Secret Squirrel has noted the decline of that valued piece of currency, the lowly penny, the all important penny,a penny not saved,not earned, but threatened,threatened in such a fashion that we will no longer be able to be penny wise,pound foolish if we so choose. In short, in the field of currency, in the field of monetary,finance,there are incursions made to remove form our person, our valued pennies, and this, displease Secret Squirrel, as it should also displease you.In England it shall be so very much worse, for we'd be left without, literally, our pence.We'd be subject to abuse,derogatory phrases,derision,we'd be made fun of, and yet they'd be right, for we would be left standing their without our pence.Sad state of affairs it has come to.Here we see what the situation is coming to in Canada........
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Fate+penny+hangs+balance/3971895/story.html
Fate of penny hangs in the balance
OTTAWA — The Senate’s finance committee is to introduce its recommendation on Tuesday on whether the country should abandon the penny, with media reports suggesting the one-cent coin will be discarded.In April, the committee was charged with investigating the penny’s usefulness, with the coin characterized by some as no longer necessary to the modern economy because the cost to produce it exceeds its financial value.During hearings held in October, representatives from the Bank of Canada, a number of industries, consumer groups, and charities all told the
committee that they wouldn’t miss the penny if it were discontinued.
A Canadian Press report, attributed to unnamed sources, said the committee was set to recommend just that, citing evidence that over time, inflation has rendered the penny needless.New Zealand and Australia have ditched their pennies, and New Zealand has even abandoned its five-cent piece. Neither country experienced much in
the way of economic fallout afterward(However,they can't be asked "A Penny for your thoughts.",they simply haven't any)......................
On March 31, 2008, NDP MP Pat Martin introduced a private member's bill that would eliminate the penny from circulation. The Swedish rounding system
is the suggested replacement for cash transactions.It failed.In mid-2010 the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance began a study on the future of the one-cent coin.However, the Canadian Senate is quite simply a sort of old boys old folks home for refugees from the government itself, The Canadian House Of Commons.
Let's continue, with a history of the penny, of sorts,firstly Canadian pennies......
Currently the penny is 0.01 (penny): 94% steel, 1.5% nickel, 4.5% copper plating.Between 2000-2002, the Royal Canadian Mint altered the composition of its coins. Formerly 99% nickel in the case of silver-coloured coins and the loonie, and 98,4% zinc in the case of the penny, they are now plated steel...
Now here's a look at American pennies,and what they were made from.......
1793–1857 100% copper
1857–1864 88% copper, 12% nickel (also known as NS-12)
1864–1942 1946–1962 bronze (95% copper, 5% tin and zinc)(This was for MOST years)
1943 zinc coated steel
1974 aluminum
1982–present* 97.5% zinc core, 2.5% copper plating so isn't really copper as people believe it to be,but still seems to cost in materials, if it were copper the value would be enormous by today's copper prices, but associations with copper prices are totally out of line, copper isn't really involved at all.
As of 2009, it cost the U.S. Mint 1.62 cents to make a penny because of the costs of the penny's materials and production.Canadian pennies cost 1.5 cents to make.
However, at present, in the USA,it's unlikely that the penny is to disappear anytime soon, as this is found on The U.S. Mint website...........in their FAQ............
"We occasionally hear from people who believe that the Mint should stop producing one-cent coins and remove them from circulation. You may be interested to know that the penny is the most widely used denomination currently in circulation. There was a study conducted in 1976 of this and other suggestions regarding our coinage system. However, the idea of eliminating the penny received strong objections from an overwhelming majority of State revenue collection departments, retail firms, and commercial banks. Other objections voiced in later studies concerned the inflationary impact of such a proposal on prices and possible difficulties on collecting sales taxes.
It has not been confirmed that the penny has outlived its usefulness. Neither business nor the public as a whole has pressured for changes in the coin denominations in circulation today. In addition, our coin and currency system is among the most trusted in the world. The vast majority of users apparently are content with the existing coin denominations, including the one-cent coin. As a result, the Treasury Department has no plans now to cease production of the penny. In addition, such a change to the United States monetary system could not be done without prior Congressional authorization. If directed to do so by legislation enacted by the Congress and signed by the President, the Treasury Department would again study phasing out the penny. Since the demand exists and the Federal Reserve Banks require inventories to meet the demand, the United States Mint is committed to producing the penny."
There are others who support the penny.........
Of course, there are also industry groups that strongly support the penny: one prominent one is "Americans for Common Cents", which is (surprise!) a
zinc industry trade group (pennies are 97% zinc, with a copper coat. Pre-1982, it was the reverse and they were mostly copper). On their website (www.pennies.org) they list several bullet points in support of the penny. Among these are:
* Pennies facilitate commerce: The U.S. Mint produces roughly 13 billion pennies annually
* Elimination of the penny would increase prices
* Charitable causes, which accept pennies as donations, would suffer
* The penny "is part of our nation's history and culture"
* The U.S. Treasury makes a profit from the penny
Sadly, there isn't material cheap enough to make a penny,it seems,except..........well now, it's a question of size isn't it?There are companies making metal filter type casing containers,such as say American Air Filter and others, and they're happily punching holes in to metals.Never mind
their uses for their finished product, but they do have this scrap left, this massive quantity of scrap, scrap "holes",well, disks as it were, metal disks, which are discarded or sold at pennies the ton for scrap, or simply given to be hauled away. The government could actually take these, then simply stamp them as pennies, and hence the penny cost to proiduce would thence drop to a tiny miniscule fraction of what it's worth!!!!!!But then, for the Canadians, it's American Air Filter isn't it? Aye, there's the rub, for them.but not for America, I'm sure they would be glad to contribute their scrap disks to be stamped in to pennies to save the American penny economy. And I'm sure, similar firms in Britain, assuming they're still
British after the Great Labour sell off of British companies to the French and the Germans, and who ever else there was,well, if there are any loyal BRITISH firms such left, they'd also supply,similarly, the British government to easily save the pence.
Any more possible replacements for penny?Well now, what of the penny candy............however what do we find..........Because of inflation and the
decline of the penny's value, penny candy is more often sold for a nickel or a dime..........can't be penny wise then, so penny wise, pound foolish,becomes penny foolish pound wise?
There is yet another solution,hidden deep within American coinage history, here we find that America once had a 2 cent coin.The American two-cent piece, also known as the “shield two-cent coin,” was a bronze coin first struck in 1864 and lasted until 1873. It appeared in the peak of the Civil War era (1861-1865) and at a time when Americans needed it most.The final and most important “first” that this coin is famous for is the motto “In God We Trust.”,in short,the politicians knew the nation was in deep doo doo with them. So if a penny costs 1.67 cents to make, manufacture it as a 2 cent coin, and therefor have a .33 cent profit or else regard it as a .33 manufacturing inflation cushion on each........this change would make 99 cent prices impossible, but then 98 cent would just have to do.All things would easily even out the as it were,should we do that but we simply call it, a penny!And so, everything can be right as rain,for those whom are intelligent. But then there's not much regards there with respect to Canadian politicians,certainly not those of the Canadian Senate, so it goes, they all seem to be a penny short of a dollar.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Secret Squirrel Contemplates Married Priests In The R.C. Church Existent
Secret Squirrel has pondered the Church,The Roman Catholic Church,as to the present, but possibly changing,attitude towards marriage and the priesthood.It all started,basically, with (St) Peter(Petrus),Disciple of Jesus from whom he received the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, according to Matthew 16:18–19 . Executed by crucifixion upside-down. He is recognized as the first Bishop of Rome (Pope) appointed by Christ, by the Catholic Church. Also revered as saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 29 June,with the Papal commencement of 105AD.Others commence to count as Popes with Emperor Constantine,whom some regard as anti-Christ et all so I'll not argue whom really is the first Pope,or Bishop Of Rome, or when the Roman Catholic Church started, but it started at the beginning.And, in the beginning, Popes could marry as they wished, even yet, Popes and Priests,and everybody for that matter, had, laugh not, wives and were permitted to have wives, as so was the custom as it was in Old Testament times, so was it then as well, and they could have not only wives, but,you didn't guess did you, concubines, again as it was at commencement in the Old Testament as well, as it so testifies. So, priests could marry, and have many wives, not just one, there was no limit,Jewish rabbinical law of the day even yet recommended four....In biblical times many wives, concubines and breeders was common and never spoken against. In the Tanakh, Jewish priests suggest 4 wives was probably about the right number,but they remained flexible on wives, no limit was placed on concubines and breeders.Yeah tho we walk in the valley of polygamy,so then did everybody,and the valley of concubines, and the valley of breeders, and so too did priests right
along with everybody else,as it was the thing to do in that day and time.
So when did it all change.........and why?Well,
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html
The idea of Catholic celibacy is especially foolish when you realize the reason behind it. Before the middle ages it was allowable for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses (concubines). But with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could not inherit anyway in society).
In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality, multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times, but it was about MONEY!
http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm
CATHOLIC PRIESTS WERE MONOGAMOUS AND POLYGAMOUS BUT MADE CELIBATE
Due to the widespread illiteracy of the scriptures, especially that of the Gentile believers who were totally ignorant of the Torah, whatever the Catholic priests said were considered as God’s Law and divine truths. One area of total distortion was that of marital relationship. Surprising to almost all of us, it was common for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses. In 726AD, it was acceptable for a man with a sick wife to take a second wife so long as he looked after the first one. With concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance however, offspring could not inherit church property and it was later declared that all sons of priests were illegitimate. In 1022, Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages
for priests (monogamous or polygamous). Finally in 1139, Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. All these were done to possess and protect money and church property. Making polygamy a sin and marriage unacceptable for a priest was a slow and purposeful process.
And so it was done, Priests could not marry,and they had little to celebrate,they were made celebate.Curiously the ROMANS WERE NOTORIOUSLY MONOGAMOUS,but Romans could divorce, and remarry, and they did have mistresses, but the mistresses were grounds for divorce,if complained about,or found out about,dependent,or if there emerged little dependents.Divorces were based on the power of the person or which family they came from though as to being granted or disallowed,not heard as it were.
But as to the present day,polygamy exits,and present efforts at anti-polygamy legislation in the US has led some Mormons to emigrate to Canada and Mexico. ... Polygamy, and laws concerning polygamy, differ greatly throughout the Islamic world as well,and Polygamy and concubines and breeders continued for quite some time,and even yet polygamy exists even yet today there, and here,There is even yet a present court case being considered in Canada concerning the polygamy of the Mormons in Canada. However, not to wander to a side track we shall return to the main stream,the fact that as of the present day, Priests are supposed to remain unmarried,and celebate,they are not to enjoy polygamy,nor concubines,nor breeders,nor monogamy,nor,shudder,sex,they are to remain celebate,and take such vows.That too evolved,for we see in Rodrigo Borgia, who was elected Pope in 1492, taking the name Alexander VI,he had several acknowledged children, of which Lucrezia and Cesare were best known.Alexander VI had four, and possibly five, children by his long time mistress Vannozza dei Cattani a courtesan of the House of Candia (while she was married to Domenico da Rignano): Giovanni (or Juan), Cesar, and Lucrezia(later known as The Good Time To Be Had By All). Then, Goffredo (or Gioffre or, in Valentian, Jofré) and Ottaviano, who may or may not have been Alexander VI's(Borgia), then Cardinal Rodrigo(created Cardinal by his uncle, Calixtus III,8th April 1455,),however before he became Pope,in the very least.
However, there are conditions whereby a priest may actually be married, zounds and zooks, yes indeed, within the Catholic Church.How's this? Well,again part of the definition or a religious community, whether it be an Order, a Congregation, Society or whatever, are the three vows. Canon law specifically mentions the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. These are intrinsic to religious life. Diocesan priests, on the other hand, take no vows. Priests of the Latin Church make a promise of obedience to their bishop and his successors at their ordination. The first act of obedience their bishop asks of them then is celibacy. Logic surely follows then that the only priests who will be called to serve as married clergy
will be those who would not have been called by God for celibate service.There are no vocations which call an individual to take a vow of celibacy with the provision that he/she can later reject that vow.
The sleight of hand is, seminarians or non-catholics can MARRY, AND THEN BE ORDAINED - that's what we see in Acts of the Apostles and Paul's Letters... but once ordained a man cannot marry! If your first spouse dies, you cannot marry again. That's been the constant tradition even in those rites that have married clergy.The Priests leading the charge for a change want to get married AFTER first getting ordained. Most of the married Catholic priests now serving the Church are NOT former Anglican priests, but Eastern Rite priests who were originally ordained
in the Catholic Church. A small percentage of married Eastern Rite priests may be converted Anglican priests, and a higher percentage of married Latin Rite priests are former Anglican priests - but that is still a very small percentage of priests in either rite. In any case, a former Anglican priest - or a former ANYTHING - who has been duly ordained by the Catholic Church is a Catholic priest in good standing and in full communion with the Church.
More continues.......
Pope allows married Anglicans to become Catholic priests in bid to tempt them to defect
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1226449/Pope-allows-married-men-priests-bid-attract-Anglican-recruits.html
By Steve Doughty
You have my blessing: Pope Benedict XVI will allow Anglicans into the Roman Catholic Church
The Roman Catholic Church is to allow married Anglican converts to become priests in a radical concession to tempt them to defect.Church of England bishops who switch allegiance to Rome will be able to ordain them, the Vatican said yesterday.
Married Anglican vicars have been able to convert and join the Rome priesthood since the 1950s, but this is the first time that married non-vicars have been allowed to become priests.The decision to allow Anglican converts to keep their tradition of married priests is a break with rules that have applied in western Catholic churches for nearly 900 years.The Vatican was at pains to insist that it does not mean a break with the celibacy for clergy nor the first step towards a married priesthood.But leading Anglo-Catholics confirmed that CofE bishops who switch loyalty to Rome will have the power to ordain their own priests and that - with permission from the Pope - some of the newly-ordained priests may be married.
The gesture goes alongside a welcome package for Anglicans that will mean that converts will be able to worship according to services from the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer. Services will be re-written to remove references to the Queen as head of the church and to pledge loyalty to the Pope.One Church of England bishop called for negotiations with CofE leaders to allow whole congregations to switch to Rome while keeping the right to continue to use their CofE parish churches.Bishop of Fulham the Right Reverend John Broadhurst said the offer from Rome was 'extremely impressive' and added that those who choose to accept 'have a valid claim on our own heritage in history.'........
So, we see that there has indeed been some flexibility,and alteration, even yet change, in the former Roman Catholic Church (Papacy), policy of chastity and celebacy.We see that there is indeed change taking place, evolution as it were, but in reality devolution as it is,that change is coming from, and is being brought in, from the outside of itself.And the conditions are such that there is no violation of present church doctrines,that they were not what they are now,within the Roman Catholic church, and so it Can be.But will the present Vatican change the "rules" for all,it seems not, for he has said that he will not allow married priests,married priests as defined by those who have taken vows, and been ordained, within the Roman Catholic Church itself,by it's rules, by it's definitions,according to the policies of the church as it was, and so too still is.
There is change, married priests DO exist,but they who have been absorbed, but total change extended to within the Roman Catholic church, will not take place within the present Papacy,but perhaps the next.The door is open for that, it is for the Pope to decide, as the others decided in their day,so it is in the present day.
along with everybody else,as it was the thing to do in that day and time.
So when did it all change.........and why?Well,
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html
The idea of Catholic celibacy is especially foolish when you realize the reason behind it. Before the middle ages it was allowable for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses (concubines). But with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could not inherit anyway in society).
In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality, multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times, but it was about MONEY!
http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm
CATHOLIC PRIESTS WERE MONOGAMOUS AND POLYGAMOUS BUT MADE CELIBATE
Due to the widespread illiteracy of the scriptures, especially that of the Gentile believers who were totally ignorant of the Torah, whatever the Catholic priests said were considered as God’s Law and divine truths. One area of total distortion was that of marital relationship. Surprising to almost all of us, it was common for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses. In 726AD, it was acceptable for a man with a sick wife to take a second wife so long as he looked after the first one. With concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance however, offspring could not inherit church property and it was later declared that all sons of priests were illegitimate. In 1022, Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages
for priests (monogamous or polygamous). Finally in 1139, Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. All these were done to possess and protect money and church property. Making polygamy a sin and marriage unacceptable for a priest was a slow and purposeful process.
And so it was done, Priests could not marry,and they had little to celebrate,they were made celebate.Curiously the ROMANS WERE NOTORIOUSLY MONOGAMOUS,but Romans could divorce, and remarry, and they did have mistresses, but the mistresses were grounds for divorce,if complained about,or found out about,dependent,or if there emerged little dependents.Divorces were based on the power of the person or which family they came from though as to being granted or disallowed,not heard as it were.
But as to the present day,polygamy exits,and present efforts at anti-polygamy legislation in the US has led some Mormons to emigrate to Canada and Mexico. ... Polygamy, and laws concerning polygamy, differ greatly throughout the Islamic world as well,and Polygamy and concubines and breeders continued for quite some time,and even yet polygamy exists even yet today there, and here,There is even yet a present court case being considered in Canada concerning the polygamy of the Mormons in Canada. However, not to wander to a side track we shall return to the main stream,the fact that as of the present day, Priests are supposed to remain unmarried,and celebate,they are not to enjoy polygamy,nor concubines,nor breeders,nor monogamy,nor,shudder,sex,they are to remain celebate,and take such vows.That too evolved,for we see in Rodrigo Borgia, who was elected Pope in 1492, taking the name Alexander VI,he had several acknowledged children, of which Lucrezia and Cesare were best known.Alexander VI had four, and possibly five, children by his long time mistress Vannozza dei Cattani a courtesan of the House of Candia (while she was married to Domenico da Rignano): Giovanni (or Juan), Cesar, and Lucrezia(later known as The Good Time To Be Had By All). Then, Goffredo (or Gioffre or, in Valentian, Jofré) and Ottaviano, who may or may not have been Alexander VI's(Borgia), then Cardinal Rodrigo(created Cardinal by his uncle, Calixtus III,8th April 1455,),however before he became Pope,in the very least.
However, there are conditions whereby a priest may actually be married, zounds and zooks, yes indeed, within the Catholic Church.How's this? Well,again part of the definition or a religious community, whether it be an Order, a Congregation, Society or whatever, are the three vows. Canon law specifically mentions the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. These are intrinsic to religious life. Diocesan priests, on the other hand, take no vows. Priests of the Latin Church make a promise of obedience to their bishop and his successors at their ordination. The first act of obedience their bishop asks of them then is celibacy. Logic surely follows then that the only priests who will be called to serve as married clergy
will be those who would not have been called by God for celibate service.There are no vocations which call an individual to take a vow of celibacy with the provision that he/she can later reject that vow.
The sleight of hand is, seminarians or non-catholics can MARRY, AND THEN BE ORDAINED - that's what we see in Acts of the Apostles and Paul's Letters... but once ordained a man cannot marry! If your first spouse dies, you cannot marry again. That's been the constant tradition even in those rites that have married clergy.The Priests leading the charge for a change want to get married AFTER first getting ordained. Most of the married Catholic priests now serving the Church are NOT former Anglican priests, but Eastern Rite priests who were originally ordained
in the Catholic Church. A small percentage of married Eastern Rite priests may be converted Anglican priests, and a higher percentage of married Latin Rite priests are former Anglican priests - but that is still a very small percentage of priests in either rite. In any case, a former Anglican priest - or a former ANYTHING - who has been duly ordained by the Catholic Church is a Catholic priest in good standing and in full communion with the Church.
More continues.......
Pope allows married Anglicans to become Catholic priests in bid to tempt them to defect
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1226449/Pope-allows-married-men-priests-bid-attract-Anglican-recruits.html
By Steve Doughty
You have my blessing: Pope Benedict XVI will allow Anglicans into the Roman Catholic Church
The Roman Catholic Church is to allow married Anglican converts to become priests in a radical concession to tempt them to defect.Church of England bishops who switch allegiance to Rome will be able to ordain them, the Vatican said yesterday.
Married Anglican vicars have been able to convert and join the Rome priesthood since the 1950s, but this is the first time that married non-vicars have been allowed to become priests.The decision to allow Anglican converts to keep their tradition of married priests is a break with rules that have applied in western Catholic churches for nearly 900 years.The Vatican was at pains to insist that it does not mean a break with the celibacy for clergy nor the first step towards a married priesthood.But leading Anglo-Catholics confirmed that CofE bishops who switch loyalty to Rome will have the power to ordain their own priests and that - with permission from the Pope - some of the newly-ordained priests may be married.
The gesture goes alongside a welcome package for Anglicans that will mean that converts will be able to worship according to services from the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer. Services will be re-written to remove references to the Queen as head of the church and to pledge loyalty to the Pope.One Church of England bishop called for negotiations with CofE leaders to allow whole congregations to switch to Rome while keeping the right to continue to use their CofE parish churches.Bishop of Fulham the Right Reverend John Broadhurst said the offer from Rome was 'extremely impressive' and added that those who choose to accept 'have a valid claim on our own heritage in history.'........
So, we see that there has indeed been some flexibility,and alteration, even yet change, in the former Roman Catholic Church (Papacy), policy of chastity and celebacy.We see that there is indeed change taking place, evolution as it were, but in reality devolution as it is,that change is coming from, and is being brought in, from the outside of itself.And the conditions are such that there is no violation of present church doctrines,that they were not what they are now,within the Roman Catholic church, and so it Can be.But will the present Vatican change the "rules" for all,it seems not, for he has said that he will not allow married priests,married priests as defined by those who have taken vows, and been ordained, within the Roman Catholic Church itself,by it's rules, by it's definitions,according to the policies of the church as it was, and so too still is.
There is change, married priests DO exist,but they who have been absorbed, but total change extended to within the Roman Catholic church, will not take place within the present Papacy,but perhaps the next.The door is open for that, it is for the Pope to decide, as the others decided in their day,so it is in the present day.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Secret Squirrel Determines The Cause Of The Concorde Crash.
Secret Squirrel turns his attention to recent developments concerning the Concorde airliner incident of that great many years ago,the investigation of the root cause of it all, and the outcome and ruling of a french trial concerning that event of July 25,2000,the crash of the Air France, Concorde. Squirrel has pondered events,and here presents them all to you, but sees a great many responsible for the accident and sees the root cause of the event, and sees that there were and are a great many items,any one of which, could have prevented that tragic accident, any one of which, but not one thing was properly done.The crash was not the culmination of a single event, but the result of a great many events.Let us ponder then events
at hand,what we generally know.............
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
A Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-10 lost a titanium part, about 30 centimetres (12 in) wide and 43 centimetres (17 in) long, during a
takeoff from Charles de Gaulle Airport.(This strip was installed in violation of the manufacturer's rules on the thrust reverser cowl door of the
number 3 engine of the Continental Airlines DC-10.) During the Concorde's subsequent take-off run, (During takeoff from runway 26 right at Roissy
Charles de Gaulle Airport, shortly before rotation (take-off speed),)this piece of debris, still lying on the runway, ruptured a tyre which then burst. A large chunk of this (4.5 kilograms or 9.9 lb) struck the underside of the aircraft's wing structure at well over 300 kilometres per hour (190 mph). Although it did not directly puncture any of the fuel tanks, it sent out a pressure shockwave that eventually ruptured the number five fuel tank at the weakest point, just above the landing gear. Leaking fuel rushing over the top of the wing was ignited by an electric arc in the landing gear bay or through contact with severed electrical cables. At the point of ignition, engines one and two both surged and lost all power, but slowly recovered over the next few seconds. A large plume of flame developed; the Flight Engineer then shut down engine two, in response to a
fire warning and the Captain's command.
Having passed V1 speed, the crew continued the take-off (Aborting the take-off would have led to a high-speed runway excursion and collapse of the landing gear, which also would have caused the aircraft to crash. )but they could not gain enough airspeed on the three remaining engines, because the undercarriage could not be retracted due to the severed electrical cables. The aircraft was unable to climb or accelerate, and it maintained a speed of 200 knots (370 km/h; 230 mph) at an altitude of 60 metres (200 ft). The fire caused damage to the port wing, and it began to disintegrate - melting due to extremely high temperatures. Engine one surged again, but this time failed to recover. Due to the asymmetric thrust, the starboard wing lifted, banking the aircraft to over 100 degrees. The crew reduced the power on engines three and four to attempt to level the aircraft but with falling airspeed they lost control, crashing into the Hôtelissimo Les Relais Bleus Hotel near the airport.
The investigators concluded that:
* After reaching take-off speed, the tyre of the number 2 wheel was cut by a metal strip lying on the runway, which came from the thrust reverser cowl door of the number 3 engine of a Continental Airlines DC-10 that had taken off from the runway several minutes before. This strip was installed in violation of the manufacturer's rules.
* The aircraft was overloaded by about a ton.
British investigators and former French Concorde pilots looked at several other possibilities that the report ignored, including an unbalanced weight distribution in the fuel tanks and loose landing gear. They came to the conclusion that the Concorde veered off course on the runway, which reduced take-off speed below the crucial minimum. The aircraft had passed close to a Boeing 747 carrying French President Jacques Chirac who was returning from the 26th G8 summit meeting in Okinawa, Japan, which was much further down the runway than the Concorde's usual take-off point; only then did it strike the metal strip from the DC-10.
The Concorde was overweight for the given conditions, with an excessively aft centre of gravity and taking off downwind. When it stood at the end of the runway, ready to roll, it was over its approved maximum take-off weight for the given conditions.The Concorde was missing the crucial spacer from the left main landing-gear beam that would have made for a snug-fitting pivot. This compromised the alignment of the landing gear and the wobbling beam and gears allowing three degrees of movement possible in any direction. The uneven load on the left leg’s three remaining tyres skewed the landing gear, with the scuff marks of four tyres on the runway showing that the plane was veering to the left.
(One interesting note about the main landing gear is that if both were to just swing up to be stowed away they would hit each other and jam. The combined length of both undercarriages is greater than the distance between both undercarriage roots. This problem required that the undercarriage be first retracted vertically and then swung inwards to be tucked in the wing and fuselage belly......http://heritageconcorde.com/?page_id=4356)
So generally it is known that the event was brought about by a tire,or two being blown,and resultant debris smashing in to, but it seems not actually penetrating,the wing, and fuel tank.Interesting,curious.There are mentioned many tire incidents involving Concord, and it's so-called special tires,which,it seems were especially failing.Ponder these events......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
In November, 1981, the American NTSB sent a letter of concern, which included safety recommendations for the Concorde, to the French BEA. That
communiqué was the result of the NTSB's investigations of four Air France Concorde incidents, during a 20 month period, from July 1979, through February, 1981. The NTSB described those incidents as “potentially catastrophic,” because they were caused by blown tyres during take-off. The NTSB also expressed concern about the lack of adequate remedies, on the part of the French, as well as improper crew responses to those incidents.
* June 13, 1979: The number 5 and 6 tyres blew out during a take-off from Washington, DC Dulles Airport. Shrapnel thrown from the tyres and rims
damaged number 2 engine, punctured three fuel tanks, severed several hydraulic lines and electrical wires, in addition to tearing a large hole on the top of the wing, over the wheel well area.
* July 21, 1979: Another blown tyre incident, during take-off from Dulles Airport. After that second incident the “French director general of civil aviation issued an air worthiness directive and Air France issued a Technical Information Update, each calling for revised procedures. These included required inspection of each wheel and tyre for condition, pressure and temperature prior to each take-off. In addition, crews were advised that landing gear should not be raised when a wheel/tyre problem is suspected.”
* October, 1979: Tyres number 7 and 8 failed during a take-off from New York's JFK Airport. In spite of the well-publicized danger from the previous incidents, the crew ignored the new safety recommendations and raised the landing gear and continued to Paris. There was no subsequent investigation by the French BEA or the NTSB, of that incident.
In September 2005, Henri Perrier, the former head of the Concorde division at Aerospatiale, and Jacques Herubel, the Concorde chief engineer, came
under investigation for negligence: a report stated that the company had more than 70 incidents involving Concorde tyres between 1979 and 2000, but had failed to take appropriate steps based upon these incidents
* February, 1981: While en-route from Mexico City to Paris, Air France (F-BTSD) blew more tyres during another take-off at Dulles Airport. Once again, the crew disregarded the new procedures by raising the landing gear. The blown tyres caused engine damage which forced the flight to land at New York JFK Airport. The NTSB's investigation found that there had been no preparation of the passengers for a possible emergency landing and evacuation. The CVR was also found to have been inoperative for several flights, including one which followed a layover in Paris.
To save on weight, the Concorde was designed to take off without the assistance of flaps or slats. That required a significantly higher air and tyre speed, during the take-off roll, which imposed a much greater centripetal force load on the tyres. That higher speed increased the risk of tyre explosion during take-off. When the tyres did explode, much greater kinetic energy was carried by the resulting shrapnel travelling at great speeds tangentially from the rims (the kinetic energy of an object being directly proportional to the square of its speed), increasing the risk of serious damage to the aircraft. A thicker skin on the bottom side of the wings could have prevented serious damage from an exploding tyre, but that would have added too much weight, cancelling out most of the advantage of not having flaps or slats.
So the Air France Concord suffered a tire burst,
http://www.concordesst.com/latestnews.html
Mr Metzner.............(argued)..... that the Concorde's tyre burst because an important element of the undercarriage had been accidentally left out by Air France ground staff. As a result, too much weight was bearing on the tyres, one of which exploded when it hit a bump in the runway. Air France and the French air accident bureau admit that there was a mistake in repairing the Concorde's undercarriage but they insist that it could not have caused the tyre burst. However there is no factual evidence of any fire on the aircraft before it hit the piece of metal and the tyre burst from any marks observed on the runway. ...................
*Continental Airlines Accused of negligently allowing its staff to use banned titanium strips for aircraft repairs. If found guilty the company faces a fine of up to €375,000.
*John Taylor, 41, Continental Airlines mechanic He fitted the titanium strip which fell onto the runway before the doomed Concorde flight.
Henri Perrier, 80, head of the Concorde programme at Aerospatiale from 1978 to 1994 Accused of failing to respond to evidence of weakness in the aircraft's tyre and fuel tank designs..................
Events were even yet such that the British Concords were fitted with a special flap to deal with these events.Indeed here peruse this.......
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-08-03/world/crash.concorde.03_1_burst-tire-concordes-major-fuel-leak?_s=PM:WORLD
Air France confirms it did not make Concorde modification before crash
Air France officials Thursday acknowledged the airline had not made a design change intended to reduce the chance that tire blowouts on the Concorde would damage the supersonic aircraft.British Airways modified its Concordes in 1995; two years after a Concorde tire explosion sent a water deflector -- part of the landing gear --
soaring through a fuel tank. It was the second such time that a burst tire had dislodged a water deflector, documents show.But Air France said Thursday it opted not to modify the water deflector on its planes, saying the modification would simply ensure the deflector would remain in one piece, and would not prevent it from separating from the aircraft entirely.Air France was not legally required to make the modification, the airline noted.Concorde Flight 4590 departed that airport outside of Paris July 25, and crashed just minutes later, killing all 109 people on the plane and four on
the ground.......................Investigators say they know that one, possibly two, tires burst; that there was an intense fire caused by a major fuel leak; that the flight crew could not retract the landing gear; and that there were problems with two of the four engines.Speculation about the possible involvement of the water deflector came Thursday after French government officials confirmed they had discovered a piece of the water deflector on the runway at Charles de Gaulle Airport.U.S. and British government records show the Concorde has a history of
mishaps involving blown tires...............
Note, Air France did NOT modify it's aircraft after such a serious incident,an accident actually resulting in the wing AND the fuel tank, being actually penetrated,speared through.The British saw the clear and present danger, the French refused to heed it,nor acknowledge it.Clearly,negligence.
But we are looking at what is claimed to be debris on the runway have caused the tire(s) to burst,with the devastating events which came about,events the British Concorde escaped from.Continental claimed,though, that Concorde had not actually come to grief due to the debris on the runway left by it's DC-10, but rather had burst the tires and been on fire BEFORE it got to the debris.However events being what they are, runways are to be checked for debris, and the debris noted and cleared,and those who the debris is suspected of belonging to, informed of.And so too it was at Charles DeGaulle Airport, the runways were to be checked,regularly...but wouldn't you know it, all things being equal, at that French airport what kind of a situation do we have with respect to runway checks......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/906610.stm
Questions over Concorde runway
The plane crashed less than two minutes after take-off.French investigators have said that an inspection of the runway used by the Concorde that crashed near Paris in July had been postponed because of a fire drill.A preliminary report on the crash in which 113 people died, said that a metal strip found on the runway could have gashed one of the plane's tyres. This may have set off the catastrophic chain of events that led the plane to come down in a ball of flames shortly after take-off.However officials from the French Air Accident Investigation Bureau (BEA) said the delay in the runway inspection did not necessarily have a bearing on the presence of the 43cm (17 inch) metal strip..............
At a news conference to present the preliminary report, BEA director Paul Arslanian said airport employees routinely inspected the runway three times per day.Paul Arslanian said the metal strip resembled an aviation part.
On the day the Concorde crashed, the runway was inspected at 0430 (0230 GMT), and a partial inspection carried out at 1430 because a plane was believed to have collided with a bird.A second full inspection at 1500 was postponed because of a fire practice which started at 1435. The Concorde took off at 1643.The report shows, therefore, that the runway was not fully inspected for more than 12 hours before the doomed plane took off.However airport authority spokesman Didier Hamon said it was usual for Charles de Gaulle airport to carry out its three inspections a day at "relatively flexible" times."If anything wrong would have existed, it would have been noticed immediately," he said.
"We do believe that everything was done that day as it is normal to do. On that day, nothing abnormal, nothing exceptional was reported to the airport authority."Mr Arslanian cautioned against drawing hasty conclusions."We need to understand what was done during the fire drill," he said.
The BEA director said the metal strip thought to have burst one of the plane's tyres looked "very like an aviation part", although investigators had yet to establish how it had ended up on the runway.Chris Yates, security editor for Jane's Aviation, said an airport such as Charles de Gaulle would be required to check for runway debris several times a day.He said: "The French BEA's admittance that these basic safety procedures were not adhered to may have contributed to the crash."
The BEA's preliminary report into the fatal crash, released on Thursday night, stresses that it was the destruction of a forward tyre on the plane's left landing gear - probably torn by the metal strip - that set of a chain of events that brought the plane down.
Well now,imagine, no inspection for 12 hours, and the statement.......airport authority spokesman Didier Hamon said it was usual for Charles de Gaulle airport to carry out its three inspections a day at "relatively flexible" times."If anything wrong would have existed, it would have been noticed immediately," he said.Well, it wasn't was it?It couldn't have, it wouldn't have, and it wasn't noticed.Clearly negligence.
It's is also interesting to note, that the flight commenced abnormally,even yet from the loading of the baggage,it's weight distribution, and even yet,it resulted in an overload condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
British investigators and former French Concorde pilots looked at several other possibilities that the report ignored, including an unbalanced weight distribution in the fuel tanks and loose landing gear. They came to the conclusion that the Concorde veered off course on the runway, which reduced take-off speed below the crucial minimum. The aircraft had passed close to a Boeing 747 carrying French President Jacques Chirac who was returning from the 26th G8 summit meeting in Okinawa, Japan, which was much further down the runway than the Concorde's usual take-off point; only then did it strike the metal strip from the DC-10.The Concorde was overweight for the given conditions, with an excessively aft centre of gravity
and taking off downwind. When it stood at the end of the runway, ready to roll, it was over its approved maximum take-off weight for the given conditions.
The Concord started it's flight being overloaded,and not having proper weight distribution.Here clearly, the Airport Authority is responsible,and improperly loaded aircraft,improper with respect to both weight distribution, and also with respect to actual weight, one ton overloaded.Also, one must state, the pilot could not be aware of improper weight distribution, this being done by baggage handlers, but he was aware of the improper overweight condition and chose to ignore it. Here,clearly, we have negligence.
So now the pilot heads off down the runway he should never have entered,and there they say,they claim, that the strip,the part waits.....
http://www.concordesst.com/accident/stories/s28.html
Fatal Strip Fell from Continental DC10
Investigators looking into the Air France Concorde crash outside Paris on July 25 said yesterday that the 41cm (16in) strip of metal which almost certainly caused the accident seemed identical to one missing from a Continental Airlines DC-10 which took off minutes earlier. The French accident investigation bureau (BEA) said the strip found on the runway appeared to come from the cowling of the fan reverser on the DC-10's right engine.Continental said the twisted, epoxy-coated strip was the same shape as a piece missing from the engine of flight COA 55. It was not there when officials of the airline, the BEA, the US federal aviation administration and the national transportation and safety board inspected the plane in Houston on Saturday, it said.
The strip had been replaced on July 9 during a routine engine inspection. Because the investigation was continuing it was "inappropriate to comment further," the company added.
It has been said, that the use of the titanium strip was against airline practices,that such replacement had been banned, but a mechanic did perform
the replacement,the substitution, and it seem, most definitely, improperly so.So here Continental's maintenance procedures and the mechanic who did the job, are clearly negligent.Negligence........all round..what caused the Concord crash?ALL of these things, any one of which could have saved the Concord from coming to grief.
Causes:
1) Air France and Manufacturer(Sud Aviation)
For NOT carrying out the tire disintegration modification which was done on British Concords due to FACT that Concord tires were dangerously disintegrating, striking the wings,even yet resulting in piercing of the wings by tire boggie components.
2) Airport officials
Baggage handlers knowingly overloaded the aircraft, and placing the center of gravity in imbalance.
3) Airport Company which checks runway
For NOT properly checking runway.
4) Airport officials
Knowingly delaying and then not first proceeding with checking of the runway.(See also 2).
5) Pilot
For taking off with an overloaded aircraft,improper aircraft operation.
6) Continental
For improper aircraft maintenance,using banned techniques.
7) Maintenance Man
For improper maintenance procedure which failed.
8) Michelin
Concord had vast history of tire failures, special tires failed specially.
There we have it,we can conclude, eight causes, eight causes,count them, eight.But should any one of them have been properly done,Concord would not have come to
grief.There lies the cause,there lie the blame,and the passengers and crew lie in the earth,mangled,burned and roasted.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL.
at hand,what we generally know.............
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
A Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-10 lost a titanium part, about 30 centimetres (12 in) wide and 43 centimetres (17 in) long, during a
takeoff from Charles de Gaulle Airport.(This strip was installed in violation of the manufacturer's rules on the thrust reverser cowl door of the
number 3 engine of the Continental Airlines DC-10.) During the Concorde's subsequent take-off run, (During takeoff from runway 26 right at Roissy
Charles de Gaulle Airport, shortly before rotation (take-off speed),)this piece of debris, still lying on the runway, ruptured a tyre which then burst. A large chunk of this (4.5 kilograms or 9.9 lb) struck the underside of the aircraft's wing structure at well over 300 kilometres per hour (190 mph). Although it did not directly puncture any of the fuel tanks, it sent out a pressure shockwave that eventually ruptured the number five fuel tank at the weakest point, just above the landing gear. Leaking fuel rushing over the top of the wing was ignited by an electric arc in the landing gear bay or through contact with severed electrical cables. At the point of ignition, engines one and two both surged and lost all power, but slowly recovered over the next few seconds. A large plume of flame developed; the Flight Engineer then shut down engine two, in response to a
fire warning and the Captain's command.
Having passed V1 speed, the crew continued the take-off (Aborting the take-off would have led to a high-speed runway excursion and collapse of the landing gear, which also would have caused the aircraft to crash. )but they could not gain enough airspeed on the three remaining engines, because the undercarriage could not be retracted due to the severed electrical cables. The aircraft was unable to climb or accelerate, and it maintained a speed of 200 knots (370 km/h; 230 mph) at an altitude of 60 metres (200 ft). The fire caused damage to the port wing, and it began to disintegrate - melting due to extremely high temperatures. Engine one surged again, but this time failed to recover. Due to the asymmetric thrust, the starboard wing lifted, banking the aircraft to over 100 degrees. The crew reduced the power on engines three and four to attempt to level the aircraft but with falling airspeed they lost control, crashing into the Hôtelissimo Les Relais Bleus Hotel near the airport.
The investigators concluded that:
* After reaching take-off speed, the tyre of the number 2 wheel was cut by a metal strip lying on the runway, which came from the thrust reverser cowl door of the number 3 engine of a Continental Airlines DC-10 that had taken off from the runway several minutes before. This strip was installed in violation of the manufacturer's rules.
* The aircraft was overloaded by about a ton.
British investigators and former French Concorde pilots looked at several other possibilities that the report ignored, including an unbalanced weight distribution in the fuel tanks and loose landing gear. They came to the conclusion that the Concorde veered off course on the runway, which reduced take-off speed below the crucial minimum. The aircraft had passed close to a Boeing 747 carrying French President Jacques Chirac who was returning from the 26th G8 summit meeting in Okinawa, Japan, which was much further down the runway than the Concorde's usual take-off point; only then did it strike the metal strip from the DC-10.
The Concorde was overweight for the given conditions, with an excessively aft centre of gravity and taking off downwind. When it stood at the end of the runway, ready to roll, it was over its approved maximum take-off weight for the given conditions.The Concorde was missing the crucial spacer from the left main landing-gear beam that would have made for a snug-fitting pivot. This compromised the alignment of the landing gear and the wobbling beam and gears allowing three degrees of movement possible in any direction. The uneven load on the left leg’s three remaining tyres skewed the landing gear, with the scuff marks of four tyres on the runway showing that the plane was veering to the left.
(One interesting note about the main landing gear is that if both were to just swing up to be stowed away they would hit each other and jam. The combined length of both undercarriages is greater than the distance between both undercarriage roots. This problem required that the undercarriage be first retracted vertically and then swung inwards to be tucked in the wing and fuselage belly......http://heritageconcorde.com/?page_id=4356)
So generally it is known that the event was brought about by a tire,or two being blown,and resultant debris smashing in to, but it seems not actually penetrating,the wing, and fuel tank.Interesting,curious.There are mentioned many tire incidents involving Concord, and it's so-called special tires,which,it seems were especially failing.Ponder these events......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
In November, 1981, the American NTSB sent a letter of concern, which included safety recommendations for the Concorde, to the French BEA. That
communiqué was the result of the NTSB's investigations of four Air France Concorde incidents, during a 20 month period, from July 1979, through February, 1981. The NTSB described those incidents as “potentially catastrophic,” because they were caused by blown tyres during take-off. The NTSB also expressed concern about the lack of adequate remedies, on the part of the French, as well as improper crew responses to those incidents.
* June 13, 1979: The number 5 and 6 tyres blew out during a take-off from Washington, DC Dulles Airport. Shrapnel thrown from the tyres and rims
damaged number 2 engine, punctured three fuel tanks, severed several hydraulic lines and electrical wires, in addition to tearing a large hole on the top of the wing, over the wheel well area.
* July 21, 1979: Another blown tyre incident, during take-off from Dulles Airport. After that second incident the “French director general of civil aviation issued an air worthiness directive and Air France issued a Technical Information Update, each calling for revised procedures. These included required inspection of each wheel and tyre for condition, pressure and temperature prior to each take-off. In addition, crews were advised that landing gear should not be raised when a wheel/tyre problem is suspected.”
* October, 1979: Tyres number 7 and 8 failed during a take-off from New York's JFK Airport. In spite of the well-publicized danger from the previous incidents, the crew ignored the new safety recommendations and raised the landing gear and continued to Paris. There was no subsequent investigation by the French BEA or the NTSB, of that incident.
In September 2005, Henri Perrier, the former head of the Concorde division at Aerospatiale, and Jacques Herubel, the Concorde chief engineer, came
under investigation for negligence: a report stated that the company had more than 70 incidents involving Concorde tyres between 1979 and 2000, but had failed to take appropriate steps based upon these incidents
* February, 1981: While en-route from Mexico City to Paris, Air France (F-BTSD) blew more tyres during another take-off at Dulles Airport. Once again, the crew disregarded the new procedures by raising the landing gear. The blown tyres caused engine damage which forced the flight to land at New York JFK Airport. The NTSB's investigation found that there had been no preparation of the passengers for a possible emergency landing and evacuation. The CVR was also found to have been inoperative for several flights, including one which followed a layover in Paris.
To save on weight, the Concorde was designed to take off without the assistance of flaps or slats. That required a significantly higher air and tyre speed, during the take-off roll, which imposed a much greater centripetal force load on the tyres. That higher speed increased the risk of tyre explosion during take-off. When the tyres did explode, much greater kinetic energy was carried by the resulting shrapnel travelling at great speeds tangentially from the rims (the kinetic energy of an object being directly proportional to the square of its speed), increasing the risk of serious damage to the aircraft. A thicker skin on the bottom side of the wings could have prevented serious damage from an exploding tyre, but that would have added too much weight, cancelling out most of the advantage of not having flaps or slats.
So the Air France Concord suffered a tire burst,
http://www.concordesst.com/latestnews.html
Mr Metzner.............(argued)..... that the Concorde's tyre burst because an important element of the undercarriage had been accidentally left out by Air France ground staff. As a result, too much weight was bearing on the tyres, one of which exploded when it hit a bump in the runway. Air France and the French air accident bureau admit that there was a mistake in repairing the Concorde's undercarriage but they insist that it could not have caused the tyre burst. However there is no factual evidence of any fire on the aircraft before it hit the piece of metal and the tyre burst from any marks observed on the runway. ...................
*Continental Airlines Accused of negligently allowing its staff to use banned titanium strips for aircraft repairs. If found guilty the company faces a fine of up to €375,000.
*John Taylor, 41, Continental Airlines mechanic He fitted the titanium strip which fell onto the runway before the doomed Concorde flight.
Henri Perrier, 80, head of the Concorde programme at Aerospatiale from 1978 to 1994 Accused of failing to respond to evidence of weakness in the aircraft's tyre and fuel tank designs..................
Events were even yet such that the British Concords were fitted with a special flap to deal with these events.Indeed here peruse this.......
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-08-03/world/crash.concorde.03_1_burst-tire-concordes-major-fuel-leak?_s=PM:WORLD
Air France confirms it did not make Concorde modification before crash
Air France officials Thursday acknowledged the airline had not made a design change intended to reduce the chance that tire blowouts on the Concorde would damage the supersonic aircraft.British Airways modified its Concordes in 1995; two years after a Concorde tire explosion sent a water deflector -- part of the landing gear --
soaring through a fuel tank. It was the second such time that a burst tire had dislodged a water deflector, documents show.But Air France said Thursday it opted not to modify the water deflector on its planes, saying the modification would simply ensure the deflector would remain in one piece, and would not prevent it from separating from the aircraft entirely.Air France was not legally required to make the modification, the airline noted.Concorde Flight 4590 departed that airport outside of Paris July 25, and crashed just minutes later, killing all 109 people on the plane and four on
the ground.......................Investigators say they know that one, possibly two, tires burst; that there was an intense fire caused by a major fuel leak; that the flight crew could not retract the landing gear; and that there were problems with two of the four engines.Speculation about the possible involvement of the water deflector came Thursday after French government officials confirmed they had discovered a piece of the water deflector on the runway at Charles de Gaulle Airport.U.S. and British government records show the Concorde has a history of
mishaps involving blown tires...............
Note, Air France did NOT modify it's aircraft after such a serious incident,an accident actually resulting in the wing AND the fuel tank, being actually penetrated,speared through.The British saw the clear and present danger, the French refused to heed it,nor acknowledge it.Clearly,negligence.
But we are looking at what is claimed to be debris on the runway have caused the tire(s) to burst,with the devastating events which came about,events the British Concorde escaped from.Continental claimed,though, that Concorde had not actually come to grief due to the debris on the runway left by it's DC-10, but rather had burst the tires and been on fire BEFORE it got to the debris.However events being what they are, runways are to be checked for debris, and the debris noted and cleared,and those who the debris is suspected of belonging to, informed of.And so too it was at Charles DeGaulle Airport, the runways were to be checked,regularly...but wouldn't you know it, all things being equal, at that French airport what kind of a situation do we have with respect to runway checks......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/906610.stm
Questions over Concorde runway
The plane crashed less than two minutes after take-off.French investigators have said that an inspection of the runway used by the Concorde that crashed near Paris in July had been postponed because of a fire drill.A preliminary report on the crash in which 113 people died, said that a metal strip found on the runway could have gashed one of the plane's tyres. This may have set off the catastrophic chain of events that led the plane to come down in a ball of flames shortly after take-off.However officials from the French Air Accident Investigation Bureau (BEA) said the delay in the runway inspection did not necessarily have a bearing on the presence of the 43cm (17 inch) metal strip..............
At a news conference to present the preliminary report, BEA director Paul Arslanian said airport employees routinely inspected the runway three times per day.Paul Arslanian said the metal strip resembled an aviation part.
On the day the Concorde crashed, the runway was inspected at 0430 (0230 GMT), and a partial inspection carried out at 1430 because a plane was believed to have collided with a bird.A second full inspection at 1500 was postponed because of a fire practice which started at 1435. The Concorde took off at 1643.The report shows, therefore, that the runway was not fully inspected for more than 12 hours before the doomed plane took off.However airport authority spokesman Didier Hamon said it was usual for Charles de Gaulle airport to carry out its three inspections a day at "relatively flexible" times."If anything wrong would have existed, it would have been noticed immediately," he said.
"We do believe that everything was done that day as it is normal to do. On that day, nothing abnormal, nothing exceptional was reported to the airport authority."Mr Arslanian cautioned against drawing hasty conclusions."We need to understand what was done during the fire drill," he said.
The BEA director said the metal strip thought to have burst one of the plane's tyres looked "very like an aviation part", although investigators had yet to establish how it had ended up on the runway.Chris Yates, security editor for Jane's Aviation, said an airport such as Charles de Gaulle would be required to check for runway debris several times a day.He said: "The French BEA's admittance that these basic safety procedures were not adhered to may have contributed to the crash."
The BEA's preliminary report into the fatal crash, released on Thursday night, stresses that it was the destruction of a forward tyre on the plane's left landing gear - probably torn by the metal strip - that set of a chain of events that brought the plane down.
Well now,imagine, no inspection for 12 hours, and the statement.......airport authority spokesman Didier Hamon said it was usual for Charles de Gaulle airport to carry out its three inspections a day at "relatively flexible" times."If anything wrong would have existed, it would have been noticed immediately," he said.Well, it wasn't was it?It couldn't have, it wouldn't have, and it wasn't noticed.Clearly negligence.
It's is also interesting to note, that the flight commenced abnormally,even yet from the loading of the baggage,it's weight distribution, and even yet,it resulted in an overload condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
British investigators and former French Concorde pilots looked at several other possibilities that the report ignored, including an unbalanced weight distribution in the fuel tanks and loose landing gear. They came to the conclusion that the Concorde veered off course on the runway, which reduced take-off speed below the crucial minimum. The aircraft had passed close to a Boeing 747 carrying French President Jacques Chirac who was returning from the 26th G8 summit meeting in Okinawa, Japan, which was much further down the runway than the Concorde's usual take-off point; only then did it strike the metal strip from the DC-10.The Concorde was overweight for the given conditions, with an excessively aft centre of gravity
and taking off downwind. When it stood at the end of the runway, ready to roll, it was over its approved maximum take-off weight for the given conditions.
The Concord started it's flight being overloaded,and not having proper weight distribution.Here clearly, the Airport Authority is responsible,and improperly loaded aircraft,improper with respect to both weight distribution, and also with respect to actual weight, one ton overloaded.Also, one must state, the pilot could not be aware of improper weight distribution, this being done by baggage handlers, but he was aware of the improper overweight condition and chose to ignore it. Here,clearly, we have negligence.
So now the pilot heads off down the runway he should never have entered,and there they say,they claim, that the strip,the part waits.....
http://www.concordesst.com/accident/stories/s28.html
Fatal Strip Fell from Continental DC10
Investigators looking into the Air France Concorde crash outside Paris on July 25 said yesterday that the 41cm (16in) strip of metal which almost certainly caused the accident seemed identical to one missing from a Continental Airlines DC-10 which took off minutes earlier. The French accident investigation bureau (BEA) said the strip found on the runway appeared to come from the cowling of the fan reverser on the DC-10's right engine.Continental said the twisted, epoxy-coated strip was the same shape as a piece missing from the engine of flight COA 55. It was not there when officials of the airline, the BEA, the US federal aviation administration and the national transportation and safety board inspected the plane in Houston on Saturday, it said.
The strip had been replaced on July 9 during a routine engine inspection. Because the investigation was continuing it was "inappropriate to comment further," the company added.
It has been said, that the use of the titanium strip was against airline practices,that such replacement had been banned, but a mechanic did perform
the replacement,the substitution, and it seem, most definitely, improperly so.So here Continental's maintenance procedures and the mechanic who did the job, are clearly negligent.Negligence........all round..what caused the Concord crash?ALL of these things, any one of which could have saved the Concord from coming to grief.
Causes:
1) Air France and Manufacturer(Sud Aviation)
For NOT carrying out the tire disintegration modification which was done on British Concords due to FACT that Concord tires were dangerously disintegrating, striking the wings,even yet resulting in piercing of the wings by tire boggie components.
2) Airport officials
Baggage handlers knowingly overloaded the aircraft, and placing the center of gravity in imbalance.
3) Airport Company which checks runway
For NOT properly checking runway.
4) Airport officials
Knowingly delaying and then not first proceeding with checking of the runway.(See also 2).
5) Pilot
For taking off with an overloaded aircraft,improper aircraft operation.
6) Continental
For improper aircraft maintenance,using banned techniques.
7) Maintenance Man
For improper maintenance procedure which failed.
8) Michelin
Concord had vast history of tire failures, special tires failed specially.
There we have it,we can conclude, eight causes, eight causes,count them, eight.But should any one of them have been properly done,Concord would not have come to
grief.There lies the cause,there lie the blame,and the passengers and crew lie in the earth,mangled,burned and roasted.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Secret Squirrel:The People Of England Are Second Class Citizens In Great Britain.
Secret Squirrel is amazed by the British Government, which sets rules,regs,laws, and dishes out financial supports round and about Great Britain, which comprises, England,Scotland,Wales, and Northern Ireland, and sees, as financially the English
themselves have seen(the English being those referred to as being and residing and being citizens in England),that those in England itself are most severely second class citizens as compared to those who are living in Wales,Scotland, and or
Northern Ireland. Secret Squirrel sees that it is those of England who are suffering financial hardships,sees that those in Wales,Scotland,Northern Ireland, have benefits far in excess of what is made available to the people of England.There is vast inequality,inequity,iniquity. This has been seen in the fields of public health and welfare,costs of prescription drugs and drug benefits,home heating,transport, tuition fees,higher benefits to those in Northern Ireland,Scotland,Wales, and lower to those in England.....read on.........
Just look at what the latest headlines read, under the new coalition government of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.......ponder this here found at The Daily Mail..........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334535/TUITION-FEES-Welsh-students-join-Scots-spared-rise-English-punished.html
Punished for being English: Welsh students join Scots in being spared tuition fees rise ...............(Additionally)According to the TaxPayers’ Alliance, public spending per head is 14 per cent more in Wales than in England as a result of the controversial Barnett formula, under which money is handed out by the Westminster
Parliament to the devolved administrations.In 2007/08, every man, woman and child in Wales benefited from £1,042 more in public spending than in England.The row centres on Westminster plans to allow the cap on tuition fees in England to rise to
£9,000 a year from the current £3,290 for students starting university in September 2012..........move by the Welsh Assembly government – a coalition of nationalist Plaid Cymru and Labour – is a pointed snub to the plan.The Assembly pledged to pay the difference between current fees and the new £9,000-a-year charges for all Welsh
undergraduates, as well as students from elsewhere in the European Union studying in Wales.........(NOT for those from England studying in Wales)........English students now will have to pay the full amount to study in Wales but students from
other EU countries will not.Welsh education minister Leighton Andrews described access to universities as an important principle.‘We are preserving the principle that the state will subsidize higher education and maintain opportunities for all,’ he said.‘In Wales, we remain committed to helping the most disadvantaged access education.'The waiver will benefit approximately 70,000 Welsh undergraduates who study in Wales each year, and about 16,000 who study in England.It will also go to around 7,500 non-UK European Union students.At the same time, the poorest students in Wales will be able to access grants for living costs of £5,000-a-year, higher than grants proposed for England..................Scottish undergraduates studying in Scotland do not pay tuition fees, although they are liable if they study in England, which affects a very small number.English students studying in Scotland pay fees of £1,820 a year or £2,895 for medicine.
And so here ends the excerpt from The Daily Mail.
But wait, there's more, and this was under the New Labour government of Tony Blair,and thence Gordon Brown,cast your eye on this...........
Secret Squirrel has passed on some thoughts on the unfair treatment that English taxpayers received under Labour,here, as seen below:From the London Evening Standard..........
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400817-divided-kingdom-english-foot-the-bill-for-scots-prescriptions.do
And so here the headlines read.................
Divided Kingdom: English foot the bill for Scots prescriptions
By KIRSTY WALKER and JENNY HOPE -
"English taxpayers are to foot the bill for Scots to have free prescriptions.
Chronically-ill patients north of the border will not have to pay a penny for their drugs from April.And the Scottish National Party plans to extend the benefit to all within four years.The move, which will cost English taxpayers £50 million a year, is seen as deliberate provocation by the SNP, which ousted Labour last month and wants to break up the historic union between England and Scotland.
Prescription drugs
English taxpayers are to foot the bill for Scots to have free prescriptions
It revived demands for an end to the total £22 billion "subsidy" paid to Scotland, creating a divided nation.Scotland receives about £1,500 a year per head more than England to spend on schools and hospitals, an arrangement which has infuriated English MPs and prompted demands for Gordon Brown - himself a Scot - to order a Treasury review.
Among the many benefits enjoyed by the Scots are:
• Free tuition fees for all students from 2009, while students in England and Wales must pay up to £3,000 a year for their studies.
• Access to expensive state- of the art drugs for illnesses such as Alzheimer's and eye disease, which are not available on the NHS in England.
• Free personal care for the elderly
• Free central heating installation for all pensioners
• Free eye tests and, by the end of the year, free dental checks
• Better rates of public sector pay for nurses and other workers.
• Discounted bus travel for teenagers and free travel for pensioners Prescription charges have already been abolished in Wales, where they ended in April, with politicians claiming that it was "the biggest move to improve public health in
decades".But in England, the charges have recently risen by 3 per cent to £6.85 per item."
(Here ends the excerpt from The London Evening Standard)
So, since Labour has provided all this for Scotland, I propose that we in The M.R.L., simply provide for the British people
what is provided to Scotland,in all equity,equality and fairness.We will endeavour to provide the British people equality with the people of Scotland.Also,now, since wales can locally subsidize not only it's own,shall we say citizenry, in place
of residents,so too then must England see to it that the English Government, must then also subsidize it's own people, those being of England, in equity,and in equality all round.Sadly we must state that we can understand the great demonstrations against the present coalition government,in efforts to either bring about equity and equality with the rest of Great Britain,or to have the coalition government roll back,rescind,withdraw, it's intents to raise the tuition fees of those in England itself,must be applauded.Indeed there is much at stake here, for we do so in many sectors that those of England are becoming second class citizens with respect to the rest of Great Britain,specifically Wales,Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
One, at least I,Secret Squirrel, and probably,and one most certainly hopes, a great many others as well,feel that there must be a basis, a base,of equality,of equity, within all areas of Great Britain, within England,Scotland,Wales, and Northern
Ireland.The present ridiculous second class condition being created by consecutive governments,of all parties,with respect to the people of England, must be corrected.England must have equality, equity,with respect to the Scotland,Wales, and Northern Ireland. The present condition of inequality,inequity, and iniquity, must be corrected, must end, there must be equality for all in the governmentally controlled sectors,but presently, in government,their is neither rhyme,nor reason,equity,nor equality.In England, the government members,the Right Honorable Members,are the Lords Of Misrule.
Secret Squirrel.
themselves have seen(the English being those referred to as being and residing and being citizens in England),that those in England itself are most severely second class citizens as compared to those who are living in Wales,Scotland, and or
Northern Ireland. Secret Squirrel sees that it is those of England who are suffering financial hardships,sees that those in Wales,Scotland,Northern Ireland, have benefits far in excess of what is made available to the people of England.There is vast inequality,inequity,iniquity. This has been seen in the fields of public health and welfare,costs of prescription drugs and drug benefits,home heating,transport, tuition fees,higher benefits to those in Northern Ireland,Scotland,Wales, and lower to those in England.....read on.........
Just look at what the latest headlines read, under the new coalition government of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.......ponder this here found at The Daily Mail..........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334535/TUITION-FEES-Welsh-students-join-Scots-spared-rise-English-punished.html
Punished for being English: Welsh students join Scots in being spared tuition fees rise ...............(Additionally)According to the TaxPayers’ Alliance, public spending per head is 14 per cent more in Wales than in England as a result of the controversial Barnett formula, under which money is handed out by the Westminster
Parliament to the devolved administrations.In 2007/08, every man, woman and child in Wales benefited from £1,042 more in public spending than in England.The row centres on Westminster plans to allow the cap on tuition fees in England to rise to
£9,000 a year from the current £3,290 for students starting university in September 2012..........move by the Welsh Assembly government – a coalition of nationalist Plaid Cymru and Labour – is a pointed snub to the plan.The Assembly pledged to pay the difference between current fees and the new £9,000-a-year charges for all Welsh
undergraduates, as well as students from elsewhere in the European Union studying in Wales.........(NOT for those from England studying in Wales)........English students now will have to pay the full amount to study in Wales but students from
other EU countries will not.Welsh education minister Leighton Andrews described access to universities as an important principle.‘We are preserving the principle that the state will subsidize higher education and maintain opportunities for all,’ he said.‘In Wales, we remain committed to helping the most disadvantaged access education.'The waiver will benefit approximately 70,000 Welsh undergraduates who study in Wales each year, and about 16,000 who study in England.It will also go to around 7,500 non-UK European Union students.At the same time, the poorest students in Wales will be able to access grants for living costs of £5,000-a-year, higher than grants proposed for England..................Scottish undergraduates studying in Scotland do not pay tuition fees, although they are liable if they study in England, which affects a very small number.English students studying in Scotland pay fees of £1,820 a year or £2,895 for medicine.
And so here ends the excerpt from The Daily Mail.
But wait, there's more, and this was under the New Labour government of Tony Blair,and thence Gordon Brown,cast your eye on this...........
Secret Squirrel has passed on some thoughts on the unfair treatment that English taxpayers received under Labour,here, as seen below:From the London Evening Standard..........
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400817-divided-kingdom-english-foot-the-bill-for-scots-prescriptions.do
And so here the headlines read.................
Divided Kingdom: English foot the bill for Scots prescriptions
By KIRSTY WALKER and JENNY HOPE -
"English taxpayers are to foot the bill for Scots to have free prescriptions.
Chronically-ill patients north of the border will not have to pay a penny for their drugs from April.And the Scottish National Party plans to extend the benefit to all within four years.The move, which will cost English taxpayers £50 million a year, is seen as deliberate provocation by the SNP, which ousted Labour last month and wants to break up the historic union between England and Scotland.
Prescription drugs
English taxpayers are to foot the bill for Scots to have free prescriptions
It revived demands for an end to the total £22 billion "subsidy" paid to Scotland, creating a divided nation.Scotland receives about £1,500 a year per head more than England to spend on schools and hospitals, an arrangement which has infuriated English MPs and prompted demands for Gordon Brown - himself a Scot - to order a Treasury review.
Among the many benefits enjoyed by the Scots are:
• Free tuition fees for all students from 2009, while students in England and Wales must pay up to £3,000 a year for their studies.
• Access to expensive state- of the art drugs for illnesses such as Alzheimer's and eye disease, which are not available on the NHS in England.
• Free personal care for the elderly
• Free central heating installation for all pensioners
• Free eye tests and, by the end of the year, free dental checks
• Better rates of public sector pay for nurses and other workers.
• Discounted bus travel for teenagers and free travel for pensioners Prescription charges have already been abolished in Wales, where they ended in April, with politicians claiming that it was "the biggest move to improve public health in
decades".But in England, the charges have recently risen by 3 per cent to £6.85 per item."
(Here ends the excerpt from The London Evening Standard)
So, since Labour has provided all this for Scotland, I propose that we in The M.R.L., simply provide for the British people
what is provided to Scotland,in all equity,equality and fairness.We will endeavour to provide the British people equality with the people of Scotland.Also,now, since wales can locally subsidize not only it's own,shall we say citizenry, in place
of residents,so too then must England see to it that the English Government, must then also subsidize it's own people, those being of England, in equity,and in equality all round.Sadly we must state that we can understand the great demonstrations against the present coalition government,in efforts to either bring about equity and equality with the rest of Great Britain,or to have the coalition government roll back,rescind,withdraw, it's intents to raise the tuition fees of those in England itself,must be applauded.Indeed there is much at stake here, for we do so in many sectors that those of England are becoming second class citizens with respect to the rest of Great Britain,specifically Wales,Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
One, at least I,Secret Squirrel, and probably,and one most certainly hopes, a great many others as well,feel that there must be a basis, a base,of equality,of equity, within all areas of Great Britain, within England,Scotland,Wales, and Northern
Ireland.The present ridiculous second class condition being created by consecutive governments,of all parties,with respect to the people of England, must be corrected.England must have equality, equity,with respect to the Scotland,Wales, and Northern Ireland. The present condition of inequality,inequity, and iniquity, must be corrected, must end, there must be equality for all in the governmentally controlled sectors,but presently, in government,their is neither rhyme,nor reason,equity,nor equality.In England, the government members,the Right Honorable Members,are the Lords Of Misrule.
Secret Squirrel.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Secret Squirrel On Marriage By Contracted Time
Secret Squirrel has previously commented on divorces,on polygamy, and now Secret Squirrel turns his attention to marriages,marriages sans divorce,short marriages, very short ones, 4,5, or 7 year terms to be decided on,as decided on, and thence allow for renewal of said terms in agreement between the partners in these marriages.And so,in doing so, we will have much more stable relationships,and much more agreeable relationships, and solve the problems, of these messy things, that divorces are.Let us look now at stated proposals of marriage by term contract................firstly in and at............
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article2500361.ece
The Times headline reads...........
How to cure seven-year itch? Limit marriage to seven years
"Marilyn Monroe would have approved. The Seven Year Itch, argues Germany’s most glamorous politician, could be cured by making marriage vows valid for only seven years, thus legislating away what is regarded as the most unstable phase of a
relationship.The proposal to turn marriage into a kind of time-share arrangement has shocked Germany. It comes from Gabriele Pauli, who is running to become head of the Bavarian conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) party.
..............Her idea would apply only to civil marriages. Vows sworn on the altar, “till death us do part”, would not be amended. Civil marriages would be regarded as a limited seven-year contract. “After that initial period each partner would have to say ‘yes’ again in order to prolong the marriage,” she said. “If they do, there is no reason why marriage should not end up as a lifelong partnership, but in the meantime we will have saved the financial and emotional cost of many divorces.” .....Johann Reisel, head of Catholic marriage counselling in Bavaria, said: “It sounds to me like renewing a mobile phone contract,” he said. “This is just a random number; statistics show that marriages tend to last either three or four years, or significantly longer than seven years.” ................Although conventional wisdom is that every third marriage in Germany ends in divorce, the reality is worse. By one calculation, 43 per cent of marriages in western Germany (including Bavaria) end in divorce. In 1970, only 15 per cent ended this way....."
And yet more at on the same contractual marriage period contract at........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482736/Limit-marriage-just-seven-years-urges-twice-divorced-politician-turned-dominatrix.html#ixzz16hH4XbvT
'Limit marriage to just seven years' urges twice-divorced politician turned dominatrix
"A seven-year limit should be placed on marriages to 'avoid financial and emotional heartache', according to a twice-divorced politician infamous for posing in dominatrix gear.According to Gabriele Pauli, a prominent member of Bavaria's conservative party, marriages should only be extended after seven years if the couples agree."The seven year itch often becomes a reality in modern marriages which frequently go through a period of crisis after this time," said the
50-year-old."A time limit would enable couples to save the divorce costs and avoid a great deal of heartache," she added. "It's time that politicians stopped regarding marriage as a super-intact institution and face the facts."She argued that, since a high proportion of marriages end in divorce and many people stay married only for fear of separation or for financial reasons..........."
Well let us consider.The actual divorce rate (the history of divorce is a long one. It has, as French philosopher Voltaire put it, likely been around since the advent of formalized marriage,but in actuality since the 16th century, when Protestants
brought it in) is 50%,this has been seen in America,and now Germany being at 43%, in actual figures.Let use consider now, that the Marriage rate,in any particular given year,is for the USA 9.8/1000,the UK 6.8/1000,and a general average world wide
6.5/1000.The Divorce rate,in any particular given year,is for the USA 4.9/1000,the UK 3.08/1000,and a general average world wide 1.3/1000.
These figures are much more interesting than the percentage of population figures usually presented,for one must take in to account the actual divorces per year, versus the actual marriages per year, to arrive at the proper figure.So,the American divorce rate is actually then 50%,the UK also 50%(on the brighter side Australia is at 33%).The stated average length of marriage in the USA, before divorce, is given at being 8 years.The probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within 5 years is 20 percent, but the probability of a
premarital cohabitation breaking up within 5 years is 49 percent. After 10 years, the probability of a first marriage ending is 33 percent,compared with 62 percent for cohabitations.Divorce is very much a heavy reality.
So to arrive at these divorce figures, we go with the rate of marriages, per 1000 people, and the rate of divorce at 1000 people....and this is provably,for America, a figure of 50%.Obviously there is a great problem here, at 50%. Also there are
a collossal rate of divorces after a second marriage, in short there the figures show that there is an actual 10% success rate of divorces who remarry. With divorce, property and the fiscal side of things are divided up, in some countries per a legally binding ipso facto marriage contract, a pre nuptual agreement,pre nup as it were, but in others it is a direct 50% regardless, and also may contain such items(in all cases), as child support.
Marriage is a man made social construction anyway, so no real reason for anyone to be shocked by changing the rules.As a matter of fact,biblical marriages abounded with multiple partners,females,polygamy no less, massive polygamy, but allowed
within the bounds and conventions of man, of man the thing that was marriage then with man made rules and regulations of it, the institution of,principle of,marriage.
I was perusing the book, Old Twentieth by Joey Haldeman, and one of the more interesting ideas were the formation of 10-year “marriage” contracts between immortal humans. Basically, people who lived forever needed to find a way out of “’till death do us part”.It seemed they realized there was a problem.Recall even Zeus and Hera divorced.Again in Zardoz we see the problem with immortality, as a life sentence of anything, including punishment, is forever as it were, and leads to boredom in the least.However, we suffer from reality, and a shorter lifespan, but it seems we also cannot cope with the death do us part concept.
But what of a marriage contract,as it were, say You agree to marry someone, with a base contract of 4 years?After 7 years,(or 4, or 5, depending on the decided period of time), you can either choose to renew your marriage or part amicably, with whatever you brought into the partnership, and an equal division of anything generated during the partnership’s 7 year-term (business, residence, loans, etc.),any children so had in the relationship or out of it, being decided by amicable pre nup agreement covering such items as child support,just as it is presently in any given divorce.
There are many advantages to a short agreed upon marriage term......... Here are the 6 best reasons why:
1. Either could always leave,at the end of the termed agreement, so you’ll always value each other in your agreement.
2. You won’t take the relationship for granted – much like life & death,you'll have to constantly work at it,if you wish
to keep, as in renew, the arrangement.
3. You’ll have incentive to work out problems if you each wish to keep it, as in renew it.
4. Divorce, this could be abolished in a say 4-5 year agreed term as it would take that time for a divorce to take,and all things would be covered by the legally binding agreement as set by legal sociologically accepted conventions,the legally binding document be what ever it may be. hold(4-5 being advantageous compared with say the 7 year plan).
5. Forever is a long time… a REALLY long time, but if you’re committed to someone, why not recommit your vows to them after 4 years,after 5 years,after 7 years.After 20 years, you’ll have committed to them as many as 5 times,agreeably so.
6. There's still a commitment. Whether it’s a day, a month, a year, or the rest of your life, you're committed to someone, so setting a limit to it doesn’t cheapen it; it makes the commitment have definition and scope,and with renewals,as
much of a commitment either of you, or both, want.
So there we have it, a cure for the many messy divorces,messy lives, by the legal institution of marriage, marrige by contract, marriage by termed contract,by renewable termed contract,perhaps the better new wave of the future.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article2500361.ece
The Times headline reads...........
How to cure seven-year itch? Limit marriage to seven years
"Marilyn Monroe would have approved. The Seven Year Itch, argues Germany’s most glamorous politician, could be cured by making marriage vows valid for only seven years, thus legislating away what is regarded as the most unstable phase of a
relationship.The proposal to turn marriage into a kind of time-share arrangement has shocked Germany. It comes from Gabriele Pauli, who is running to become head of the Bavarian conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) party.
..............Her idea would apply only to civil marriages. Vows sworn on the altar, “till death us do part”, would not be amended. Civil marriages would be regarded as a limited seven-year contract. “After that initial period each partner would have to say ‘yes’ again in order to prolong the marriage,” she said. “If they do, there is no reason why marriage should not end up as a lifelong partnership, but in the meantime we will have saved the financial and emotional cost of many divorces.” .....Johann Reisel, head of Catholic marriage counselling in Bavaria, said: “It sounds to me like renewing a mobile phone contract,” he said. “This is just a random number; statistics show that marriages tend to last either three or four years, or significantly longer than seven years.” ................Although conventional wisdom is that every third marriage in Germany ends in divorce, the reality is worse. By one calculation, 43 per cent of marriages in western Germany (including Bavaria) end in divorce. In 1970, only 15 per cent ended this way....."
And yet more at on the same contractual marriage period contract at........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482736/Limit-marriage-just-seven-years-urges-twice-divorced-politician-turned-dominatrix.html#ixzz16hH4XbvT
'Limit marriage to just seven years' urges twice-divorced politician turned dominatrix
"A seven-year limit should be placed on marriages to 'avoid financial and emotional heartache', according to a twice-divorced politician infamous for posing in dominatrix gear.According to Gabriele Pauli, a prominent member of Bavaria's conservative party, marriages should only be extended after seven years if the couples agree."The seven year itch often becomes a reality in modern marriages which frequently go through a period of crisis after this time," said the
50-year-old."A time limit would enable couples to save the divorce costs and avoid a great deal of heartache," she added. "It's time that politicians stopped regarding marriage as a super-intact institution and face the facts."She argued that, since a high proportion of marriages end in divorce and many people stay married only for fear of separation or for financial reasons..........."
Well let us consider.The actual divorce rate (the history of divorce is a long one. It has, as French philosopher Voltaire put it, likely been around since the advent of formalized marriage,but in actuality since the 16th century, when Protestants
brought it in) is 50%,this has been seen in America,and now Germany being at 43%, in actual figures.Let use consider now, that the Marriage rate,in any particular given year,is for the USA 9.8/1000,the UK 6.8/1000,and a general average world wide
6.5/1000.The Divorce rate,in any particular given year,is for the USA 4.9/1000,the UK 3.08/1000,and a general average world wide 1.3/1000.
These figures are much more interesting than the percentage of population figures usually presented,for one must take in to account the actual divorces per year, versus the actual marriages per year, to arrive at the proper figure.So,the American divorce rate is actually then 50%,the UK also 50%(on the brighter side Australia is at 33%).The stated average length of marriage in the USA, before divorce, is given at being 8 years.The probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within 5 years is 20 percent, but the probability of a
premarital cohabitation breaking up within 5 years is 49 percent. After 10 years, the probability of a first marriage ending is 33 percent,compared with 62 percent for cohabitations.Divorce is very much a heavy reality.
So to arrive at these divorce figures, we go with the rate of marriages, per 1000 people, and the rate of divorce at 1000 people....and this is provably,for America, a figure of 50%.Obviously there is a great problem here, at 50%. Also there are
a collossal rate of divorces after a second marriage, in short there the figures show that there is an actual 10% success rate of divorces who remarry. With divorce, property and the fiscal side of things are divided up, in some countries per a legally binding ipso facto marriage contract, a pre nuptual agreement,pre nup as it were, but in others it is a direct 50% regardless, and also may contain such items(in all cases), as child support.
Marriage is a man made social construction anyway, so no real reason for anyone to be shocked by changing the rules.As a matter of fact,biblical marriages abounded with multiple partners,females,polygamy no less, massive polygamy, but allowed
within the bounds and conventions of man, of man the thing that was marriage then with man made rules and regulations of it, the institution of,principle of,marriage.
I was perusing the book, Old Twentieth by Joey Haldeman, and one of the more interesting ideas were the formation of 10-year “marriage” contracts between immortal humans. Basically, people who lived forever needed to find a way out of “’till death do us part”.It seemed they realized there was a problem.Recall even Zeus and Hera divorced.Again in Zardoz we see the problem with immortality, as a life sentence of anything, including punishment, is forever as it were, and leads to boredom in the least.However, we suffer from reality, and a shorter lifespan, but it seems we also cannot cope with the death do us part concept.
But what of a marriage contract,as it were, say You agree to marry someone, with a base contract of 4 years?After 7 years,(or 4, or 5, depending on the decided period of time), you can either choose to renew your marriage or part amicably, with whatever you brought into the partnership, and an equal division of anything generated during the partnership’s 7 year-term (business, residence, loans, etc.),any children so had in the relationship or out of it, being decided by amicable pre nup agreement covering such items as child support,just as it is presently in any given divorce.
There are many advantages to a short agreed upon marriage term......... Here are the 6 best reasons why:
1. Either could always leave,at the end of the termed agreement, so you’ll always value each other in your agreement.
2. You won’t take the relationship for granted – much like life & death,you'll have to constantly work at it,if you wish
to keep, as in renew, the arrangement.
3. You’ll have incentive to work out problems if you each wish to keep it, as in renew it.
4. Divorce, this could be abolished in a say 4-5 year agreed term as it would take that time for a divorce to take,and all things would be covered by the legally binding agreement as set by legal sociologically accepted conventions,the legally binding document be what ever it may be. hold(4-5 being advantageous compared with say the 7 year plan).
5. Forever is a long time… a REALLY long time, but if you’re committed to someone, why not recommit your vows to them after 4 years,after 5 years,after 7 years.After 20 years, you’ll have committed to them as many as 5 times,agreeably so.
6. There's still a commitment. Whether it’s a day, a month, a year, or the rest of your life, you're committed to someone, so setting a limit to it doesn’t cheapen it; it makes the commitment have definition and scope,and with renewals,as
much of a commitment either of you, or both, want.
So there we have it, a cure for the many messy divorces,messy lives, by the legal institution of marriage, marrige by contract, marriage by termed contract,by renewable termed contract,perhaps the better new wave of the future.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Secret Squirrel On The Possible Re-Emergence Of Polygamy
Secret Squirrel has seen a glimmer of hope for Mankind, presently ,the glint of hope, that Man may once again enjoy the luxury of polygamy, a harem as it were,multiple wives,marriages, and let me tell you Squirrel is pleased,Squirrel is happy, Squirrel's hopes have been encouraged,enlightened,they soar to the sound of Darth Vader's breather screen.........Hope...Hope...Hope...Hope...Hope...Hope...
It all starts,basically,in the Book of Genesis............ In the beginning........
Genesis 2:18 (New International Version):The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” and so.......Eve, but doesn't mention wife, mentions helper, and also, that man was to rule over woman,recall there is or was no sex until the apple was bitten and eaten of.........just a helper,not a companion, but helper, then there was...........fornication...and as Eve's punishment she would bear,and did, children, sons and daughters of Eve and Adam due to...well,fornication, and they had sons and daughters..and they fornicated........in incestuous relationships and on to the present day where it continues, amongst all of us sons and daughters of Adam,and Eve for that matter,zounds and zooks incest abounds all round and about and we cannot avoid it.And so they've made rules that we shouldn't do it,but we all know what to do and where they can stuck their laws.....it's in the Bible!And there it all started.......a right grand,great and good time,but times changed, slowly, and with them perceptions of right and wrong, wrong can become right, right can become wrong, depending on ones perspective and whom that particular one is.In the beginning, there was polygamy, multiple wives, harems as it were, and additionally, including more concubines...and then things went wrong fro there..........but there is a glimmer of hope......
Well now....have a look at this.....
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/3782/canadian_courts_consider_decriminalization_of_polygamy/
Canadian Courts Consider Decriminalization of Polygamy
by Joanna Brooks
In a case that may have wide-reaching influence, the Supreme Court of British Columbia today opened deliberations in a constitutional reference case to determine whether a small group of fundamentalist Mormons living in a remote B.C. community called Bountiful may practice religiously-motivated plural marriage without fear of prosecution or conviction.Polygamy-practicing Mormons began fleeing to Mexico and Canada in the 1880s, after US Supreme Court Justices upheld the conviction of George Reynolds on polygamy charges in 1879, declaring polygamy an “odious” “Asiatic” practice not protected by First Amendment freedom of religion guarantees. Mormons founded and continue to make up a significant proportion of Canadian towns such as Cardston, in Alberta.
The case is sure to be watched closely among tens of thousands of FLDS and non-FLDS polygamists in the Book-of-Mormon belt and beyond, and may also have implications for Muslims and other polygamy-practicing people of faith,having multiple wives is not morally forbidden among Muslims.
Well now, let us look at what the Bible has to say about polygamy.... and we see, zounds and zooks, the very air abounds with polygamy...(and concubines too lest we forget)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Genesis 29 Jacob, marries Leah,and then her sister also, Rachel,and Bilhah,and Zilpah.
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
1 Kings 15:5 - King David married at least seven wives, but it says David did what was right in the sight of the Lord. If polygamy was a sin, David would not be right in God's eyes.
2 Samuel 12:7-8 - David was given his dead master's wives. Also God said he could have given him more than what he had. However, David chose to kill a man to steal his wife and that was where his sin was. God indirectly promotes polygamy in this passage.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Mentions that adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God, yet in Hebrews 11, we see many polygamists listed who inherited the Kingdom of God. Therefore polygamy is not adultery.
Job 27:15 - Job mentions a man who's "wives shall not weep".
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
Genesis 4:19
And Lamech took unto him two wives.
Genesis 16:1-4
Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai ... gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.
Genesis 25:6
But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had....
Genesis 26:34
Esau ... took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.
Genesis 31:17
Then Jacob rose up, and set ... his wives upon camels.
Exodus 21:10
If he take him another wife....
Deuteronomy 21:15
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated....
Judges 8:30
And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.
1 Samuel 1:1-2
Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.
2 Samuel 12:7-8
Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee ... thy master's wives....
1 Kings 11:2-3
Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines.
1 Chronicles 4:5
And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.
2 Chronicles 11:21
Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.
2 Chronicles 13:21
But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives....
2 Chronicles 24:3
Jehoiada took for him two wives....
Of course, there are yet many other references to wives,multiple concubines, multiple wives and concubines,all throughout.
There is not a single verse from the New Testament that prohibits polygamy.The Bible has wall to wall concubines,even the man's wealth is the measure of them.Many societies have had and still have, polygamy, as seen in the Bible,zounds and zooks the very air abounded with polygamy,Africans practice polygamy,Arabs, even yet Muslims practice polygamy..........only the conventions of man have made laws against polygamy.and so too the conventions of man can allow polygamy. Here in the case of British Columbia, the law may change in favor of Mormons to allow them polygamy, but then, should it not do so for Muslims as well, and then for that matter, not to allow EVERYBODY polygamy.Less would be discriminatory.Is it in the nature of man to be monogamist but for the laws?Jesse James, wouldn't think so, nor Tiger Woods, nor a great several of Senators, nor any others of the great numbers whose marriages ended in divorce due to...extracurricular bedroom exercises,night games.In 2007, extramarital affairs were blamed for 29 percent of breakups; in 2006, this figure was 32 percent. Male infidelity accounted for over 75 percent of marriage breakdowns, while women were unfaithful 22 percent of the time.
I personally don't care about how many wives the Prophets of the Bible had, and what was the limit of the many wives back then,nor the additional concubines. My point still stands, and that is Polygamy exists in both the OT and the NT in the Bible,it was there,it was right.It was Man who changed the laws,Man who changed the conventions, and it is Man who can change it all back again.But do you really think that politicians, and/or judges,are going to do us that much of a favour? Sadly, I think not.
It all starts,basically,in the Book of Genesis............ In the beginning........
Genesis 2:18 (New International Version):The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” and so.......Eve, but doesn't mention wife, mentions helper, and also, that man was to rule over woman,recall there is or was no sex until the apple was bitten and eaten of.........just a helper,not a companion, but helper, then there was...........fornication...and as Eve's punishment she would bear,and did, children, sons and daughters of Eve and Adam due to...well,fornication, and they had sons and daughters..and they fornicated........in incestuous relationships and on to the present day where it continues, amongst all of us sons and daughters of Adam,and Eve for that matter,zounds and zooks incest abounds all round and about and we cannot avoid it.And so they've made rules that we shouldn't do it,but we all know what to do and where they can stuck their laws.....it's in the Bible!And there it all started.......a right grand,great and good time,but times changed, slowly, and with them perceptions of right and wrong, wrong can become right, right can become wrong, depending on ones perspective and whom that particular one is.In the beginning, there was polygamy, multiple wives, harems as it were, and additionally, including more concubines...and then things went wrong fro there..........but there is a glimmer of hope......
Well now....have a look at this.....
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/3782/canadian_courts_consider_decriminalization_of_polygamy/
Canadian Courts Consider Decriminalization of Polygamy
by Joanna Brooks
In a case that may have wide-reaching influence, the Supreme Court of British Columbia today opened deliberations in a constitutional reference case to determine whether a small group of fundamentalist Mormons living in a remote B.C. community called Bountiful may practice religiously-motivated plural marriage without fear of prosecution or conviction.Polygamy-practicing Mormons began fleeing to Mexico and Canada in the 1880s, after US Supreme Court Justices upheld the conviction of George Reynolds on polygamy charges in 1879, declaring polygamy an “odious” “Asiatic” practice not protected by First Amendment freedom of religion guarantees. Mormons founded and continue to make up a significant proportion of Canadian towns such as Cardston, in Alberta.
The case is sure to be watched closely among tens of thousands of FLDS and non-FLDS polygamists in the Book-of-Mormon belt and beyond, and may also have implications for Muslims and other polygamy-practicing people of faith,having multiple wives is not morally forbidden among Muslims.
Well now, let us look at what the Bible has to say about polygamy.... and we see, zounds and zooks, the very air abounds with polygamy...(and concubines too lest we forget)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Genesis 29 Jacob, marries Leah,and then her sister also, Rachel,and Bilhah,and Zilpah.
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
1 Kings 15:5 - King David married at least seven wives, but it says David did what was right in the sight of the Lord. If polygamy was a sin, David would not be right in God's eyes.
2 Samuel 12:7-8 - David was given his dead master's wives. Also God said he could have given him more than what he had. However, David chose to kill a man to steal his wife and that was where his sin was. God indirectly promotes polygamy in this passage.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Mentions that adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God, yet in Hebrews 11, we see many polygamists listed who inherited the Kingdom of God. Therefore polygamy is not adultery.
Job 27:15 - Job mentions a man who's "wives shall not weep".
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
Genesis 4:19
And Lamech took unto him two wives.
Genesis 16:1-4
Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai ... gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.
Genesis 25:6
But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had....
Genesis 26:34
Esau ... took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.
Genesis 31:17
Then Jacob rose up, and set ... his wives upon camels.
Exodus 21:10
If he take him another wife....
Deuteronomy 21:15
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated....
Judges 8:30
And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.
1 Samuel 1:1-2
Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.
2 Samuel 12:7-8
Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee ... thy master's wives....
1 Kings 11:2-3
Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines.
1 Chronicles 4:5
And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.
2 Chronicles 11:21
Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.
2 Chronicles 13:21
But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives....
2 Chronicles 24:3
Jehoiada took for him two wives....
Of course, there are yet many other references to wives,multiple concubines, multiple wives and concubines,all throughout.
There is not a single verse from the New Testament that prohibits polygamy.The Bible has wall to wall concubines,even the man's wealth is the measure of them.Many societies have had and still have, polygamy, as seen in the Bible,zounds and zooks the very air abounded with polygamy,Africans practice polygamy,Arabs, even yet Muslims practice polygamy..........only the conventions of man have made laws against polygamy.and so too the conventions of man can allow polygamy. Here in the case of British Columbia, the law may change in favor of Mormons to allow them polygamy, but then, should it not do so for Muslims as well, and then for that matter, not to allow EVERYBODY polygamy.Less would be discriminatory.Is it in the nature of man to be monogamist but for the laws?Jesse James, wouldn't think so, nor Tiger Woods, nor a great several of Senators, nor any others of the great numbers whose marriages ended in divorce due to...extracurricular bedroom exercises,night games.In 2007, extramarital affairs were blamed for 29 percent of breakups; in 2006, this figure was 32 percent. Male infidelity accounted for over 75 percent of marriage breakdowns, while women were unfaithful 22 percent of the time.
I personally don't care about how many wives the Prophets of the Bible had, and what was the limit of the many wives back then,nor the additional concubines. My point still stands, and that is Polygamy exists in both the OT and the NT in the Bible,it was there,it was right.It was Man who changed the laws,Man who changed the conventions, and it is Man who can change it all back again.But do you really think that politicians, and/or judges,are going to do us that much of a favour? Sadly, I think not.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Secret Squirrel On Attempts To Emulate America's Previously Unfathomed Monetary System.
Secret Squirrel has noticed something,namely, that the US national debt keeps growing and growing and growing, and American government keeps spending and spending and spending, giving those it spends to, vast amounts,ever increasing amounts, of American currency,for things it purchases or spends on, such as the military,gifts (subsidies and such other named differently gifts)to corporations etc et all, except for it's people on whom it spends as little if possible if anything. Now what with the US debt, being firstly, millions, then billions, and now trillions and whatever else comes next,in the United States, it'll be 1000 billion. In most other countries, it's "quadrillion". The dollar remains a dollar,regardless, to Americans and the rest of the world, regardless of debt, whilst in the rest of the world, America it seems, screams overprinting and it seems that currency is devalued against the US dollar standard of the world,and everybody elses as well,and in turn their against the American dollar and everybody elses as well.
It's the strange way of the world, the world of global currency,high finance,economics and whatever else they call it. It's been noticed the Turks tried to print up a million dollar bill, in their currency, the bir, well they have lots of birs but one million birs can be purchased for the price of 90cents US,in old aged birs,or lirasi as they're known.It's all because old birs go stale and so only new birs are worth it.What's to be said for it all, in light of the above?Well,as the song says, "Money,money,money,must be funny, in a rich man's world."
Well I have fathomed how America is doing this all.It's because the rest of the world has been tied to the US dollar in value and with the US basically overseeing what it claims are monetary overprinting infractions. What the American government does, is quite simply print up Treasury Bills(Certificate or some such),of any value they particularly require,and then they go to the US Treasury Department, which then happily takes said certificate(bills as they were), and then it prints up and gives to the US government,whom ever presented said bill/certificate
the equivalent in currency. This repeats each year to pay the debt world wide and whatever have you, while the Treasury Department debt mounts,but is ignored and everything's all right as long as they have the certificates on file.
One wonders what happens if they should loose said certificate, would this have a reducing effect on the national debt of America? I should think not, because if it did, they surely would be doing just that, in all wisdom. Regrettably the other
nations of the world are not as wise as America being tied to the American currency. One wonders now, if they would wisely tie their currency, to their own currency as the Americans do,thence they follow the American system of setting up a
Treasury Department, printing Treasury Certificates of the desired values, and having their Treasury Department print up their currency as they need.You notice I did not refer to printing up US Treasury Certificates and going to their Treasury
Department as I do believe the Americans would consider that to be counterfeiting and similar to printing false currencies based on their treasury certificates.
What ever shall we do? Not wishing to test the American waters ourselves,we could
try,perhaps, a test printing of a US Treasury Certificate, and have the government of Britain send, say, Rosencrantz Martin Luther King, and Guildenstern Martin Luther King,Jr attempt to cash said certificate for the good of the people of, and on the behalf of, the people and government of Britain. Mind there may be some who would consider that a for of use and abuse of the ignorant,and so not being considered to be politically correct as we are out of the times of The Empire,then moving with the times, we must pursue yet another course of action. We go with an alternate plan. We have say,with some suitable encouragement,I was initially going to suggest Iceland for the test as they're flat broke, or the Irish, equally so, but then again there is the previously mentioned politically incorrect aspect to things with respect to them, and the french who were not mentioned as they would never believe we were doing them any great favour. So, let's say we try with the last friend we have in the world,and equally as in dire straits as we are, we go to the New Zealanders. We encourage them to join our club, The Clube Des Billionaires, The Clube Des Trillionaires, The Club Des Quadrillionaires, much as the sardines are,after all the plan is a real Kipper,and indeed things being as they are, an American dollars based on the system they use to procure them are worth, in reality,in the light of financial sanity, one sardine,except they won't as yet acknowledge it as being so.
So, the New Zealanders set up their Department Of the Treasury. The Government procures a printing press which prints the new Treasury Certificates(Bills, what ever have you as the Americans do and you don't,or perhaps can't), and then they take those printed Certificates, printed with certain required values of currency on them as necessary, be it millions,billions or trillions and whatever else as the years progress, and the New Zealand Department of Treasury then prints up the money as the New Zealand government sees fit. We then sit back and watch the reaction of the US government and the rest of the world to a system parallel to that
of the US government and it's Treasury system.
It works so well for the Americans, it must be just that we never knew how they did it and nobody thought to do what they do.In either case,we'll never know till we try,err till they try, the New Zealanders that is, and having given it the good college try as it were, should the New Zealanders for some strange reason fail as it were, they will still be, after all,our remaining friends.
It's the strange way of the world, the world of global currency,high finance,economics and whatever else they call it. It's been noticed the Turks tried to print up a million dollar bill, in their currency, the bir, well they have lots of birs but one million birs can be purchased for the price of 90cents US,in old aged birs,or lirasi as they're known.It's all because old birs go stale and so only new birs are worth it.What's to be said for it all, in light of the above?Well,as the song says, "Money,money,money,must be funny, in a rich man's world."
Well I have fathomed how America is doing this all.It's because the rest of the world has been tied to the US dollar in value and with the US basically overseeing what it claims are monetary overprinting infractions. What the American government does, is quite simply print up Treasury Bills(Certificate or some such),of any value they particularly require,and then they go to the US Treasury Department, which then happily takes said certificate(bills as they were), and then it prints up and gives to the US government,whom ever presented said bill/certificate
the equivalent in currency. This repeats each year to pay the debt world wide and whatever have you, while the Treasury Department debt mounts,but is ignored and everything's all right as long as they have the certificates on file.
One wonders what happens if they should loose said certificate, would this have a reducing effect on the national debt of America? I should think not, because if it did, they surely would be doing just that, in all wisdom. Regrettably the other
nations of the world are not as wise as America being tied to the American currency. One wonders now, if they would wisely tie their currency, to their own currency as the Americans do,thence they follow the American system of setting up a
Treasury Department, printing Treasury Certificates of the desired values, and having their Treasury Department print up their currency as they need.You notice I did not refer to printing up US Treasury Certificates and going to their Treasury
Department as I do believe the Americans would consider that to be counterfeiting and similar to printing false currencies based on their treasury certificates.
What ever shall we do? Not wishing to test the American waters ourselves,we could
try,perhaps, a test printing of a US Treasury Certificate, and have the government of Britain send, say, Rosencrantz Martin Luther King, and Guildenstern Martin Luther King,Jr attempt to cash said certificate for the good of the people of, and on the behalf of, the people and government of Britain. Mind there may be some who would consider that a for of use and abuse of the ignorant,and so not being considered to be politically correct as we are out of the times of The Empire,then moving with the times, we must pursue yet another course of action. We go with an alternate plan. We have say,with some suitable encouragement,I was initially going to suggest Iceland for the test as they're flat broke, or the Irish, equally so, but then again there is the previously mentioned politically incorrect aspect to things with respect to them, and the french who were not mentioned as they would never believe we were doing them any great favour. So, let's say we try with the last friend we have in the world,and equally as in dire straits as we are, we go to the New Zealanders. We encourage them to join our club, The Clube Des Billionaires, The Clube Des Trillionaires, The Club Des Quadrillionaires, much as the sardines are,after all the plan is a real Kipper,and indeed things being as they are, an American dollars based on the system they use to procure them are worth, in reality,in the light of financial sanity, one sardine,except they won't as yet acknowledge it as being so.
So, the New Zealanders set up their Department Of the Treasury. The Government procures a printing press which prints the new Treasury Certificates(Bills, what ever have you as the Americans do and you don't,or perhaps can't), and then they take those printed Certificates, printed with certain required values of currency on them as necessary, be it millions,billions or trillions and whatever else as the years progress, and the New Zealand Department of Treasury then prints up the money as the New Zealand government sees fit. We then sit back and watch the reaction of the US government and the rest of the world to a system parallel to that
of the US government and it's Treasury system.
It works so well for the Americans, it must be just that we never knew how they did it and nobody thought to do what they do.In either case,we'll never know till we try,err till they try, the New Zealanders that is, and having given it the good college try as it were, should the New Zealanders for some strange reason fail as it were, they will still be, after all,our remaining friends.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Secret Squirrel Ponders Britain Acquiring Hawaii
Secret Squirrel has pondered the rightly improper annexation of Hawaii, and discovers that the annexation having been improper and illegal, so too then was the absorption in to statehood of America. But how, then to correct things for the Hawaiian islanders,and can it be done? Looking at the history of Hawaii, Squirrel believes all things can be done,you'll see for yourself a pattern at work,a pattern which can be put to good use. Now,according to the Wikipedia..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hawaii........
here examplefied where necessary, we see the basic history of Hawaii, a history of overthrow and modification of the governments of Hawaii in whatever form to suit whomever invaded at any specific time.Let's start at the beginning.
The human history of Hawaii includes phases of early Polynesian settlement,the earliest settlements in the Hawaiian Islands were made by Polynesians who traveled to Hawaii using large double-hulled canoes. They brought with them pigs, dogs, chickens, taro, sweet potatoes, coconut, banana, and sugarcane.They lived happily.They were happy in their incestious relationships, brothers,sisters,fathers,mothers,sons and daughters,cousins et all,happy in
their orgyastic fornicational relationships some even yet in marriges,all the while still having as many mistresses(concubines) and lovers as each and either pleased(you recall this type of thing is mentionably of biblical proportions and runs throughout the Old Testament chronical that the Bible is,which didn't seem to disturb anybody except for later era priests and missionaries etc who thought they knew better,the so called Reformationists,those who opposed Orthodoxy in religion and life.In short the people were happily enjoying themselves in and after the exact same fashion of the entire group of civilized European monarchies. The
people lived,in their own right,as island paradise kings and queens,their own,each and everyone as an individual, and on their own.Then there was the British arrival,in 1778,and things would never be the same,things were just too good it seems.These visitors introduced diseases to the once-isolated islands and the Hawaiian population plunged precipitously because native Hawaiians had no resistance to influenza, smallpox, and measles, among others.
For example,during the 1850s, measles killed a fifth of Hawaii's people.The there came the unification,the islands were united under a single ruler, Kamehameha I, for the first time in 1810 with the help of foreign weapons and advisors. The monarchy then adopted a flag similar to the one used today by the State of Hawaii present flag, with the Union Flag in the canton (top quarter next to the flagpole) and eight horizontal stripes (alternating white, red, blue, from the top), representing the eight major islands of Hawaii.
In 1815 the Russian empire affected the islands when Georg Anton Schäffer, agent of the Russian-American Company, came to retrieve goods seized by Kaumualii, chief of Kauai island. Kaumualii signed a treaty making Tsar Alexander I protectorate over Kauai. From 1817 to 1853 Fort Elizabeth, near the Waimea River, was one of three Russian forts on the island. In the early kingdom, Protestant ministers convinced Hawaiian rulers to make Catholicism illegal, deport French priests, and imprison Native Hawaiian Catholic converts.
In 1839 Captain Laplace of the French frigate Artémise sailed to Hawaii. Under the threat of war, King Kamehameha III signed the Edict of Toleration on July 17, 1839 and paid $20,000 in compensation for the deportation of the priests and the incarceration and torture of converts, agreeing to Laplace's demands. The kingdom proclaimed:
That the Catholic worship be declared free, throughout all the dominions subject to the king of the Sandwich Islands; the members of this religious faith shall enjoy in them the privileges granted to Protestants.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu returned and Kamehameha III donated land for them to build a church as reparation.In August 1849, French admiral Louis Tromelin arrived in Honolulu Harbor with La Poursuivante and Gassendi. De Tromelin made ten demands to King Kamehameha III on August 22, mainly that full religious rights be given to Catholics, (the ban on Catholicism had been lifted, but Catholics still enjoyed only partial religious rights). On August 25 the demands had not been met. After a second warning was made to the civilians, French troops overwhelmed the skeleton force and captured Honolulu Fort, spiked the coastal guns and destroyed all other weapons they found (mainly muskets and ammunition). They raided government buildings and general property in Honolulu, causing $100,000 in damages. After the raids the invasion force withdrew to the fort. De Tromelin eventually recalled his men and left Hawaii on September 5.There then came Euro-American and Asian immigrators.And,finally, the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by means of American invasion.Gerrit P. Judd, a missionary who had become the Minister of Finance, secretly sent envoys to the United States, France and Britain, to protest Paulet's actions.[5] The protest was forwarded to Rear Admiral Richard
Darton Thomas, Paulet's commanding officer, who arrived at Honolulu harbor on July 26, 1843 on HMS Dublin. Thomas repudiated Paulet's actions, and on July 31, 1843, restored the Hawaiian government. In his restoration speech, Kamehameha declared that "Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono", the motto of the future State of Hawaii translated as "The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.Dynastic rule by the Kamehameha family ended in 1872 with the death of Kamehameha V. After the short reign of Lunalilo, the House of Kalākaua came to the throne. These transitions were by election of candidates of noble birth,an interesting
developemnt of elected regal royal rule,an interesting royal democracy.
The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 between the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States allowed for duty-free importation of Hawaiian sugar (from sugarcane) into the United States beginning in 1876. This promoted sugar plantation agriculture. In exchange, Hawai'i ceded Pearl Harbor, including Ford Island (in Hawaiian, Moku'ume'ume), together with its shore for four or five miles back, free of cost to the U.S. The U. S. demanded this area based on an 1873 report commissioned by the U. S. Secretary of War. This treaty explicitly acknowledged Hawai'i as a sovereign nation.In 1887, a group of cabinet officials and advisors to King David Kalākaua and an armed militia forced the king to promulgate what is known as the Bayonet Constitution. The impetus given for the new constitution was the frustration of the Reform Party (also known as the Missionary Party) with growing debts, spending habits of the King, and general governance.
It was specifically triggered by a failed attempt by Kalākaua to create a Polynesian Federation, and accusations of an opium bribery scandal. The 1887 constitution stripped the monarchy of much of its authority, imposed significant income and property requirements for voting, and completely disenfranchised all Asians from voting.So in some sense the Hawaiians had some form of increased democratic dictortorship.
When Kalākaua died in 1891 during a visit to San Francisco,(rather suspiciously), his sister Liliuokalani assumed the throne.Native Hawaiians felt the 1887 constitution was imposed by a minority of the foreign population because of the king's refusal to renew the Reciprocity Treaty, which now included an amendment that would have allowed the US Navy to have a permanent naval base at Pearl Harbor in Oʻahu, and the king's foreign policy. According to bills submitted by the King to the Hawaiian parliament, the King's foreign policy included an alliance with Japan and supported other countries suffering from colonialism. Many Native
Hawaiians opposed US military presence in their country.A plot by Princess Liliuokalani was exposed to overthrow King David Kalākaua in a military coup in 1888. In 1889, a rebellion of Native Hawaiians led by Colonel Robert Wilcox attempted to replace the unpopular Bayonet Constitution and stormed Iolani Palace. The rebellion was crushed.According to Queen Liliuokalani, immediately upon ascending the throne, she received petitions from two-thirds of her subjects and the major Native Hawaiian political party in parliament, Hui Kalaiaina, asking her to proclaim a new constitution. Liliuokalani drafted a new constitution that would
restore the monarchy's authority and the suffrage requirements of the 1887 constitution.
In response to Liliuokalani's suspected actions, a group of European and American residents formed a Committee of Safety on January 14, 1893. After a meeting of supporters, the Committee committed itself to removing the Queen and annexation to the United States.United States Government Minister John L. Stevens summoned a company of uniformed US Marines from the USS Boston and two companies of US sailors to land and take up positions at the US Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall on the afternoon of January 16, 1893. The Committee of Safety had claimed an "imminent threat to American lives and property".The Provisional Government of Hawaii was established to manage the Hawaiian islands between the overthrow and expected
annexation, supported by the Honolulu Rifles, a militia group which had defended the kingdom against the Wilcox rebellion in 1889.
Under this pressure, Liliuokalani abdicated her throne. The Queen's statement yielding authority, on January 17, 1893, also pleaded for justice,the rare thing that it seems successive Hawaiian governments, whatever the type, never really had.
An immediate investigation into the events of the overthrow commissioned by President Cleveland was conducted by former Congressman James Henderson Blount. The Blount Report was completed on July 17, 1893 and concluded that "United States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government." Not really news, everybody was doing it, on and off.However,Cleveland decided to leave things as they were, and didn't restore the government,nor Queen.There were rebellions, two ,but they were put down.In March 1897, William McKinley succeeded Grover Cleveland as president. He agreed to a treaty of annexation but it failed in the Senate because petitions from the islands indicated lack of popular support.The Newlands Resolution by both houses of Congress annexed the Republic to the United States,in 1898.President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Hawaii Admission Act on March 18, 1959 which
allowed for Hawaiian statehood.
Well now, all changes of government worked for everybody by invasion,and worked for whoever invaded next. What I propose we do,is first we encourage the islanders,stating we support the return of the islanders to their happy previous happy way of life.Which, as they all know,were happy in their incestious relationships,with brothers,sisters,fathers,mothers,cousins et all,happy in their orgyastic fornicational relationships, some even yet in marriages,the same and yet still et all whilst having as many mistresses and lovers as they pleased,which, is the way things were in the happy biblical times as well as we all can read.We can make them an offer they can't refuse.This will please most of the people most of the time, except for the priests and missionaries who have turned their back on The Bible and disapprove of those who righteously follow the dictates of the lifestyle of the Old Testament, and happily commit incest with brothers,sisters,fathers,mothers,sons, daughters, and have at the same time countless concubine mistresses and lovers. as they please,married to whomever or whatever have you or they as please also,if it does so.First we try a vote,recalling the Americans do thing and did things with respect to Hawaii in like and such fashion,we vote, and then We then simply happily invade,change the government, annex Hawaii and then incorporate it in to Britain until as such a time comes, when somebody else invades, and we must follow the rules and regulations for such invasions in Hawaii and give it up to the next invader when that occurs, according to the dictates of the day and the right and proper way of things.We shall succeed, the Americans too must follow the rules for Hawaii and give it up. There's just one thing,though, what with the unavailability of any aircraft carriers, we couldn't mount an invasion of any small island.Aye, there's the rub.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,(MP,Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hawaii........
here examplefied where necessary, we see the basic history of Hawaii, a history of overthrow and modification of the governments of Hawaii in whatever form to suit whomever invaded at any specific time.Let's start at the beginning.
The human history of Hawaii includes phases of early Polynesian settlement,the earliest settlements in the Hawaiian Islands were made by Polynesians who traveled to Hawaii using large double-hulled canoes. They brought with them pigs, dogs, chickens, taro, sweet potatoes, coconut, banana, and sugarcane.They lived happily.They were happy in their incestious relationships, brothers,sisters,fathers,mothers,sons and daughters,cousins et all,happy in
their orgyastic fornicational relationships some even yet in marriges,all the while still having as many mistresses(concubines) and lovers as each and either pleased(you recall this type of thing is mentionably of biblical proportions and runs throughout the Old Testament chronical that the Bible is,which didn't seem to disturb anybody except for later era priests and missionaries etc who thought they knew better,the so called Reformationists,those who opposed Orthodoxy in religion and life.In short the people were happily enjoying themselves in and after the exact same fashion of the entire group of civilized European monarchies. The
people lived,in their own right,as island paradise kings and queens,their own,each and everyone as an individual, and on their own.Then there was the British arrival,in 1778,and things would never be the same,things were just too good it seems.These visitors introduced diseases to the once-isolated islands and the Hawaiian population plunged precipitously because native Hawaiians had no resistance to influenza, smallpox, and measles, among others.
For example,during the 1850s, measles killed a fifth of Hawaii's people.The there came the unification,the islands were united under a single ruler, Kamehameha I, for the first time in 1810 with the help of foreign weapons and advisors. The monarchy then adopted a flag similar to the one used today by the State of Hawaii present flag, with the Union Flag in the canton (top quarter next to the flagpole) and eight horizontal stripes (alternating white, red, blue, from the top), representing the eight major islands of Hawaii.
In 1815 the Russian empire affected the islands when Georg Anton Schäffer, agent of the Russian-American Company, came to retrieve goods seized by Kaumualii, chief of Kauai island. Kaumualii signed a treaty making Tsar Alexander I protectorate over Kauai. From 1817 to 1853 Fort Elizabeth, near the Waimea River, was one of three Russian forts on the island. In the early kingdom, Protestant ministers convinced Hawaiian rulers to make Catholicism illegal, deport French priests, and imprison Native Hawaiian Catholic converts.
In 1839 Captain Laplace of the French frigate Artémise sailed to Hawaii. Under the threat of war, King Kamehameha III signed the Edict of Toleration on July 17, 1839 and paid $20,000 in compensation for the deportation of the priests and the incarceration and torture of converts, agreeing to Laplace's demands. The kingdom proclaimed:
That the Catholic worship be declared free, throughout all the dominions subject to the king of the Sandwich Islands; the members of this religious faith shall enjoy in them the privileges granted to Protestants.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu returned and Kamehameha III donated land for them to build a church as reparation.In August 1849, French admiral Louis Tromelin arrived in Honolulu Harbor with La Poursuivante and Gassendi. De Tromelin made ten demands to King Kamehameha III on August 22, mainly that full religious rights be given to Catholics, (the ban on Catholicism had been lifted, but Catholics still enjoyed only partial religious rights). On August 25 the demands had not been met. After a second warning was made to the civilians, French troops overwhelmed the skeleton force and captured Honolulu Fort, spiked the coastal guns and destroyed all other weapons they found (mainly muskets and ammunition). They raided government buildings and general property in Honolulu, causing $100,000 in damages. After the raids the invasion force withdrew to the fort. De Tromelin eventually recalled his men and left Hawaii on September 5.There then came Euro-American and Asian immigrators.And,finally, the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by means of American invasion.Gerrit P. Judd, a missionary who had become the Minister of Finance, secretly sent envoys to the United States, France and Britain, to protest Paulet's actions.[5] The protest was forwarded to Rear Admiral Richard
Darton Thomas, Paulet's commanding officer, who arrived at Honolulu harbor on July 26, 1843 on HMS Dublin. Thomas repudiated Paulet's actions, and on July 31, 1843, restored the Hawaiian government. In his restoration speech, Kamehameha declared that "Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono", the motto of the future State of Hawaii translated as "The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.Dynastic rule by the Kamehameha family ended in 1872 with the death of Kamehameha V. After the short reign of Lunalilo, the House of Kalākaua came to the throne. These transitions were by election of candidates of noble birth,an interesting
developemnt of elected regal royal rule,an interesting royal democracy.
The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 between the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States allowed for duty-free importation of Hawaiian sugar (from sugarcane) into the United States beginning in 1876. This promoted sugar plantation agriculture. In exchange, Hawai'i ceded Pearl Harbor, including Ford Island (in Hawaiian, Moku'ume'ume), together with its shore for four or five miles back, free of cost to the U.S. The U. S. demanded this area based on an 1873 report commissioned by the U. S. Secretary of War. This treaty explicitly acknowledged Hawai'i as a sovereign nation.In 1887, a group of cabinet officials and advisors to King David Kalākaua and an armed militia forced the king to promulgate what is known as the Bayonet Constitution. The impetus given for the new constitution was the frustration of the Reform Party (also known as the Missionary Party) with growing debts, spending habits of the King, and general governance.
It was specifically triggered by a failed attempt by Kalākaua to create a Polynesian Federation, and accusations of an opium bribery scandal. The 1887 constitution stripped the monarchy of much of its authority, imposed significant income and property requirements for voting, and completely disenfranchised all Asians from voting.So in some sense the Hawaiians had some form of increased democratic dictortorship.
When Kalākaua died in 1891 during a visit to San Francisco,(rather suspiciously), his sister Liliuokalani assumed the throne.Native Hawaiians felt the 1887 constitution was imposed by a minority of the foreign population because of the king's refusal to renew the Reciprocity Treaty, which now included an amendment that would have allowed the US Navy to have a permanent naval base at Pearl Harbor in Oʻahu, and the king's foreign policy. According to bills submitted by the King to the Hawaiian parliament, the King's foreign policy included an alliance with Japan and supported other countries suffering from colonialism. Many Native
Hawaiians opposed US military presence in their country.A plot by Princess Liliuokalani was exposed to overthrow King David Kalākaua in a military coup in 1888. In 1889, a rebellion of Native Hawaiians led by Colonel Robert Wilcox attempted to replace the unpopular Bayonet Constitution and stormed Iolani Palace. The rebellion was crushed.According to Queen Liliuokalani, immediately upon ascending the throne, she received petitions from two-thirds of her subjects and the major Native Hawaiian political party in parliament, Hui Kalaiaina, asking her to proclaim a new constitution. Liliuokalani drafted a new constitution that would
restore the monarchy's authority and the suffrage requirements of the 1887 constitution.
In response to Liliuokalani's suspected actions, a group of European and American residents formed a Committee of Safety on January 14, 1893. After a meeting of supporters, the Committee committed itself to removing the Queen and annexation to the United States.United States Government Minister John L. Stevens summoned a company of uniformed US Marines from the USS Boston and two companies of US sailors to land and take up positions at the US Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall on the afternoon of January 16, 1893. The Committee of Safety had claimed an "imminent threat to American lives and property".The Provisional Government of Hawaii was established to manage the Hawaiian islands between the overthrow and expected
annexation, supported by the Honolulu Rifles, a militia group which had defended the kingdom against the Wilcox rebellion in 1889.
Under this pressure, Liliuokalani abdicated her throne. The Queen's statement yielding authority, on January 17, 1893, also pleaded for justice,the rare thing that it seems successive Hawaiian governments, whatever the type, never really had.
An immediate investigation into the events of the overthrow commissioned by President Cleveland was conducted by former Congressman James Henderson Blount. The Blount Report was completed on July 17, 1893 and concluded that "United States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government." Not really news, everybody was doing it, on and off.However,Cleveland decided to leave things as they were, and didn't restore the government,nor Queen.There were rebellions, two ,but they were put down.In March 1897, William McKinley succeeded Grover Cleveland as president. He agreed to a treaty of annexation but it failed in the Senate because petitions from the islands indicated lack of popular support.The Newlands Resolution by both houses of Congress annexed the Republic to the United States,in 1898.President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Hawaii Admission Act on March 18, 1959 which
allowed for Hawaiian statehood.
Well now, all changes of government worked for everybody by invasion,and worked for whoever invaded next. What I propose we do,is first we encourage the islanders,stating we support the return of the islanders to their happy previous happy way of life.Which, as they all know,were happy in their incestious relationships,with brothers,sisters,fathers,mothers,cousins et all,happy in their orgyastic fornicational relationships, some even yet in marriages,the same and yet still et all whilst having as many mistresses and lovers as they pleased,which, is the way things were in the happy biblical times as well as we all can read.We can make them an offer they can't refuse.This will please most of the people most of the time, except for the priests and missionaries who have turned their back on The Bible and disapprove of those who righteously follow the dictates of the lifestyle of the Old Testament, and happily commit incest with brothers,sisters,fathers,mothers,sons, daughters, and have at the same time countless concubine mistresses and lovers. as they please,married to whomever or whatever have you or they as please also,if it does so.First we try a vote,recalling the Americans do thing and did things with respect to Hawaii in like and such fashion,we vote, and then We then simply happily invade,change the government, annex Hawaii and then incorporate it in to Britain until as such a time comes, when somebody else invades, and we must follow the rules and regulations for such invasions in Hawaii and give it up to the next invader when that occurs, according to the dictates of the day and the right and proper way of things.We shall succeed, the Americans too must follow the rules for Hawaii and give it up. There's just one thing,though, what with the unavailability of any aircraft carriers, we couldn't mount an invasion of any small island.Aye, there's the rub.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,(MP,Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Secret Squirrel On The Happy Meal Ban,Or Don't Worry,Be UnHappy.
Secret Squirrel has turned his attention to the so-called Happy Meal Ban, or at least, the attempt to ban those things referred to as happy meals, namely the inclusion of a child's toy, with the meal the child receives.Secret Squirrel is worried,he's unhappy, and he NEVER got a toy with his meal.So,go on now, what is it really all about?Do you really know?Happy Meals are soon going to come with a sad surprise for children in the US.Lawmakers in California have voted to ban toys from being served up with McDonald’s burgers and fries.Officials claim the free goodies, often promoting a new film or popular cartoon characters, lure children into eating foods with high sugar, sodium and fat.Previously there was an attempt to ban,specifically,Happy Meals.As it occurred ,voting against the measure was Supervisor Donald Gage, who claimed parents should be responsible for their children.
‘If you can’t control a three-year-old child for a toy, God save you when they get to be teenagers,’ he said.
‘Ultimately, parents decide what their children eat and whether a meal includes a toy or not – that is the role of a parent,’ added Jot Condie president of the California Restaurant Association.
‘The county government does not need to serve as the parent of the parents.’
The attempt at this measure,each measure, as the measure is proposed, claims to battle an obesity epidemic sweeping California and the rest of America.
While supporters insist the ban will force restaurants to offer more nutritious food to children.But face it,are they in there every day? No. What do I see,at,say, McDonald's? I see slim secretaries,walk in slim,walk out with a bag of food, or stay and eat, and they're back there the next day, same thing.But they're staying slim.Months later she's still slim,not having to walk sideways to get through the door to get to the food.I see lots of them,it's habitual,it's addictive evidently, this food thing is. Is it really though, what you eat, and not so much as how much you eat?What will you eat, what will your child eat?Their fill.Would you want them to eat less?The obesity rates started to skyrocket in the 80's, there Food companies,and whatever food marketing companies, started putting foods everywhere, encouraging snacking, making it normal for kids and adults to buy all kinds of
sugar laden snacks,choc bars and whatever have you that you see in vending machines all round and about you,and encouraged people generally to drink sodas all day long,by being equally available. The list goes on of available snacks.Yes, you are what you eat,when and where and how much, it all adds up, and those candy bars add up to quite a total from a very small amount.I know plenty of people who go into calorie shock when they look at a cookie and discover that it contains 670 calories.A present proposed Happy Meal law,would not allow the inclusion of a toy in any child’s meal with more than 485 calories, 120 calories for a drink, 200 calories for a single food item, 600 mg of salt or high amounts of sugar or fat.I want a cookie.Well you can have a cookie,yes,but not the toy.
Look now.I lost weight.I was at 180 pounds.I starved.I ate less.I enjoyed it less, I cut out almost entirely........sugar and had no soft drinks.I lost weight, I'm at 155 pounds.I have been so for months,with a constant feeling of hunger,I am UnHappily happily at 155lbs,they say this is good for me, for my height and weight.Yet why, then,am I discontented, and hungry?Why?Why do I WANT to eat more.I would eat more,I could eat more, and be happy, and back to 180, and back to being stated to be,overweight,obese,and yet I would be happy,and not feeling constantly hungry? Did MacDonald's cause that?NO,not one bit,my own cooking?Dare the government blame mine, or anybody else cooking? Ask the government,would they say I'm unhappy as I now am? Maybe not, but they'll say it's all good for me.THEY like me like this.What am I doing this for? I don't know,I'm not happy,I'm really tempted every minute of the day to eat my fill,again.Does the government say it's
the beef,the pork, the chicken?The way it's cooked?I cook the only way I and others know how to cook.Does the government want me to be a vegetarian?I cook a hamburger the same way as everybody else, I place it on and with,and between seasoned buns with lettuce,tomato,pickle et all,just like, and I have cooked it ,too, the same way,the meat.So what is it?Kids are taken out,Happy Meals or not, to places they're happy,to places we take them,to be happy,so they'll happily eat their fill.We don't want them to starve.Happy Meals? Sad for kids.But then,they're learning,that government exists, politicians exist,to make us all unhappy.Worry.Don't be happy, eat your UnHappy Meal, unhappily,that'll for sure keep them happy.Don't worry.
‘If you can’t control a three-year-old child for a toy, God save you when they get to be teenagers,’ he said.
‘Ultimately, parents decide what their children eat and whether a meal includes a toy or not – that is the role of a parent,’ added Jot Condie president of the California Restaurant Association.
‘The county government does not need to serve as the parent of the parents.’
The attempt at this measure,each measure, as the measure is proposed, claims to battle an obesity epidemic sweeping California and the rest of America.
While supporters insist the ban will force restaurants to offer more nutritious food to children.But face it,are they in there every day? No. What do I see,at,say, McDonald's? I see slim secretaries,walk in slim,walk out with a bag of food, or stay and eat, and they're back there the next day, same thing.But they're staying slim.Months later she's still slim,not having to walk sideways to get through the door to get to the food.I see lots of them,it's habitual,it's addictive evidently, this food thing is. Is it really though, what you eat, and not so much as how much you eat?What will you eat, what will your child eat?Their fill.Would you want them to eat less?The obesity rates started to skyrocket in the 80's, there Food companies,and whatever food marketing companies, started putting foods everywhere, encouraging snacking, making it normal for kids and adults to buy all kinds of
sugar laden snacks,choc bars and whatever have you that you see in vending machines all round and about you,and encouraged people generally to drink sodas all day long,by being equally available. The list goes on of available snacks.Yes, you are what you eat,when and where and how much, it all adds up, and those candy bars add up to quite a total from a very small amount.I know plenty of people who go into calorie shock when they look at a cookie and discover that it contains 670 calories.A present proposed Happy Meal law,would not allow the inclusion of a toy in any child’s meal with more than 485 calories, 120 calories for a drink, 200 calories for a single food item, 600 mg of salt or high amounts of sugar or fat.I want a cookie.Well you can have a cookie,yes,but not the toy.
Look now.I lost weight.I was at 180 pounds.I starved.I ate less.I enjoyed it less, I cut out almost entirely........sugar and had no soft drinks.I lost weight, I'm at 155 pounds.I have been so for months,with a constant feeling of hunger,I am UnHappily happily at 155lbs,they say this is good for me, for my height and weight.Yet why, then,am I discontented, and hungry?Why?Why do I WANT to eat more.I would eat more,I could eat more, and be happy, and back to 180, and back to being stated to be,overweight,obese,and yet I would be happy,and not feeling constantly hungry? Did MacDonald's cause that?NO,not one bit,my own cooking?Dare the government blame mine, or anybody else cooking? Ask the government,would they say I'm unhappy as I now am? Maybe not, but they'll say it's all good for me.THEY like me like this.What am I doing this for? I don't know,I'm not happy,I'm really tempted every minute of the day to eat my fill,again.Does the government say it's
the beef,the pork, the chicken?The way it's cooked?I cook the only way I and others know how to cook.Does the government want me to be a vegetarian?I cook a hamburger the same way as everybody else, I place it on and with,and between seasoned buns with lettuce,tomato,pickle et all,just like, and I have cooked it ,too, the same way,the meat.So what is it?Kids are taken out,Happy Meals or not, to places they're happy,to places we take them,to be happy,so they'll happily eat their fill.We don't want them to starve.Happy Meals? Sad for kids.But then,they're learning,that government exists, politicians exist,to make us all unhappy.Worry.Don't be happy, eat your UnHappy Meal, unhappily,that'll for sure keep them happy.Don't worry.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Secret Squirrel Considers Airline-r Safety.
Secret Squirrel has pondered the recent Qantas engine failure and is considering that airline safety is a myth? Well, perhaps, due to various reasons and factors, but certainly not with respect to the airline Qantas.Why? What occurred?A Rolls Royce Trent jet engine, disintegrated in mid flight, piercing severely the wing of the aircraft. The aircraft did not crash, did not turn in to a flaming Concorde,by the Good Grace of God Himself,without a doubt.Airbus SAS and Rolls-Royce Group have begun investigating why an engine on a Qantas Airways Ltd. A380 superjumbo exploded in midflight, forcing an emergency landing in the worst incident since the aircraft began service in 2007.Royce-Royce, the world’s second-biggest maker of jet engines, urged airlines that operate its Trent 900 turbines to conduct precautionary checks.
Well this is Qantas' SECOND Rolls Royce Airbus A380 uncontained engine failure in three months.This time the disintegrating Rolls Royce engine pierced the wing.The passengers were fortunate et all that they didn't go the way of the flaming Concorde.The second engine on the side, failed to switch off,on landing.An interesting Rolls Royce safety feature?Not really, but the debris of the disintegrating engine so wrecked things as to disable the engine control mechanism,firefighters had not only the leaking fuel to contend with,(from engines, and it appears from the damage from leaking fuel tanks that,thank the Good Lord, did not ignite and explode)but this is yet something Airbus itself, must now look in to,and cannot be ignored,requiring,most definately and assuredly in the continuing Airbus manufacture.
Recall also pitot tube problems catastrophically suffered by the Brazillian Airbus aircraft which crashed, and massively other Airbuses, of other types, which necessitated major changes to the Airbus pitot tube system. Qantas GROUNDS all their Airbuses,other airlines do not..............why? Does Qantas maintenance those engines?No,not by Qantas, it's done by Rolls Royce.........so..........other airlines STILL not grounding theirs, why? There is fault here, grave fault, but its at the feet of Rolls Royce, and fortunately,only by the Grace of God, there are no smoking carbonized carcasses of the passengers,the husbands,the wives, the children in sum toto,at their feet also.
Presently Qantas has a safety record amongst all the other airlines that is highly enviable.In it's entire history Qantas has a total passenger loss (death) of 66, the last being 1951............an enviable record of airline operational passenger safety..........and none of the crashes were ,nor have been as yet,of the jet variety.But face it, it was all nearly a nasty accident,wasn't it.BUT not a thing that can be ignored, and by Qantas certainly isn't being ignored.ENGINEERS say an intermediate pressure turbine disc in the No 2 engine of QF32 failed, triggering the explosion that ripped through the engine casing of the A380.The explosion damaged the wing and left a trail of wreckage across the Indonesian island of Batam.But they are examining certain scenarios that could have caused the problem. These include an oil fire in the bearing compartment, blocked cooling tubes or a bearing failure.A less likely cause was a problem with a rectangular part at the root of the turbine blades known as the intermediate pressure (IP) turbine blade platform. An oil fire or bearing failure could cause the intermediate turbine shaft to sever, causing the IP turbine to rotate at twice the normal speed and, potentially, the disc to disintegrate.
The explosion on QF32 was the third technical problem recorded with a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine and an A380 jet.Two months ago, a Lufthansa superjumbo shut down one of its Trent 900 engines before landing at Frankfurt because of changes in oil pressure.A Singapore Airlines A380 turned back after leaving Paris in September last year because of a Trent 900 engine malfunction.The explosion on Thursday was powerful enough to overwhelm devices ringing the engine aimed at stopping or limiting rare uncontained failures, believed to account for just a few per cent of engine failures.
Normally these devices, made from kevlar and composites, help keep broken parts within the engine or force them to be expelled through the tail pipe,they didn't,they couldn't.The Trent 900 has been the subject of two European airworthiness directives of excessive wear and engineers will see whether those problems have occurred again.Investigators do not yet know why the disc failed, as the superjumbo carrying 440 passengers and 26 crew climbed after leaving Changi Airport in Singapore on Thursday.
The Daily Finance is asking "Should Qantas Replace It's Airbus A380's With Boeing 747's" at
http://www.singaporenewsonline.com/FullNewsPage.php?Link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyfinance.com%2Fstory%2Fcompany-news%2Fqantas-replace-airbus-380-boeing-747-engine-explosion%2F19703741%2F
I'm suggesting if they wish to continue Airbus A380 use, they should re-engine, with different models of the Trent engine. I should add a recent Trent 1000,a model upgrade,to power a coming Boeing B787 American aircraft,has on test bed,already suffered from catastrophic,uncontained failure.They're making changes to that engine model as I write,and good luck to you too) in the very least,at the very best, re--engine with General Electric proven reliability engines.The airline has stated it is material failure,of which there are certain types, so -called incidental casting defects which can periodically occur,material failure due stresses due to improper material selection in design manufacture, and/or there is the actual design impropriety,which causes everything.
Financially there there is unlikely to be any longer-term reputational damage,though in the short term Qantas's shares ended down 1% at Aus$2,86, underperforming the broader market which advanced 1,2% to a six-month high, as investors had tended to "move on" from previous safety incidents, which have never resulted in a fatal crash for Qantas.In fact the record is utterly spotless, with a slight blemish where a 747 overshot the runway,Qantas' record in the jet era was spotless until a Qantas Boeing 747-400 , carrying 407 passengers and crew, over-ran the runway by 220 metres, ending up in a golf course, while landing in a rainstorm at Bangkok on 23 September 1999, there were no fatalities. At least not yet,not for the longest of times, and again not in it's 90 year on of jet engines times, but we see the care Qantas takes, the very necessary care,far greater care than the great majority of airlines.
As to the grounding of Qantas' 6 present Airbus A380's, well one is reminded of the role Qantas played in “Rainman,” the 1988 film about an autistic man reuniting with his brother on a cross country trip.In this pivotal scene in the airport, Dustin Hoffman’s title character refuses to fly. He spews a stream of airline crash statistics to Tom Cruise’s character, and then lauds the Australian airline’s safety record.
“Qantas. Qantas never crashes,” Hoffman says.
And so still so very true,but only by the Grace of God, and the care of Qantas.It may eventually,but not yet,occur, but not if Qantas can at all help it.But let me tell you if and when these crashes do occur, it is over your dead bodies.
Well this is Qantas' SECOND Rolls Royce Airbus A380 uncontained engine failure in three months.This time the disintegrating Rolls Royce engine pierced the wing.The passengers were fortunate et all that they didn't go the way of the flaming Concorde.The second engine on the side, failed to switch off,on landing.An interesting Rolls Royce safety feature?Not really, but the debris of the disintegrating engine so wrecked things as to disable the engine control mechanism,firefighters had not only the leaking fuel to contend with,(from engines, and it appears from the damage from leaking fuel tanks that,thank the Good Lord, did not ignite and explode)but this is yet something Airbus itself, must now look in to,and cannot be ignored,requiring,most definately and assuredly in the continuing Airbus manufacture.
Recall also pitot tube problems catastrophically suffered by the Brazillian Airbus aircraft which crashed, and massively other Airbuses, of other types, which necessitated major changes to the Airbus pitot tube system. Qantas GROUNDS all their Airbuses,other airlines do not..............why? Does Qantas maintenance those engines?No,not by Qantas, it's done by Rolls Royce.........so..........other airlines STILL not grounding theirs, why? There is fault here, grave fault, but its at the feet of Rolls Royce, and fortunately,only by the Grace of God, there are no smoking carbonized carcasses of the passengers,the husbands,the wives, the children in sum toto,at their feet also.
Presently Qantas has a safety record amongst all the other airlines that is highly enviable.In it's entire history Qantas has a total passenger loss (death) of 66, the last being 1951............an enviable record of airline operational passenger safety..........and none of the crashes were ,nor have been as yet,of the jet variety.But face it, it was all nearly a nasty accident,wasn't it.BUT not a thing that can be ignored, and by Qantas certainly isn't being ignored.ENGINEERS say an intermediate pressure turbine disc in the No 2 engine of QF32 failed, triggering the explosion that ripped through the engine casing of the A380.The explosion damaged the wing and left a trail of wreckage across the Indonesian island of Batam.But they are examining certain scenarios that could have caused the problem. These include an oil fire in the bearing compartment, blocked cooling tubes or a bearing failure.A less likely cause was a problem with a rectangular part at the root of the turbine blades known as the intermediate pressure (IP) turbine blade platform. An oil fire or bearing failure could cause the intermediate turbine shaft to sever, causing the IP turbine to rotate at twice the normal speed and, potentially, the disc to disintegrate.
The explosion on QF32 was the third technical problem recorded with a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine and an A380 jet.Two months ago, a Lufthansa superjumbo shut down one of its Trent 900 engines before landing at Frankfurt because of changes in oil pressure.A Singapore Airlines A380 turned back after leaving Paris in September last year because of a Trent 900 engine malfunction.The explosion on Thursday was powerful enough to overwhelm devices ringing the engine aimed at stopping or limiting rare uncontained failures, believed to account for just a few per cent of engine failures.
Normally these devices, made from kevlar and composites, help keep broken parts within the engine or force them to be expelled through the tail pipe,they didn't,they couldn't.The Trent 900 has been the subject of two European airworthiness directives of excessive wear and engineers will see whether those problems have occurred again.Investigators do not yet know why the disc failed, as the superjumbo carrying 440 passengers and 26 crew climbed after leaving Changi Airport in Singapore on Thursday.
The Daily Finance is asking "Should Qantas Replace It's Airbus A380's With Boeing 747's" at
http://www.singaporenewsonline.com/FullNewsPage.php?Link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyfinance.com%2Fstory%2Fcompany-news%2Fqantas-replace-airbus-380-boeing-747-engine-explosion%2F19703741%2F
I'm suggesting if they wish to continue Airbus A380 use, they should re-engine, with different models of the Trent engine. I should add a recent Trent 1000,a model upgrade,to power a coming Boeing B787 American aircraft,has on test bed,already suffered from catastrophic,uncontained failure.They're making changes to that engine model as I write,and good luck to you too) in the very least,at the very best, re--engine with General Electric proven reliability engines.The airline has stated it is material failure,of which there are certain types, so -called incidental casting defects which can periodically occur,material failure due stresses due to improper material selection in design manufacture, and/or there is the actual design impropriety,which causes everything.
Financially there there is unlikely to be any longer-term reputational damage,though in the short term Qantas's shares ended down 1% at Aus$2,86, underperforming the broader market which advanced 1,2% to a six-month high, as investors had tended to "move on" from previous safety incidents, which have never resulted in a fatal crash for Qantas.In fact the record is utterly spotless, with a slight blemish where a 747 overshot the runway,Qantas' record in the jet era was spotless until a Qantas Boeing 747-400 , carrying 407 passengers and crew, over-ran the runway by 220 metres, ending up in a golf course, while landing in a rainstorm at Bangkok on 23 September 1999, there were no fatalities. At least not yet,not for the longest of times, and again not in it's 90 year on of jet engines times, but we see the care Qantas takes, the very necessary care,far greater care than the great majority of airlines.
As to the grounding of Qantas' 6 present Airbus A380's, well one is reminded of the role Qantas played in “Rainman,” the 1988 film about an autistic man reuniting with his brother on a cross country trip.In this pivotal scene in the airport, Dustin Hoffman’s title character refuses to fly. He spews a stream of airline crash statistics to Tom Cruise’s character, and then lauds the Australian airline’s safety record.
“Qantas. Qantas never crashes,” Hoffman says.
And so still so very true,but only by the Grace of God, and the care of Qantas.It may eventually,but not yet,occur, but not if Qantas can at all help it.But let me tell you if and when these crashes do occur, it is over your dead bodies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)