? Is prosecuting crime really about forced collection of money?

An eye for an eye mean compensation for injury not revenge. The parties have the right to work out a negotiation for compensation. An eye for an eye did not mean two people walked around blind. Does the law sometimes attempt to be so objective that both parties walk around blind? Where is the discernment power? Should juries be given the power too discern guilt or innocence? Has law become too much like a business negotiation between a big company and the small business?

The power migration to the Judges must swing back towards the Jury. The defendant is entitled too defense counsel, a speedy trial, and an impartial jury for an serious charge. The state uses tax money to pay for courts and attorneys to represent the state's interest. It is in the best interest of the state to prosecute crime because crime is big business. When the defendants rights are forfeited, Justice is not served; Justice can not be fair if the power is removed from the people too decide what is Just.

The fact that the State becomes entangled in serious crimes where party one wrongs party two seems unconstitutional. The case should be between the parties involved in the crime. A fee should be paid to the court for usage of the facility. A jury should be selected from among individuals the parties know. A jury member should be able to bring insight and information to other jury members about the circumstances of the case.

The law should not be revengeful, instead it should only offer compensation for damage. In the Milcray case, the law measured "intent" equivalent with "depravation of human life"; so, if the defendant demonstrated by a reasonable doubt - heinous disreguard for human life, he could be charged with 2nd degree murder. The test for mental intent did not necessary have to be proven.

"A fool and his money" is the story of buyers remorse of one very lucky investor, who walked away with 50 percent of his money. Zero game means one person is a winner and another person is a loser. John got a bad taste, as he discovered the hazards of his margin being called and being forced too come up with 8600 dollars, too cover his investments and learned once again the average investor can not afford too invest. Bottom line, the lucky disappear into anomity, no one knows there name only their story; the losers feed the winners; and the winners are always looking for new losers.

John made a few mistakes, acted on weak advice, and held on too long after realizing his mistake. John gave some very insightful information about mutal fund managers. At the time of the book 9200 fund managers were controlling 75 percent of the wealth. John says, mutal fund managers don't outperform the averages because they collaborate between each other on selection. Outperformance is shunned because it distinquishes one mutal fund manager above another and makes the other look bad; and his claim for why mutal fund managers don't beat the average.

The Federal Reserve buy Bonds and use bonds too control the money supply. The Bonds represent assets which banks can loan money against increasing the available money supply to the consumer. If inflation increases, the Fed sells Bonds decreasing the money supply and increasing the interest rate. So, the Fed regulates inflations by controlling the amount of money supply.

Division of labor is the essence of a free market system. A corporation is a lifeless entity: it does not have a brain, a heart, or an living organ. Too say a corporation is a new master and the workers are the slaves is not rationale. The migration from an industrial based society too an knowledge based society means that individuals provide the labor for an organization and individuals create the networks to get work done and organizations are composed of networks of individuals that provide specialized labor.

A corporation produces product from the efforts and skills of numerous divisons of specializations of labor. So the idea that an employee or a group of employees are indepensible to an organization is not practical. Exchange of money by a corporation is forced by the individual based on the agreement and terms of services rendered. A corporation can not breach the work agreement without penality. So, a contract of sorts is formed between the individual and corporations for the acquistion of labor skill and services, in exchange for money or profit. This free market transaction is not forced on the individual, it is a choice to labor in exchange for profit. The free exchange of business is the life of capitalism. Capitalism is the life of the free market system.

An anomaly in the model is insurance companies. Insurance companies represent a break in the model. The relationship between the insurance company and its beneficiaries seems to be one exception in the labor equal profit model. Insurance companies acquire money and do not want to pay out benefits on claims without adversial compelling reasons. There is not realization of any labor service agreements and so the benefit payment seems difficult to access or measure. The contracts are not explicit and easy too execute. Insurance seems too defy the labor equals profit equation.

So, organizations draw upon labor pools to accomplish specific tasks in the corporation. The process of identifying specific individuals capable of providing specific domains of knowledge becomes the competing factor between corporations on the free market. Companies must compete for labor. The marketing of knowledge labor jobs is too accomodate a sector of labor for the exchange of money or profit. Sectors provides the highest levels of profit attract labor.

Making the megacorporation the enemy is a blanket discrimination. The real threat is socialism. Why did legislature support for slavery die? Because slavery was based on the idealogy of socialism. Socialism destroys the free market. The free market can always compete from efficiency, innovatively, and cheaper than any other market system. However, if the free market is burden under the idealogy of socialism, it oppressive doctrines and practices stiffle incentitive; workers have no profit motive too labor; the state supports an idle group of workers with welfare benefits; and the quality of life deterioates. The slave industry was destined to crumble. The founding fathers realized "cheap labor" provided by slavery would never last. Division of labor and the "invisible hand" drove individuals to gain specialized knowledge, the work for a profit, increasing both wealth and productivity. As long as socialistic idealogy does not destroy the workers belief they can labor for a profit, the knowledge worker will continue to think, innovate, design, and produce. The impact of the brain produces millions of fold of value. The human inguentity is the great producer of profit.

Did large corporations force small farmers too sell their land? No. Division of labor for small farmers was so inefficient they could not compete against large corporations possessing capital giving them an agricultural advantage. The agricultural advantage being fertilizers, economy of scale discounts, improved planting and harvesting methodologies. The free market benefit from lower food prices and more abundant supply. The small farmer could not convince his sons that farm division was profitable enough to spend their lives on the farm, so they sought more profit divisions of labor. As long as demand exists for a labor division, resource pooling will be available; once demand decreases labors migrate too new labor divisions and create resource pools of availability.

Large corporations represent a tax entity. Individuals within the corporation are responsible too invest, distribute, and utilize the resources of the corporation. Individual networks provide the specialization of labor and the resource pooling too keep the corporate tax entity profitable. If individuals support socialistic idealogy then labor productivity will cease because socialism prohibits profitable labor. Taxes reduce profits. Reductions in profits suffocate labor incentive.

If a man labors diligently he expects too profit from that labor. Similarly, if governmental interests preempt a man's land and the grounds for justification are not compelling as necessary for the welfare and security of the nation then the government is expected to pay fair market compensation for the land. A Laissez-faire ensured government encroachment in business would be held too a minimum allowing commerce to flourish through free trade. Often times the Supreme Court did not feel competed too impose their opinions of business on the market and remained neutral.

Federal courts began establishing a dominate of pattern of reversing jury decisions for physical damages and punitive damages award by juries. Sometimes the cases involved a conflict between and individual and a business, an individual against another individual represented by a silent insurance company, or a state regulation against a business. In over 70 percent of the cases appeal to a federal court, the court reversed the decision of the jury.

The Supreme Court ruling in Hancock established that judges held the power to tell juries what the law is. So, Judges instructed juries on the meaning of the law. Judges specific told juries what laws should apply to the case and which laws to ignore. Even before a trial started, a judge could decide, who should win the case. In both the Silkwood and Pringer federal cases involving a federal judge reversed the punitive damages. The reason for reverse in Silkwood suggested that a state could not regulate Kerr-McGee, a private nuclear business, instead that was the job NRC, a federal agency. NRC had over 500 filings on record against Kerr-McGee and no formal litigation. In Pringer, a Federal Judge reversed the Ms Wyoming defamation suite because the stories sold too 26 million men were fantasy and not reality therefore no direct damage could be assigned. Federal courts preempt the rulings and regulations of State courts when the punishments are excessive causing appeal. It seems the federal courts force state courts to preempt. The courts protect the economic liberties of big business. Courts want big business to profit from their labors and make money. The contractual agreements to transact business are protected by the law. The terms for goods and services are defined in the contract and profit amounts agreed upon too do business. A breach of contract brings judicial penalties for the violating party to pay up. Judges are do not provide the moral guardianship of the law. Moral guardianship is the job of the legislative body. Judges defend or champion the interests of law and not necessary justice. Justice is God's job.

Judges are Gods. They can decided who stays married, who gets divorce; they can wrestle children from families and put them if foster homes; they can decide who was right in a traffic violation and who should pay the bill. Judges are the law.

Prior to the first century no court applied constitutional rights for corporations. In 1886, Santa Clara County verses Pacific Railroad, in a head note explain the case the author implied that "corporations were persons" as a reason for the court administering a 25 dollar fine to the corporation. The foundation for "personhood" gave rise too a constitutional claim of equal protection of the law for corporations. Using this precedence, Corporations were quick to fight for constitutional protections for 1. Free speech (1st amendment) 2. privacy protection (10th amendment) 3. Freedom from search and seizure (fourth amendment) 4. double jeopardy (5th amendment) 5. Self-incrimination (5th amendment) 6. and anti-discriminations (14th amendment). It seem corporations had done the impossible, they had received the same scrutiny or equal protection as race. Over the century, the vast number of 14th amendment cases has been equal protection claims against anti-discrimination policies for corporations. Corporations have established civil liberties and constitutional rights protected by law.

So why not let the corporation vote? One could argue, in a republican form of government a small governing body holds representation of power and decision-making; so, why not let corporations vote? Corporations represent the wealth, resources, and jobs of America. Further one may observe that the vested interests of the corporation could be represented, if they were given a vote. So why have corporation not been given the power to vote?

If corporations received the same protection as a person the democratic process would be destroyed. Apparently the founding fathers did not want to give corporations this level of power over the people, so no constitutional provision or implication was made to give corporations an elective vote for selection of a candidate or local law. Do corporation remain powerless or silent on this issue of voting constraint?

Corporations vote with money. In an election year politicians receive tens of millions of dollars to their party, which in my opinion is a loophole. Political campaigns were designed too be limited in the contribution amounts to safeguard against buying an election.

The magnitude of financial difference between corporate donations and people donations is staggering. Persons give hundreds or thousands of dollars too politicians, whereas, corporations give millions to politicians. This allows corporations too buy favorable legislation manipulation. However, the people still have the power too elect their government officials and this fundamental power gives the people the ability too prevent government representatives from being completely controlled by the corporations. If the elected official performs contrary to the people opinion they have the right the next election to select a different representative. The people have the power to select their representatives. The representatives have the obligation to listen to the interest for the people. The representatives are too account for good and moral decisions, while in office. It is the job of the people are too voice their concern, as poor legislation becomes law.
However, once in office, special interest lobbying applies pressure too government representatives for support to their viewpoints. These viewpoints may not be confined to America. Since, corporations are global entities and represent global interests, corporations can own more than one corporation; corporations often campaign for inter-continental interests in their campaign for rights, interests, and support with the government representatives. These corporations can span multiple countries, whereas, a citizen must reside in one country. The fact that corporations can represent viewpoints for various countries and receive legal and political recognition, as a person in this country seems grants foreigners a new level of leverage with the American political process.

If corporations have constitutional rights, do they have responsibilities to other citizens? Corporations have migrated from state privileges to constitutional rights. Corporations are expected to act like good citizens: pay taxes, obey the laws, keep the environment clean, and pay a living. Citizens are expected to operate under moral constraints, whereas, corporations are expected to make money. A corporation is not expected to operate on moral constraints. What that means is the corporation may apply force since no moral guardian stands in the way from them achieving their goal of profits. If no legal constraint exists, the corporation plows forward to make money without consideration of any moral constraint. For example, the liberal media corporations claim the right to freedom of expression. This means the corporation is free to sell media with high levels of sexual content, violence, and degrading morality. The impact can span generations. The selling of produce can span many decades because a corporation exists in perpetuity.

The produce is subject to taxation, protection under copyright law, and free commerce between states and other nations. Laws and regulations force the media companies too have movie content rated. Since companies have similar protections as persons, the first amendment rights extend too the corporation.
The first amendment includes prohibitions against the government from censoring speech and freedom of expression and this gives the corporation a tremendous liberty to sponsor lascivious and immoral content in movies.

The killing of Vicki Weaver raised a constitutional question with two outcomes: one outcome succeeded and the other failed the constitutional test.

The Constitution allows government agents the power to use lethal force, if the government agency is in danger and fear harm to body. The federal government claims the 2nd amendment applies too the federal government and not the individual.

The constitutional test does not state whether the danger must be real or perceived. An agent does not necessarily have too come under fire to return fire.

Succeed
1. When Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris were advancing out of their cabin, the test qualified, and Federal agents could constitutionally shoot at them.

Failed
1. When Randy Weaver retreated to his cabin, the officer were secured behind rocks, no arms were being discharged, and trees block any line of sight opportunity to shoot back; so it was unconstitutional for the agents to shoot.

Horiuchi claimed he kill Vicki Weaver according to the rules of engagement. Horiuchi stated he was authorized to shoot on sight and use lethal force. The threat had been already established when Harris shot the federal officer. Harris claimed he was acting in self-defense. A tangent justification surfaced as Horiuchi justified his shoot of Vicki because he claims that he could see Randy taking aim at the helicopter through the window. In other words, Horiuchi was acting to protect the helicopter from gun fire. The helicopter had been used to survey the terrain around the Ruby Ridge cabin.

Horiuchi denies having targeted Vicki and the children. Instead, Horiuchi claim he saw movement in the cabin and shot through the curtains with a high power rifle at Harris, who was retreating into the cabin. Weaver was also shot in the right arm.

Horiuchi claims he missed a opportunity too shoot Weaver as he unexpectedly came around the corner of his house. Horiuchi says by time he went to his sight, Weaver was gone.

The commission was very concerned as too why Horiuchi would shoot into the cabin endangering the children. It was very foreseeable that a bullet would pass through the glass window, through the curtain, and possible injury one of the children. Horiuchi had not response other than he saw movement.

Horiuchi claimed he was acting constitutionally because a threat had been established and he was following the rules of engagement. Horiuchi did not have to think about killing, it was already decided according to the rules of engagement. Harris had legitimized the use of lethal force by shooting Dugan. The rules of engagement were in force and they planned to kill them all. In war, a soldier is authorized too kill the enemy. This confrontation was not a war, yet Horiuchi talks like a soldier given a command to take the front line. Horiuch received protection under the federal supremcy clause of the constitution against state inquiry and legal action. However, the clause could be suspend, if unreasonable means and actions could be demonstrated and brought against Horiuchi.

The constitutional protects citizens from being killed because of religion, race, political views, or gender. The Weaver case looks like a standoff between the federal agents and an supposed anarchist. Weavers failure to appear in court on the charges of selling a sawoff shotgun put him and his family in harms way. Weaver claims he wanted to sell two shotguns in normal condition but was setup too saw them off as a payoff condition. The sawed off shotgun made the case a federal case involving a U.S Marshall after Weaver missed his court appearance.

Many Idaho Nazis sympathizers came to Weavers rescue but were detained by local police. Its very likely the Weaver case was a standoff between 300 federal, state, and local officers and three adults in a cabin. The government paranoia stance was seemingly substantiated with findings of numerous weapons in the cabin and 1000 rounds of ammunition. However, they expected too find grenades in their paranoia and failed. The military buildup in a civil police case by the ATF was designed to bring causualities. A confrontation was going to take place. It was like a war against a citizen.

The commission in charge of reviewing Ruby Ridge assert the right for officers to use lethal force and sympathized with the risk of hestitation in a lethal confrontation. The commission did not want to interfere with the officers actions in just away that could endanger his life. However, The commission charged officers with the responsibility too preserve the public trust. When an officer breaks acts questionable they must make an accounting for their actions. The invesigation reports must accurate and dependable for justice too prevail.

The 302 investigation form had uncredible data that conflicted with the testimony of the witnesses. This slope reporting raised more questions about what really happened. The faulty investigation reporting makes the agency seem unreliable in maintaining public trust. The citizen should not be afraid of the government. Fear is slavery.

Immensely refreshing movie that brings out the best adventure of the human spirit. Phileas Fogg the eccentric multi-millionaire makes a beat with the members with an elite all British Club whose members include a banker from the bank of England that he can travel around the world in 80 days accompanied by his servant Cantinflas. The Club starts placing beats against Fogg immediately and Fogg's deductions about a bank robbery will make him a suspect.
Fogg instructs Cantinflas too carry the bag containing an enormous quantity of new British notes and charges him to watch the bag at all times. When Fogg arrives at the travel agency and discovers an avalanche has blocked travel by railway, he begins searching for a new solution and upon discovering an alternate solution Fogg purchases a hot air balloon. Fogg and Cantinflas sail over the Alps with Cantinflas grab snow from a peak too chill their Champaign as they celebrate their ingenuity. Fogg will not be deterred from keeping on schedule by providing generous bonus for increased performance by participates along the journey.
Cantinflas is an important element to the movie; as in the scene in Spain where his spontaneous burst of enthusiastic dancing resulted in an invitation too participate in a bullfight. Cantinflas performed magnificently in the bullfight and eventually tames the bull, a tribute too his magnificently skill and was carried on the shoulders of the people as a hero. Because of Cantinflas skill Fogg is permitted usage of the Sultan's ship for passage to India.
In India, Cantinflas mischievously taunts a Braham bull mistaking him as a nuisance and instead draws the wrath of the community as religious violation of a religious symbol and a mob chase after Cantinflas and escapes from them out of breath as he leaps onto a train containing the impatient Fogg and the group is on route too Hong Kong.
Unfortunately, the group discovers the rail road tracks leading to Hong Kong has not been finished and the group must travel the last 50 miles by Elephant and during this time Cantinflas devises and executes the rescues of the beautiful Princess Aouda, who later falls in love with Fogg and becomes his wife. In Hong Kong Cantinflas becomes separated from Fogg as the inspector tricks him into drinking a knockout drink and Cantinflas wakens too find himself on a ship to Yokohama without Fogg and penniless.
Japan without any money will not treat Cantinflas well and once in Japan without money he can't purchase food. The first place Cantinflas visits after arriving Japan is a large Buddha statue and where he receives an apple and praises Buddha for the generosity, yet his stomach is still empty, so Cantinflas joins the circus too make some money for food when suddenly Fogg arrives during the performance and the group departs in a disaster for the circus.
The group catches a ship for San Francisco arriving during an election (look for Red Skeleton and Frank Sinatra). Cantinflas prepares for the "Wild West" and hostile Indians by purchasing weapons and eventually appear dressed like gun fighter, but this doesn't prevent his capture by the Sue Indians, who plan on burning him. Fogg rescues Cantinflas leading a Calvary charge and this delay causes them too miss the train so they innovate and create a wind powered rail car helping them finish the journey across the Transamerica rail.
The group is running behind schedule and have missed the ship to England so they divert travel plans and acquire a steam ship in Argentina managing to cross the ocean by using all burnable items to power the steam ship. Once back on English soil, Fogg is detained as a Bank robbery and later released as the real thieve has been apprehended. Fogg accepts the princesses Auoda hand in marriage and insist on Cantinflas acquire the preacher for the marriage and as Cantinflas retrieves the preacher, he realizes that they have arrived on Saturday not Sunday because they have travel east saving a day. Fogg arrives punctually and receives 20,000 pounds for his travels.

If the story for "The Core" was a remake of Jules Vern's "Journey to the center of the earth", if and only if would stand half a chance as a great movie, as it is, I call the movie boring. Its like the story writer was watching the Discovery Channel and thinking about volcanos, earth deep drilling, and magma flow and decided too make a movie. The acting is not funny, the cast is terrible, it lacks any romantic themes, and no suspense. Rather good acting is replaced by billigerant dialogues and including numerous scenes of screaming and hysteria. The plot revolves around a machine capable of journeying to the center of the earth, plunk down into a hole, nuclear weapons synergically used to jump start the core, and eventual escape too the surface (James Bond with no charsima). Thats the whole extend of the plot. There is no guessing about what is going to happen and no refund for renting the movie. I find this movie was marketed as a summer blockbuster movie, a real let down.