Monday, June 30, 2008

You sir, are no John Kennedy

Setting aside the fact she thinks Obama reminds her of her father - he doesn't. She is caught up in an emotion that reflects only emotion and nothing of substance.

Her father served the country in the military for over three years. Her father, could even be called a hero for being shot down err sunk, and then rescuing some of those men in the boat.

Obama has not served. Obama has never been a hero, not even one of those men pulled to safety by a hero.

Her father served in Congress - first in the House of Representatives and then in the US Senate, before running for the presidency.

Her father served three terms in the House.

Her father was elected to the Senate and the re-elected to the Senate - having served over seven years.

Her father served in the US Congress for over twelve years before he ran for the presidency.

Obama served in the Illinois legislature for a few years and a couple years in the Senate before he decided he had waited long enough.

He is NO John Kennedy. Not in intellect, wit, humor - in service, in courage - Obama has not shown any likeness to the mantle of the Democratic Party, and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's opinion to the contrary, he is not a fulfillment of her father's hopes.

What we do see from all this Kennedy stuff thrown around is how little the Kennedy's thought of Bill, for no one came out and said he was a fulfillment of John Kennedy. How very self-aggrandizing that Bill had Richard Reeves to the White House for lunch one day (the president's public lunch tends to be 20-30 minutes), turns into an afternoon, and then a dinner - all spent discussing John Kennedy. His policies down to his personal proclivities - which took up the majority of the conversation (according to Reeves). All that for not Mr. Clinton. Sorry.
End of Sidebar:

As to you Senator Obama - it is great to diss McCain and say his experience in Vietnam did not provide the experience to serve (and you did suggest this Senator, even if the Weaselly Wesley Clark actually said it - keep note Senator, another reason why you are unfit) as president. Senator, if his experience did not provide him the experience to serve, and his years in the Senate didn't prepare him ... your two years have not even begun to prepare you.

You sir, are wholly unfit, not only because you have served no time - I think we should start electing presidents who have never done anything - they are just as qualified - rather, you try to impugn Senator McCain's service as not being worthy, yet you get to take the high road and pretend it wasn't you, but it was - Mr. Clark is a mouthpiece and has been Senator for quite some time. You are pretty pathetic when you attempt these weaselly attacks. Taking the high road seems to be your public mode of travel, but we both know you are just as much a gutter person as any other pol in DC.

I do not think time in the Senate make you qualified for diddly Senator, I don't. Your two years makes you qualified to ---- do law, and you did that before you went into the Illinois legislature. You have shown that there is nothing new about your campaign Senator, nor about you - you are not Kennedy, if we even need another; you are not an equal to McCain, you are not qualified.

You are the Emperor without clothes and thus far no serious mainstream media have called you on this, hopefully they will, because that is something you do deserve. Mimicking the Reverend King in one place, John Kennedy in another, attacking, dividing, accusing, denigrating - you are the politics of OLD Senator, nothing new - we threw out the Carter and Ted Kennedy politics, we don't need a Barbara Boxer running for president and she has eons more federal experience than you Senator, and she is just slightly over qualified to run a dog shelter.

I do not doubt the fact you believe you are patriotic Senator, but to be honest, it doesn't matter if I think I am a bird, I am not, regardless of whether I wear feathers and eat birdseed.

You authored and supported a bill that would tax American GDP .7%, creating a fund of nearly 1 trillion dollars for the UN to use as it decides (even if it is for poverty, it ultimately comes down to the UN determining what poverty, and more importantly, the trillion is put into a bank Senator, with the profit to be for .... ??? The interest on a trillion dollars Senator is enough to prop up governments or cause some governments to collapse. It is enormous and the power wielded by anyone/thing that controls a trillion dollars is VERY powerful). That Senator is not very American ... that is very internationalist.

Senator, you have spoken about signing various and sundry treaties, obliging the US to international standards ... leaving China out, leaving India out. The two worst polluters on earth and you ignore them. You say - well, it doesn't matter what they do, it matters to us what we do - and that is true. Like invent a car that drives on water - Japan did it without your laws and commandments. Signing the treaties may get you a few tree hugger votes Senator, but it will, without any question, further weaken the US economy by as much as a trillion dollars.

That would knock two trillion off our economy within one year of you taking over. Not very patriotic unless the goal of your patriotism is to weaken us so much so we must compete once again to overtake the Chinese, who would, with 2 trillion chopped off our economy, overtake us quite quickly and they would not be obliged to abide by any standards unless they determine the standards. You would say that doesn't matter as long as we are saving the planet. Senator, who the fuck cares if we save the planet so the Chinese can enslave us, or the US is so weakened we are unable to ever again launch a D Day offensive if needed - who the fuck cares if the world is saved - so that mankind can be enslaved. Are you a lunatic?

There is absolutely no proof the world is in jeopardy, but we do know the enemies of freedom have not and will not rest. Global earth issues are feelings and opinions, threats to liberty and human freedom are facts we can look at around the globe. You would throw out what we know and embrace the emotional and in so doing weaken the US. THAT SENATOR is not patriotic.

You would have to, and I say this with absolute certainty, have to cut the military. You would not of course, and you would assure the American people, just as the Euros did several times until they gave up even the pretense, you would assure us you would not cut support for the military, just the size. This would enable you to try to get a few of your social programs out into the light of day ... THAT Senator would weaken our defense. At a time when China is going all out building a military, when the Russians are rebuilding their military, when Iran is building its military ... you want to cut ours. Because Senator, you believe that should another world event occur, you would rally the world to help - - - - all 500 troops from Australia, 3,000 from Britain ... those troops will make the difference Senator? Are you bloody joking? No nation on earth can stand up to China at this moment BUT for the US and that would last a short time without Russian help. And you want to cut our military to provide for your social programs and the enlargement of government.

Are you bloody joking. Senator, China will attack Taiwan. It is not if, but when, and when they do, what will you do - call the UN up and ask them to demand the immediate withdrawal? Condemn the invasion and conquest and demand China leave? And when China says up yours, what then senator? You will go back to your room and look pretty pathetic. How soon after do you think every Arab group would begin attacks on undermining the US. You don't see a connection, but Senator, in the real world all these events are and will be connected and you are not prepared to deal with them. This is why Senator, your patriotism may well be real, it is just not what is best for this country.

You cannot change what you are Senator, stop pretending. All you have left is who you are and while it is not good enough to be our president, you should not make a joke of who you are by pretending to be something you are not.





Not fit to serve

NYT - Always one step behind and one idea away from having an idea


Amid policy disputes, Qaeda grows in Pakistan

By Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde
Published: June 30, 2008

WASHINGTON: Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to authorize the Pentagon's Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda.

Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about Osama bin Laden's terror network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal areas, a problem that had been exacerbated by years of missteps in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, sharp policy disagreements, and turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies.

The new plan, outlined in a highly classified Pentagon order, was designed to eliminate some of those battles. And it was meant to pave an easier path into the tribal areas for American commandos, who for years have bristled at what they see as Washington's risk-averse attitude toward Special Operations missions inside Pakistan. They also argue that catching Bin Laden will come only by capturing some of his senior lieutenants alive.

But more than six months later, the Special Operations forces are still waiting for the green light. The plan has been held up in Washington by the very disagreements it was meant to eliminate. A senior Defense Department official said there was "mounting frustration" in the Pentagon at the ontinued delay.

(for the rest of the article, click on the title above)


What the more than six pages boils down to is:

- bin Laden's terror network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal areas

- the rebuilding has been in part due to missteps in Washington and in Islamabad.

- there have been sharp policy disagreements.

- turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies.

Eliminate the first point as that is a consequence of the others.

Pakistan is a very complicated issue. Obama has said he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down Osama, and those dangerous and irresponsible comments aside, unless one takes time to understand Pakistan's present and past, we will continue to get ignorant statements from ill-informed candidates.

Pakistan's ISI is the real power in Pakistan and has been for several decades. In 1982, US policy changed - from Carter's confused policy regarding the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and installation of Babrak Kamal as Afghan leader, to Reagan pushing for assistance to the opposition within Afghanistan against the Soviets. One small problem. CIA didn't have anyone knowledgeable and skilled in those areas - Urdu or Pashtun or even a superficial understanding of the culture - so instead the US opted to reply upon, after consulting with Pakistan, the native opposition groups - among these - Ahmad Massoud.

Who we support did not solve how we would go about supporting them given the cultural and linguistic issues. This is where ISI stepped in. The Arab jihadists flocking to Afghanistan reached Afghanistan through Iran and through Pakistan. Khomeni was on his jihadi rant - urging all faithful Muslims to attack the Great Satan and the Red Satan. Yet many Arabs chose Pakistan as their entry point due to the cultural / traditional support within an Arab state versus a Persian people less trusting and supporting of Arabs.

Most of the Arab jihadists flocked through Pakistan, where they would find places to live - often five or six males to a home, if the person was wealthier, they might buy a small home / compound and permit fellow jihadists to share the home. During winter months the jihadists would return to Peshwar and other small villages in the frontier region and wait out the spring, when they would return to the battlefields.

The Reagan administration knew who we would help and now we had a where - Pakistan would be the conduit. The question of how - language and cultural issues were tall barriers to overcome. This is where the Pakistani intelligence service jumped in to the mix - they would be the conduit.

ISI would be the middleman between CIA and individuals like Massoud. CIA would bring 100 crates of RPGs and the ISI would lead the CIA (in some cases) through the mountainous areas and into Afghanistan, play the role of middleman and translator, turn over the weapons, and take CIA personnel back. ISI would also play the middleman for funds to aid the jihadists - the US would give millions and the ISI would play the middleman and keep a percent.

In doing so, ISI became powerful - it had wealth and weapons and was necessary to the US plan to undermine the Soviets in Afghanistan. We had to do business with them.

Today, the ISI is broken into leadership and field personnel. Top and bottom. Officers and others. Whatever structure you wish to regard it as - two levels. The TOP level, officers, are Western trained and sympathetic to the Western ideas and views.

The bottom or field personnel - are all supportive of the goals and aims of extremists like Taliban. When the Taliban moved into Afghanistan, it was with the support and aid of the ISI.

Pakistan's president Musharraf, was head of ISI. He understands the threat and the fine line he must walk. Too cozy with the West and that base within ISI switches allegiances and the government will fall and Pakistan will turn into an anti-US/West state. It is not a matter of weeding out the bad eggs or ignoring opposition - these sorts you cannot ignore.

There are those within the US administration who wish to go into Pakistan regardless of whether it bothers Musharraf or not. They fail to understand that while it may work initially, it could topple the government and leave jihdists in charge of the nuclear stockpile.

This issue more than any other in the article, is why the US has not pushed harder. Allow the US to 'invade' Pakistan and everything Bin Laden has said about Musharraf and the US would be proven true. Musharraf would lose the military and ISI and within hours, the Taliban would be the new government in Pakistan.

Everything else in the Herald article / NY Times is obfuscation of these facts.



It's a Landslide

Mugabe wins, again.

The African Union, holding a summit in Egypt, recognized the issues in Zimbabwe but also said the "election process fell short of accepted AU standards," but also noted that observers were encouraged that the two main parties "have shown willingness to engage in constructive dialogue as a way forward."

Ok, so I have seized power in a country, brutalized its inhabitants, destroyed the agricultural production of the country to satisfy my hard-core base, redistributed the land to idiots, to keep my hard-core base, have control of the media, military, judicial, army, police, and all other governmental and most civil organizations in the country ... in which case, it is quite likely that I would be willing to ... engage in constructive dialogue, always to take us forward.

What a sham.

This man is as bad as Saddam minus weapons of mass destruction potential. This man is as bad as the janjaweed in Sudan, minus the cloak of Islam. And the AU says they are encouraged by the dialogue.

While I am torturing my opposition, I would always offer them the chance to talk, and discuss their grievances as I lower them into a vat of boiling oil.

And this sham is supposed to make the world feel like the African Union is doing something. That the world cares enough to regret.

And Senator, are these the countries you wish to apologize to? As far as I am concerned, we all need to apologize to the thousands in Zimbabwe who have been attacked, raped, tortured, and killed since you began your crusade to apologize to the world.

After so many months of these posts - I AM REALLY NOT SURE WHO THE HECK YOU THINK WE SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO SENATOR. I AM NOT SURE, BUT I AM PRETTY SURE THERE ISN'T ONE COUNTRY THAT DESERVES AN APOLOGY. But who am I to derail your delusional crusade to apologize.

Maybe you can get the AU to include the US in the 'regret' they feel.





Sunday, June 29, 2008

Iraq - Heading to Court - Corrupt UN

It is about time. Over a billion paid out to Saddam, bribes flying everywhere - and from these tiny little countries and men, strong moral opposition to the war. And why not - over a billion was at stake. They would lose their place at the table.

So the question - do I really believe that the UN, and its most distinguished members, would act in such an inhuman, uncivilized, undignified, petty, and callous manner - ABSOLUTELY. The facts are clear, the facts, in a court, as was the case already, are enough to convict. And why US courts - because why would you take it to a court riddled with individuals selected by their corrupt governments. Ha ha. That would indeed be a joke.

It should not be the US apologizing Senator, rather it should the world apologizing for its role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Unfortunately, in an effort to shift the blame and make themselves feel better, they have created a convoluted world where all the deaths in Iraq are the fault of the US. Amazing world. Pathetic world.

Now, hopefully, the Iraqis will get to re-write what has falsely been written. About time.


Iraq to file oil-for-food lawsuit in U.S. courts

The legal action will target alleged fraud in the U.N. program under the Hussein regime.

By Doug Smith, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
10:23 AM PDT, June 29, 2008

BAGHDAD -- The Iraqi government announced today that it intends to file suit in United States courts to recover funds allegedly embezzled from the United Nations oil-for-food program during Saddam Hussein's rule.

A statement by government spokesman Ali Dabbagh said the lawsuits would target companies and individuals that conspired to corrupt the U.N. program.

Dabbagh did not name any companies or say how much the government hoped to gain by going to court, but his statement cited the findings of a 2005 U.N. inquiry into the program.

That investigation, headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker, concluded that 2,400 companies and individuals participated in fraud that included $1.8 billion in kickbacks to Hussein.

After the inquiry several of those named were prosecuted in the U.S. and Europe, resulting in prison sentences for two Texas oilmen and restitution from several companies totaling 10 of millions of dollars.

But little has been done to recover larger sums from those named in the Volcker report in countries including Russia, China, Yemen, Egypt, Vietnam, Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates.

The oil-for-food program was intended to allow humanitarian goods to reach Iraq while the country was under international sanctions following its invasion of Kuwait, which precipitated the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

From 1996 through the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, the Iraqi government was allowed to sell oil in exchange for food, medical supplies and essential mechanical equipment.

The Volcker report found that Hussein insisted that kickbacks be paid to secure oil contracts.



Useless Nations

Oil for food


Sex and the City and Women - One Night

Two articles. One from The Daily Record (June 26) and the other from The Weekend Australian (June 28). No other comments needed. No links available.

WHY WOMEN HATE ONE-NIGHT STANDS - They’re left feeling cheap and unloved

26 Jun 2008
Daily Record
By Karen Bale

WOMEN hate one- night stands because of evolution, according to research.

Eighty per cent of men enjoy casual sex because it satisfies their prehistoric instinct to breed.
But 46 per cent of women felt cheap and full of regret about the experience.

Unlike men, who felt satisfied and content after a one-night stand, they worried about potential damage to their reputation.

They enjoyed the sex less too, according to the Durham University study of 1743 men and women.

Professor Anne Campbell, who led the research, said men were more likely to reproduce and therefore to benefit from numerous shorttermpartners.

In Human Nature magazine, she reports that the sexual revolution of the 1960s has not changed how women feel about flings.

She says: “In evolutionary terms, women bear the brunt of parental care and it has been generally thought that it was to their advantage to choose their mate carefully and remain faithful.

“What the women seemed to object to was not the briefness of the encounter but the fact that the man did not seem to appreciate her.”


28 Jun 2008
The Weekend Australian
Lauren Wilson

Sexes divided over one-night stands

SEX and the City may have it wrong. According to new research, men still find one-night stands far more gratifying than women do.

A quarter of a century after author Erica Jong wrote candidly about women’s desire for brief and anonymous sexual encounters, a new study has found almost half of the women surveyed had negative feelings after a one-night stand.

Anne Campbell from Durham University in Britain, surveyed 1743 men and women in an online interview about their feelings the morning after a one-night sexual encounter.

The results, published in the June issue of the journal HumanNature , suggest that the daughters of the sexual revolution still feel somewhat ambivalent about fleeting sexual affairs.

Professor Campbell found that while 80 per cent of men had positive overall feelings about their experiences after a one-night stand, only 54 per cent of women surveyed felt the same way.

Men were more likely than women to want to brag to friends about the ‘‘ notch on their belt’’, and they reported having a greater sense of confidence and wellbeing after the event, Professor Campbell said. Women, on the other hand, were far more likely to report feeling ‘‘ used’’ or disappointed with themselves the morning after.

Professor Campbell found that women generally found the experience less sexually satisfying than men, and many of the women surveyed still said they were concerned the one-night affair would do damage to their reputation.

But the women surveyed did not seem to view taking part in casual sex as a prelude to a long-term relationship.

The results of the study suggest many women have not adapted to fleeting sexual encounters the way popular programs such as SexandtheCity would have you think.

Jo Joseph, a 28-year-old marketing coordinator from North Ryde in Sydney’s northwest, said shows like SexandtheCity portrayed one-night stands as a sign of sexual liberation, which was not always true for many women.

But Ms Joseph, who ended up dating the only man she had a onenight stand with, said many women today are happy to speak candidly about brief sexual encounters without worrying about damage to their reputation.

‘‘ In certain demographics, young upwardly mobile girls do brag about their sexual escapades just like men do — and having a onenight stand is seen as being a sign of being an independent liberated woman,’’ Ms Joseph said.

Kylie White, a 28-year-old graphic designer from the southwestern Sydney suburb of Casula, said she believed a women’s experience of a one-night stand depended on their expectations going into the experience.

‘‘ I think the women who come out of a one-night stand feeling negatively are women who were hoping it would lead to more,’’ she said.

‘‘ But the ones who are OK about it from the get-go are the women who enjoy the experience, and don’t feel let down in the morning.’’


one night stands




Saturday, June 28, 2008

AMERICA ALONE: The End of the World As We Know It

In the fall of 2006, Regnery published a book by Mark Styne. The book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, started a fire ... not in the United States, where free speech is still free, and protected, but in Canada.

Many silly people often tell us we need to be more like Canada or France or Germany. I say - eat it and die. In each of those countries, FREE SPEECH is NOT PROTECTED as it is in the United States. Do you want their system or free speech and if you prefer their system, why complain when certain speech is restricted in the US - we are just becoming more like those countries. For topics excluded from speech in those three countries - go find out yourself.
End of Sidebar:

Styne argues, based on statistics only, that Europe will fall to Islam within a generation. A top selling and very popular magazine in Canada - Macleans, printed a review and an article about the book and its contents.

The consequence of such an argument and the review/printing of the review in a top selling Canadian magazine - the Islamic Congress filed an action against Styne and Macleans with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, arguing that his book and those ideas, published in Macleans would place Muslims in danger of violence or threats or discrimination.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission reached a decision:

(there is no link but I provide the source you can look up)

28 Jun 2008
Calgary Herald


Complaint against Maclean’s thrown out

The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed a hate-speech complaint against Maclean’s magazine on Friday in a decision the complainants blamed on “inappropriate political pressure.”
Brought by Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, the complaint was the centrepiece of a three-pronged offensive against what he sees as Islamophobia in the national news weekly, with columnists Mark Steyn and Barbara Amiel the main offenders.

The complainants were seeking an order forcing Maclean’s to print a rebuttal but, with this latest ruling, the entire enterprise is left hanging on a forthcoming decision of a British Columbia tribunal, which heard the case this month. An identical complaint, brought with the help of three Muslim law students, was rejected in Ontario on jurisdictional grounds.

Announcing the decision — the CHRC does not publicize dismissals of complaints — Maclean’s said in a statement it is “in keeping with our long-standing position that the article in question, The Future Belongs to Islam, an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s best-selling book America Alone, was a worthy piece of commentary on important geopolitical issues, entirely within the bounds of normal journalistic practice.”

The ruling means the CHRC does not believe there is evidence to support a complaint the Steyn article was “likely to expose” Muslims to hatred or contempt.

Faisal Joseph, lawyer for the CIC, said the dismissal was predictable, given the political climate and the campaign against the commissions themselves.

“We are not surprised at the decision, in light of the inappropriate political pressure that has been brought to bear on the commission and that has prompted the commission to set up an internal review of its procedures under (the hate speech section of the Human Rights Act),” he said.


It is NOT hate if I say: At the present rate of migration, immigration figures counted with births, Europe will be a majority Muslim population in X number of years. THERE IS NOTHING hateful about that statement. Likewise, if I wrote the same about the US ... given the X million in the US, in X number of generations the US would be 20% Muslim and given the changes in our laws, we could see a fundamental change ...

There is NO phobia. I am not afraid of a Muslim person, in no way, shape or form. I am stating a fact given the present conditions (although what I have presented above is so vague it could be tomorrow or 1000 years from now, Styne was more specific as to the time period. It is not hateful.)

I would argue, those who wish to shut him up, and others who say similar things, are purposefully undermining our ability to recognize what is happening when we cannot even write about what it is that is happening, it will have happened and would be a fait accompli before we realize it even began.

The end of civlization as we know it, and the world, in my opinion, would be the bigger loser.




end of the world as we know it

Bush Never Lied to Us About Iraq - LA Times

Bush Never Lied.

The greatest lie, is that he lied. And like all lies, EVENTUALLY it will be common knowledge that those purveyors of the lie will be caught. They know it, they just want to win an election regardless of the truth.

Bush Never Lied to Us About Iraq
June 16, 2008, James Kirchick

The article suggests it was bad intelligence and everyone had the same intelligence including Obama, who contrary to his Alzheimer's today, did not oppose the war, he simply believed we should try harder, and if that failed then war, but he never opposed the war. If you are an Obamessiah follower, the truth doesn't matter so no point to mentioning it, you'd believe him if he told you flowers grew out of his ass.

I would go back a few steps and argue, it wasn't even the intelligence, so much as the facts were all true, just that the details of the facts were not satisfied.

No intelligence service on earth believed Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, that is a fact, BUT for the losercrats, big hulking metal cylinders saying WMD on them, were not found, yet everyone in the intelligence community around the globe, believed they existed, AS DID SADDAM. The detail of the fact was, they did exist in 1995, but didn't exist in 2003.

All this has been flushed out quite well by several writers, but the point is lost when we start droning on about WMDs - BUSH NEVER SAID we would go in to Iraq to get Saddam's WMDs. NEVER SAID it was imminent. Never said we would go to war over WMDs. Never said.

The greatest lie in the last eight years is that Bush lied.

Shame on the liars, for they not only play politics with security, they present to the world a lie that is then picked up by the world and used as reason to distrust / dislike / hate us ... and it was all based upon a lie.




fuck wipes

Friday, June 27, 2008

Oil - Imports

These stats are a couple months old, but within 1% are probably very close to the actual figures for today.

Obamessiah followers should pay particular attention as should the Losercrats.

100% of the oil we use in the United States comes from a barrel.

Of the 100%, the United States produces a certain amount of our own oil. We therefore, do not import 100% of the oil we use. We currently import a little more than 60% of the oil we use.

So where does it come from, this oil we use.

OPEC COUNTRIES provide: 43% of the oil we use 173,000 barrels.
NON OPEC COUNTRIES provide: 57% of the oil we use. 227,000 barrels.

NON OPEC (top 4):
Canada 20% close to 80,000 barrels.
Venezuela 10%
Mexico 10%
Nigeria 9%

From Iraq, we receive 3% of our oil.
In 1999, we received 5% of our oil from Iraq. 2% more oil BEFORE the war.

From Saudi Arabia, we were, as of April 2008, getting 44,000 barrels.

Canada and non-Opec countries are more significant than OPEC. NON MIDDLE EASTERN countries play a larger role than Middle Eastern countries and their oil.


Middle East

A la The Postman - Things are getting better, in Iraq

The 3 paragraphs in red should be the story! They aren't of course.

The Kurd area is a model of what could happen (model being very subjective but given the history of the area, it is a model of stability). The sh'ia area is also doing much better. With the exception of al Sadr, the shite areas are under control and stable. al Sadr is a loose canon but for the moment is quiet. Two of three areas pacified. Any time the shite areas have unrest, it is al Sadr flexing his muscle and trying to intimidate. In the end it will not work and is not as serious an issue as Anbar province, which now seems to be much better.

With 2 of 3 areas out of al qaida hands, and the third about to be turned over to the Iraqis, we will have accomplished the major part of our contract with Iraq. they can do the rest, with very little involvement by the US, but for the occasional al qaida attacks and al Sadr.

When Anbar province is turned over is when Bush SHOULD HAVE DONE the landing on the carrier and said Mission Accomplished. This SHOULD be the point at which we begin removing troops - a few weeks after Anbar is turned over.

And we should do it quietly - not publicly so al qaida knows when to blow stuff up. Another thing we should not do is tell any Losercrats we are removing the troops or they will ensure al qaida finds out.

The Los Angeles Times

U.S. postpones transfer of authority in Iraq province

By Alexandra Zavis
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 28, 2008

BAGHDAD — The U.S. military on Friday postponed a weekend ceremony to hand over responsibility for security in Anbar province to the Iraqi government, citing forecasts of bad weather.

Lt. Col. Chris Hughes, a military spokesman, said the decision was not connected to a suicide bombing Thursday at a community meeting in the Anbar town of Karmah that killed 25 people, including three U.S. Marines and two interpreters.

High winds and dust storms were expected today. Hughes said the conditions would prevent U.S. and Iraqi officials from flying to the event.

The military provided no new date for the transfer but said it would take place soon.

Anbar, the vast province west of Baghdad that stretches to the borders of Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, was long the center of the Sunni Arab-driven insurgency against U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies. But the number of attacks has plummeted since late 2006, when local tribal leaders rebelled against the militant groups among them, including Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The collaboration between U.S. forces and tribesmen became the model for the so-called Sons of Iraq program, which is credited with reducing violence in other Sunni-dominated parts of the country. The U.S. program pays men about $10 a day to help protect their neighborhoods.

Anbar would be the 10th of Iraq's 18 provinces to return to Iraqi control and the first one that is predominantly Sunni Arab. The others are mostly Shiite Muslim or dominated by ethnic Kurds.

Thursday's attack led some local officials to question whether the transfer of security responsibility was premature. Some contended that the provincial police force should first be cleansed of insurgent collaborators.

The bomber, who blew himself up at a meeting of tribal sheiks and government officials, wore a police uniform.

U.S. officers said the attack appeared to be the work of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni militant group that dominated the province at the time of the tribal uprising. A member of the cell believed to be responsible for the bombing was captured Friday, the military said.

In another development, police said Friday that a senior judge was killed Thursday in a drive-by shooting in east Baghdad. Judge Kamil Shewaili, the head of one of Baghdad's two appeals courts, was driving home when he was attacked.




al qaida

Give industry the incentive, not mandates and it will do what you need it to do.

I believe government should mediate between business and the people, it should monitor and oversee, it should require minimum standards for safety, but government should not involve itself in mandating changes, forcing industry to conform, demanding the public or business to do anything ... let business do what business does, with oversight - and it will come through.

We have the technology to achieve anything and everything we need to benefit mankind, we do not need the UN or Obamessiah followers demanding we give up oil or switch to ethanol.

Let industry do what it will do, with incentives - and you will get a car that runs only on water - WITHOUT ANY LAWS or FINES or threats. Industry will do what it does.

Laws do not free you, they enslave you.






Bill Delahunt - Fucking Retard

We now know the Losercrats KNOW and are pleased that their showboating donkey and pony congressional hearings are watched by al-qaeda.

I do not care about the person being questioned - Addington is a person, one of many - rather, it is the attitude of Delahunt that is very disturbing and REVEALING.

What a loser and a slip - now we know how the losercrats feel and why they conduct the hearings they do.




Incomes and Spending May 2008

After-tax incomes and spending show big gains

Jun 27 03:42 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) - Millions of economic stimulus payments sent after-tax incomes surging in May by the largest amount since a similar recession-fighting effort by Gerald Ford 33 years ago.

All the extra money helped to push consumer spending up by the largest amount in six months, but economists warned the boost would likely prove short-lived given all the other problems facing consumers at present.

The Commerce Department reported Friday that after-tax disposable incomes jumped by 5.7 percent in May, the biggest one-month gain since a 6.3 percent increase in May 1975 when Ford was president. He was fighting a recession that year with a program to mail individual taxpayers $50 checks.

This time around individual payments range from $300 to $600 with couples getting up to $1,200. In all, $48.1 billion in rebate payments were made in May and through this week, the government announced Friday, payments total $78.3 billion—three-fourths of the $106.7 billion scheduled to be paid to 130 million households. The payments are to be completed by mid-July.

Bolstered by the big 5.7 percent surge in after-tax incomes, consumer spending rose by 0.8 percent last month, the best showing since November. Even after removing the effects of higher gasoline and other products, inflation-adjusted spending rose by a solid 0.4 percent, the best performance since last August.

Since consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of total economic activity, analysts said the big jump in May should guarantee a positive reading for overall economic output in the current April-June quarter of around 1.25 percent to 1.5 percent, up from 1 percent growth in the January-March quarter.

Growth at that level is also expected in the third quarter, but analysts said that the fourth quarter of this year and first quarter of next year could well sag and even turn negative as the effects of the stimulus payments wear off.

"The stimulus payments are likely to be a temporary boost and come the fall, consumers will be wondering how they are going to pay their bills with gasoline at $4-plus, unemployment rising and housing values and stock prices falling," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's

"The worry is that after the stimulus relief fades away, the consumer will still be faced with the same underlying problems," said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at Global Insight.

David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, said he was concerned that the stimulu
s checks will prove to be for the economy what eating candy is for children, a "sugar high" that won't last.

"Maybe we will be lucky and oil prices will drop back down by the time the boost from the stimulus program wears off and that will provide enough momentum to keep the economy going," said Wyss. He said his concern was a double-dip recession with the weakness earlier this year followed by a brief boost from the stimulus checks followed by even weaker activity in late 2008 and early 2009.

In other economic news, the University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment fell to 56.4 in June, the lowest reading in 28 years and a stark reflection of all the problems facing the economy at the moment.

"Surging gas prices, high food prices, disappearing jobs, declining home values and record foreclosures were cited by consumers as the basis for their pessimism and most consumers expected each of these problems to continue to worsen in the months ahead," said Richard Curtin, director of the survey.

Worries about the economy showed up in turbulent financial markets this week as investors worried about what surging oil prices and a continuing credit crunch would do to stocks in the months ahead.

For May, overall incomes rose by 1.9 percent after a 0.3 percent rise in April. While part of that increase reflects the portion of the stimulus payments that are going to low-income individuals, the bigger boost showed up in after-tax incomes, reflecting the impact of the tax relief portion of the stimulus payments.

A closely watched inflation gauge tied to consumer spending was up 0.4 percent in May but excluding energy and food, the increase was a much smaller 0.1 percent. Over the past 12 months, core inflation excluding food and energy is up 2.1 percent, just above the Federal Reserve's comfort zone.

The Fed earlier this week brought an end to an aggressive string of interest rate cuts designed to protect the economy from toppling into a deep recession, citing increased worries about inflation pressures coming from surging energy prices.

The big increase in after-tax incomes based on the surge in stimulus payments pushed the personal savings rate to 5 percent, the highest level since May 1995. Personal savings represent the amount of after-tax income consumers have left after deducting their spending for the month.






Martian soil appears able to support life

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - "Flabbergasted" NASA scientists said on Thursday that Martian soil appeared to contain the requirements to support life, although more work would be needed to prove it.


Now we have finally found a place for exiles. If Obama wins, the retardicans can take off for Mars. If McCain wins, Streisand and her cabal of kooks can take off and never return. One way ticket.

I will provide my share to send them off!



According to a Reuters article, Bishop Desmond Tutu said that the international community has a right to override the sovereignty of Zimbabwe and intervene in the internal domestic affairs of the country.


Tutu, what side were you on in Iraq?

The UN had resolutions demanding Saddam comply, he refused, he was killing his people, slaughtering them, forcing them to vote, with him as the only candidate, defying the world body ... and he had a desire/interest and ability to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam was, in 100 ways, worse than Mugabe ... yet you call for the international body to intervene in Zimbabwe ...


World has right to intervene in Zimbabwe: Tutu

Friday, June 28, 2008

LONDON (Reuters) - The world has the right to override Zimbabwe's sovereignty to intervene in its crisis and should consider banning flights as a step to bring pressure, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said on Friday.

The South African Nobel Peace Prize laureate spoke in an interview broadcast after President Robert Mugabe defied world opinion to hold an election in which he was the only candidate. The opposition withdrew over attacks on its supporters.

Tutu told Britain's Channel 4 television that the "international community has the right now to override the sovereignty argument of the country.

"A government has the obligation to protect its citizens. If it will not protect them then or it is unable to do so then the international community knows now that it has an instrument to intervene to ensure that a situation does not deteriorate further," he said.

Tutu has said he favours the deployment of international peacekeepers to Zimbabwe, suffering economic collapse after 28 years of Mugabe's rule as well as the political crisis.





North Korea - Diplomatic victory for Bush, sort of?

New York Times
June 27, 2008

A Diplomatic Success That Defies the Critics

By Steven Lee Myers

WASHINGTON — North Korea's declaration of its nuclear activities is a triumph of the sort of diplomacy — complicated, plodding, often frustrating — that President Bush and his aides once eschewed as American weakness.

In more than two years of negotiations, the man who once declared North Korea part of an “axis of evil” with Iran and Iraq, angrily vowing to confront, not negotiate with, its despotic leader, in fact demonstrated a flexibility that his critics at home and abroad once considered impossible.
That is why Mr. Bush is likely to receive only grudging credit, if any, for the accomplishment, which could turn out to be the last significant diplomatic breakthrough of his presidency.

North Korea’s declaration — and the administration’s quid pro quo lifting of some sanctions — faced criticism from conservatives who attacked it as too little and from liberals who said it came too late.

“The regime’s nuclear declaration is the latest reminder that, despite Mr. Bush’s once bellicose rhetoric, engaging our enemies can pay dividends,” Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, whom Mr. Bush defeated in the 2004 presidential election, said in a statement after the declaration on Thursday.

“Historians will long wonder,” he continued, “why this administration did not directly engage North Korea before Pyongyang gathered enough material for several nuclear weapons, tested a nuclear device and the missiles to deliver them.”

[to read the remainder of the article, click on the title link above]


So this victory, and we will not know if it is a diplomatic victory for some time, this victory for Bush, will not be given to him, because - his opponents hate him. His opponents lavished PRAISE upon Bill Clinton for the Agreed Framework signed by the US and N Korea - that N Korea violated within six months, but hey, not a big deal.

By the way Senator, either a) you know, or b) you don't know. If the answer is A you are a liar. If the answer is B, you are wholly too dumb to be in the Senate.

Senator, you know that Bush tried, from 2000 - 2003, to negotiate with N Korea. There were more than two dozen attempts, meetings, and or discussions held between N Korea and China or the six party talks. Several years worth of discussions Senator. You also know the Clinton administration, upon realizing that N Korea had violated the Agreed Framework, argued as best it could at not arguing with N Korea - the close your eyes and pretend mentality. Why? you know this answer as well Senator - the shining example, nearly his only one, of a foreign policy success, was a failure within six months and he was not willing to acknowledge it as such and Democrats didn't wish to discuss it for fear it would lead to even greater division during the impeachment of Mr. Clinton.

Senator, you know the Bush administration tried with N Korea, UNTIL he set off his bombs. Then we reinforced the sanctions, imposed new ones, brought the world together to tighten the screws, and at the same time, and you know this Senator - Bush engaged China in pursuing change in N Korea on its nuclear program. THAT COUNTS AS DIPLOMACY you twit.

What is astounding Senator is that you and other Democrats prefer politics to policy. You put your party and the politics of division ahead of this country. You so hate Bush, if God Himself came down from on high and told the world Bush was a good guy, you would refuse to believe it, argue it was a trick, and then decide that your God would never say such a thing about Bush so therefore the voice heard was not God. I love your petty politics.

I would suggest Senator, that had Bush followed the Billy pattern of talk - North Korea would have a whole warehouse of nuclear weapons today. that it was only due to Bush's aggressive policy in Iraq and elsewhere, his stubborn refusal to capitulate, as did Billy, that ultimately brought North Korea back.

Stop with the petty politics Senator.

Fucking idiots


dumb fucks



According to a program I watched on the Discovery channel some months back called: China Revealed.

- Within 20 years it will be the largest economy in the world

- consumes 1/3 of the steel
- 1/2 the worlds concrete

In any single minute, China consumes 2.5 thousand tons of coal
In any single minute, China consumes 24 million watts
In any single minute, China consumes 210,000 gallons of crude oil

Within 30 years, we will need another planet earth just to provide the natural resources to satisfy China's need.

Only 10% of the land is arable

4 generations often live together

Until 1978, the government controlled all the land, after which, small parcels turned over to the peasants.

12 million drug addicts - 10 fold increase in five years
250,000 Chinese are in enforced detox programs

Shanghai is 10 times the size of NY

A 12 year old girl, taken from her family at age 2 and placed in a training center for the olympics said that she wanted to win a gold medal not just for herself but for China because she will bring honor to China. "Life won't give you a gold medal for nothing." A 12 year old said that. What do our twleve year olds say.

That is what we are up against.

They will need another earth to provide resources?? And where will they get what they need (food)???


Thursday, June 26, 2008

Arctic Ice is GONE

Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole

Polar scientists reveal dramatic new evidence of climate change

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Friday, 27 June 2008

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.

"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.

Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally icefreeNorth Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by hugeswathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.

This one-year ice is highly vulnerable to melting during thesummer months and satellite data coming in over recent weeksshows that the rate of melting is faster than last year, when therewas an all-time record loss of summer sea ice at the Arctic.

"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the NorthPole is covered with extensive first-year ice – ice that formed last autumn and winter. I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out," said Dr Serreze.

Each summer the sea ice melts before reforming again during the long Arctic winter but the loss of sea ice last year was so extensive that much of the Arctic Ocean became open water, with the water-ice boundary coming just 700 miles away from the North Pole.

This meant that about 70 per cent of the sea ice present this spring was single-year ice formed over last winter. Scientists predict that at least 70 per cent of this single-year ice – and perhaps all of it – will melt completely this summer, Dr Serreze said.

"Indeed, for the Arctic as a whole, the melt season startedwith even more thin ice than in 2007, hence concerns that we may even beat last year's sea-ice minimum. We'll see what happens, a great deal depends on the weather patterns in July and August," he said.

Ron Lindsay, a polar scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, agreed that much now depends onwhat happens to the Arctic weather in terms of wind patterns and hours of sunshine. "There's a good chance that it will all melt awayat the North Pole, it's certainly feasible, but it's not guaranteed," Dr Lindsay said.

Thepolar regions are experiencing the most dramatic increasein average temperatures due to global warming and scientists fear that as more sea iceis lost, the darker, open ocean will absorb more heat and raise local temperatures even further. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, who was one of the first civilian scientists to sail underneath the Arctic sea ice in a Royal Navy submarine,said that the conditions are ripe for an unprecedented melting of the ice at the North Pole.

"Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which hasnever been experienced before. People are expecting this to continuethis year and it is likely to extend over the North Pole. It isquite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it's not happened before," ProfessorWadhamssaid.

There are other indications that the Arctic sea ice is showingsigns of breaking up. Scientists at the Nasa Goddard Space Flight Centre said that the North Water 'polynya' – an expanse of open water surrounded on all sides by ice – that normally forms near Alaska and Banks Island off the Canadian coast, is muchlarger than normal. Polynyas absorb heat from the sun and eat away at the edge of the sea ice.

Inuit natives living near Baffin Bay between Canada and Greenland are also reporting that the sea ice there is starting to break up much earlier than normal and that they have seen wide cracks appearing in the ice where it normally remains stable. Satellite measurements collected over nearly 30 years show a significant decline in the extent of the Arctic sea ice, which has become more rapid in recent years.

global warming




Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Bankers in prison, al qaida on the dole

The article tells the story perfectly - we will hunt down and imprison anyone in ENRON, anyone who does anything or nothing - Libby?

But when it comes to truly horrid people - from al qaida to general all around bad people - all from foreign countries - well, the welcome mat is never pulled in.


The judges who permit their continued residence within the UK are responsible, along with the killers of course, for any and all future deaths connected with that person. They should be tried for manslaughter when the murders occur.

Hijackers can stay but the bankers will have to go
By Jeff Randall






Telegraph: Let Al Qaida go, make them stay home with ankle bracelets.

Primary concern in any issue of law enforcement, should be the protection of the innocent. That issue should trump the right of the guilty, once convicted, of special privileges and exceptions.

When it comes to people who are known to, without question or doubt, be affiliated with al-qaida, they should lose all rights to freedom. They are not worthy to live within our system - we should either send them back to their respective country (where hopefully they will have an up close and personal experience with a hot iron, or just die) or imprisoned until they are sent back to their respective country to meet up with a hot iron or broomstick.

They should NOT be released.

That seems to be the way Europe is going - release them and apologize and tell them they didn't mean it and please don't hurt them.


Abu Qatada: Radical cleric to be released 'in next 24 hours'

By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent
Last Updated: 7:12PM
June 17, 2008

Radical cleric Abu Qatada, described as "Osama bin Laden's right hand man in Europe," is to be released in the next 24 hours.

Qatada, who is accused of giving advice and support to terrorists including the leader of the September 11 hijackers, has been described in official documents as a "truly dangerous individual" who was "heavily involved, indeed at the centre of terrorist activities associated with al-Qa'eda."

He has been convicted twice in Jordan in his absence for conspiracy to carry out bomb attacks on two hotels in Amman in 1998, and providing finance and advice for a series of bomb attacks in Jordan planned to coincide with the Millennium.

It was those convictions which allowed him to argue in the Appeal Court he
would not get a fair treatment in his home country.

With the prospect of extradition removed, the Ministry of Justice has been
forced to release him by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

The bail order was signed this afternoon and he is expected to be released
from Long Lartin jail in Worcestershire tomorrow.

He is will be electronically tagged and put under a 22-hour curfew at his
family home in Acton, West London.


He feels he would be in danger if he went back to Jordan. He gets a 22 hour curfew with ankle monitor. He stays in his home, his bed, his chair, his family around him - his right to eat, breathe, sleep, pray without fear.

Ask Kenneth Bigley, Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, Kim Sun-il, Paul Johnson Jr ... and so many others. Ask them if they feel this persons pain.

What utter human waste - the judges. You could almost understand that the justices decide this way so that this butcher can put in a good word with his master when the time comes.

And some in the US believe we should be more hospitable to these murderous monsters.

Ok. I agree. We will not slice their heads off like pigs, we will shoot them once in the head. That is humane.




Pakistan - Whose side are they on?

Senator, I know you don't want to apologize to Pakistan as you have already said you would send troops into Pakistan after al-Qaeda (which, Senator, is 1) an act of war, 2) violation of international law, and 3) violation of Pakistan's sovereignty (and Senator, no one has any UN resolutions supporting such action)).

However, just in case anyone else thought we should be apologizing - this article from the NY Times:

Afghans See Pakistan Role in Karzai Plot

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Afghan government for the first time publicly accused the Pakistani intelligence service on Wednesday of organizing the failed plot to assassinate President Hamid Karzai at a parade in Kabul in April.



countries that are no our friends

al qaida


Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Charity and Americans

23 Jun, 2008, 0411 hrs

CHICAGO: Americans donated a record $306 billion to charity in 2007, their generosity encouraged by a strong stock market in the first half of the year, according to a report on philanthropy released on Monday. "A strong start to the economy in 2007 helped lift giving despite worries at year's end from gasoline prices or the housing and mortgage crises," said George Ruotolo of charity consultant Giving USA. This year's uncertain economy may not bode well for charitable giving in 2008. "Charities we surveyed have concerns about 2008 for the economy and the stock market and the impact they will have on giving," said Del Martin, head of a foundation operated by Giving USA. The estimate of philanthropic largess is compiled by Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy from sources including charities, tax data and economic indicators. Total giving exceeded $300 billion for the first time and was nearly 4 percent more than in 2006, or 1 percent more when adjusted for inflation, according to the report. Just over half the $229 billion given by individuals in 2007 came from households earning in the top 10 percent of U.S. incomes. The amount given by individuals rose 3 percent compared to 2006, but edged downward when adjusted for inflation. In most years, some two-thirds of Americans donate to charity. The second-leading source of donations were foundation grants at $38.5 billion. Other sources were $23 billion from bequests and $15.7 billion from corporations, which was down by an inflation-adjusted 1 percent from 2006. The biggest recipients included: - Religious congregations, which received gifts of $102.3 billion, one-third of the total and up an inflation-adjusted 2 percent from 2006. - Educational organizations got $43.3 billion, up 3 percent. - Charities like the United Way that provide services to individuals received $29.6 billion, up 3 percent. - Foundations got $27.7 billion, up 12 percent. - Health organizations received $23.2 billion, up 2 percent. - Arts and culture groups got $13.7 billion, up nearly 5 percent. - Environmental or animal welfare groups received $7 billion, up 8 percent.

The interesting thing with this list, actually several - we are giving more even when we believe it is harder on us personally. We, as a nation of people, give more than any other nation - we are the most charitable people on earth - and why not, when you have taxtaion rates that exceed 70%, you believe the government should be providing everything - not you.
That fact holds for 2007.

Talk about DUMB - European schools and The End of the World

These people fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. Reading the article made me feel dumber.

I could use this post to deal exclusively with the dumbest people I have had the misfortune of reading about, or I could use it to deal with two points - the article and another, a failing of the left in this country to understand context.

If you ask a business person in Europe where a certain country is, they stand a reasonable chance of knowing. If you ask a business person (or college student or anyone) in the US where that country is, they may or may not know. The left uses this as proof that we, the American people are ignorant of the rest of the world (for that matter, the rest of the world holds this same view), yet they are arguing a non-sequitor - neither the argument nor the conclusion have any correlation to one another.

Here is why -

We are told how terrible our education system is. It is a failure, California or Oklahoma or Texas or Louisiana or some other state is at the bottom and ... we have a poorly educated citizenry - right and wrong. Our K-12 system is a miserable failure - we could start with teachers, unions, and curriculum, but that is another issue. Surprisingly, our collegiate level is superior to any on earth. We produce the brightest from our colleges and universities. The scientists and doctors, the science, and technology - all stem from US universities and US educated students. How do we reconcile the failed K-12 and the superior collegiate level - something happens, the professors, the material - something. Again, another story.

In Europe and Asia - beginning in 6th grade and then 9th (different countries begin their exams at different grade levels) - you start taking tests. Up through grade 7, you take history and math and algebra and science, but say you are inclined to baking and prefer cooking/baking - they will funnel you off starting by 8th and 9th into courses designed to develop your culinary arts. Then your final set of exams determines whether you go on to culinary arts college or finish and go home and bake bread. No choices are allowed - room to maneuver - very limited. It is what it is. Only the brightest of the bright go to university - perhaps equivalent to the top 10% in the US. At university you would study specific courses, not general education. you would study science and all courses would be related to science. No Psychology or sociology. In the US, we provide a general education through your 4th year, then you get specific for your Masters. They are specific when they start university (talk about knowing what you will be, before you are even 20). We allow room for maturity and development, for waste, for fun, for opportunity without seriousness, which ultimately reinforces our passion later. The Brits or french or Danes - no passion, just obligation.

Furthermore, only a select few can go to university (university = the US 4 year university, such as Harvard or UCLA or Yale). Not everyone can go. In the US we allow anyone who wants to, to go to college and if they have decent grades, they can move on to university. that option is not available in Europe or Asia (unless they come to the US).

So ... to answer the question of what country is such and such or where is such and such a country - you are asking individuals who have made it through the European collegiate system - equivalent to asking the top 10% of our college graduates. In that case, our top 10% would do much better.

On average, students I have given a world map quiz to (no names, just numbers and they must label them), get 30-35% of the countries correct. That is an overall average of college students. Some are top 10% and some are bottom 10%. In Europe, the number would be lower if we took the same sample group, if it were possible.

Now to the article - the whole Mayan 2012 end of the world issue ...

I should throw in my opinion now - I do not believe December 2012 will be one iota different than January 2012. The Mayan built this calendar system over 1000 years ago. They made 1000 years worth of calendars and then stopped. Much like you folding napkins. At what point will you say you have enough and when you use up most, you will fold more? Maybe the Mayan who was doing the stone calendar died and they were looking for someone to take his position and decided it was no rush because the dead guy had made 1000 years already in advance.
End of Sidebar

Many Dutch prepare for 2012 apocalypse

Published: June 23, 2008 at 7:25 PM

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, June 23 (UPI) -- Thousands of people in the Netherlands say they expect the world to end in 2012, and many say they are taking precautions to prepare for the apocalypse.

The Dutch-language de Volkskrant newspaper said it spoke to thousands of believers in the impending end of civilization, and while theories on the supposed catastrophe varied, most tied the 2012 date to the end of the Mayan calendar, Radio Netherlands reported Monday.
De Volkskrant said many of those interviewed are stocking up on emergency supplies, including life rafts and other equipment.

[An ARK might be a better investment!]

Some who spoke to the newspaper were optimistic about the end of civilization.

"You know, maybe it's really not that bad that the Netherlands will be destroyed," Petra Faile said. "I don't like it here anymore. Take immigration, for example. They keep letting people in. And then we have to build more houses, which makes the Netherlands even heavier. The country will sink even lower, which will make the flooding worse."


Tokyo, New York ... should sink into the center of the earth if that female was correct.

Petra hit every branch, really really hard, but I bet she can probably find 45% of the countries of the world on a map. Doing better than dumb old Americans who are not as concerned about needing rafts.

What bloody difference does it make.






Make Mine Freedom - 1948

American Form of Government

Who's on First? Certainly isn't the Euro.