Secret Squirrel turns his attention to the strange entity,known as Europe,The European Union,as it’s called ,it’s formation and transition,from the economic union of the European Economic Community (EEC), to the presently evolving European Union (EU), and how it,Europe,a United Europe, regards itself and most definitely appears to be at the present time,a Nation,a single nation, a singularity,rather than a plurality, rather than a simple union,an old boys club as it were.Well it isn’t an old boys club, but rather,indeed, it is functioning as a single nation,indeed many time,s and at and on many levels.It does have a unified military command,the structure is there,yet each member nation state has it’s own internal army,even yet Navy, but functions in a unified force,directed, when it functions as NATO,visibly with respect to conduct directed at the oil rich Arab nations.
Picture this,a Europe,united,the European Union, has a central parliament,makes some laws for ALL to follow,and they must follow those, allows individual states of Europe to have their own local laws,as the United States does,as did the American
Confederacy.They appointed a President over it all,as it were, but the President is not elected out of the people of Europe, but rather in a form dictatorially appointed by representatives of the member national states of the European Union.The Confederate States of America, did much the same thing, first appointing a President out of their selection, then moving towards a form of
election of the President.There is no common Constitution, really as such,but then a much vaunted Constitution is a thing of paper off ignored,twisted and bent as suits item in either case, an artificiality,not really an indicator of anything at all
really,a mere superfluous trapping of an illusion of centrality of sorts.It has a common civil service (the European Commission), a single High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, a common European Security and Defense Policy, a supreme court (European Court of Justice — but only in matters of European Union law), a peacekeeping force (Eurofor), and an intergovernmental research organisation (the EIROforum with members like CERN). The European Space Agency counts almost all the EU member nations in its membership, but it is independent of the EU and its membership includes nations that are not EU members, notably Switzerland and Norway. The European Court of Human Rights (not to be confused with the European Court of Justice) is also independent of the Union. It is an element of the Council of Europe which, like ESA, counts EU members and non members alike in its membership.There are aspirations, the EU does have a flag, and an anthem,but people in Europe don’t seem to be waving things about, nor singing about them.
They are trying to develop a central common currency, in transition,and do have one ,the Euro,but not succeeding well there in terms of it’s declining faith/value internally and world wide, but in the due process entirely moving towards it.It’s currency structure is much that of the Confederate States Of America as it was, and Europe is presently.Each state of the Confederacy still did have and use it’s own currency, but yet also there was the agreed on unified currency,the Confederate Dollar.The appearance of a single currency in Europe is the first such monetary instrument since the Roman Empire.Financial the states(nations of Europe), maintain their own systems of taxation,and the European Parliamen Presidency has not levied a Federal income tax,in unanimity over all of Europe.Indeed individual states still control their own economies, and the confusion of their internal and separate external financial economic dealings disorganized to the extents there are individual “bankruptcies” occuring, which is heavily pressuring their common currency. indeed the United States also suffers internal “bankruptcies”(in reality,but not regarded as being such,one must keep up appearances),however their currency isn’t unduly pressured(it being the peg mark of the world presently and so sits as the untouchable prima donna,on a pedestal currency immune to such things as the common devaluation all the lesser bagmen currencies suffer from).
Now isn’t Europe as it is then structured as the United States,is really,and in terms of view of the American Confederate States,in having a Central Federal type of central government, thence also separate nation/state governments much as the American states are,(and the Confederacy was) and so shouldn’t it therefor be considered to be as ONE country, as it were, in all things? Now citizenship?Yes, it is possible to be a European Union citizen,besides beign a citizen in any specific country state, those of Europe ARE European Union citizens.Consider,The European Union (EU) consists of 27 individual countries, which entitles all citizens to live, travel and work in the country of their choice. Citizens can freely travel, work, retire, or just vacate without any problems in any EU country. The European Union provides individuals and families with choices that other individual countries around the world cannot offer. The “Single Market” that was created in 1993 states that people, money, services, and good can move freely within the European Union. Currently over 450 million EU citizens are provided with these options.The 27 EU
countries have different immigration programs in terms of foreign work programs,true,different ways to obtain citizenship,different unemployment rates,different inheritance of citizenship, and other official immigration programs which allows individuals to live in one or several EU country states. Some immigration programs can end with a citizenship while other programs are time limited and related to work or tourism. The advantage of citizenship in an EU country is that the laws and regulations of the EU is applicable to any country that you decide to live and work in.An individual who becomes a citizen of any EU country automatically is granted EU citizenship. EU citizenship is not a separate “national” citizenship, but is related to the individual’s rights in any of the 27 EU countries. For example, a citizen of Poland has the right to move to Spain and
work/retire legally. In short,the basic pattern here matches that of The United States of America,and the individual states that make it up.
Now should European Union be regarded as being a nation, a single nation, made up of unified country states? It functions as such to all intents and purposes, but not being regarded as such, the European Union nation has,most definitely,an unfair
advantage,say in sports for example, the Olympics.Why should each state of Europe be allowed to send so very many athletes there for, whilst the United States gets to send, by comparison, a very few? Most certainly this puts Europe at an enormous advantage in terms of the so-called, thence, International sports,the so called World Cups. Shouldn’t also Europe,the European Union, then be forced to close hundreds of diplomatic missions etc abroad, and then be forced to have one in each,the European Embassy etc as does the United States,and Australia etc and other separate nations? Shouldn’t, indeed,Europe be forced to ONE seat at the United Nations,ONE seat on all United Nations Committees of whatever kind,and,of course, ONE seat on the Security Council as well, in keeping with global propriety and fairness to ALL the other nations of the world?Shouldn’t the European Union, as it is, be forced to be regarded as a single nation and treated as such ,in fairness to all nations of the world?
Presently,maintaining an unofficial Confederated States Of Europe,puts Europe at a distinct advantage in the way things work.One readily sees this in the example of the Olympics and the World Cup, the deck is most definitely stacked in favour of all things European. And so too, thence, in bodies such as The United Nations, the deck is stacked in Europe’s favour,in any and all votes, Europe has a far larger number votes thence, and more votes are good votes.In manners of keeping up appearances a few states must vote against. In the security council, Europe has a total dominating,controlling role.In the world militarily,such as in the present on going domination of the Arab oil states, the instrument of the European NATO is seen as a deciding,determining, factor,all the while still having the aura,illusion, of the activities not of a single driven entity,but that of separate nations merely acting as one. Indeed,there is the old adage, there is safety in numbers, the greater the numbers the better,but in plurality there is dissension,the confusion of the many-headed Hydra, whilst in singularity,there is drive,motive,direction. Indeed one can only ponder, what direction is Europe taking.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Secret Squirrel Comments On Canada's Radiation Monitoring System.
Secret Squirrel has discovered that Canada has a Canadian Radiological Monitoring Network(the CRMN,as they call it, they,the politicians),the people of Canada call it something else, useless,utterly and completely, useless.It monitors radiation levels about nuclear plants in Canada, but it also is charged with general air monitoring for radiations,radiation levels, for such events as for Chernobyl, and Fukushima.In short it is supposed to show the radiation levels,in the atmos over Canada,and the cloud direction,course,path, and spread, the pilgrim's grim progress of radiation clouds entering airspace over Canada.What with the Fukushima triple reactor meltdowns and explosions, et all, the nuclear fuel rod storage pools releasing massive quantities of radiation,from fuel rods which have again gone self critical etc,one has become fascinated
watching this tragic comedy of errors unfold in Japan,and one ponders that this almost cannot be exceeded. However,in the United States we see new guidelines for radiation ingestion and exposure being changed, upgraded,increased almost daily as the Japanese initiate such changes in Japan,to accommodate the increasingly radioactive situation as it is.Truly comic is it
not?One imagines that this cannot be exceeded.But Canada is sure trying. It's own nuclear monitoring network has simply been shut off,as they say, and its website now reads "Please note that as of March 25, 2011, the frequency of data collection by NRCan using the mobile surveys has been decreased due to the low levels of radiation being detected." It is,of course, to
laugh.And it is the politicians who are laughing, at Canadians.
As a matter of fact, the system is always on,supposedly,unless they switch it off, guarding Canadians, keeping them informed, of the nuclear radiation dangers present in the atmos over Canada, over the people of Canada, at any given time, especially in times of emergency such as Chernobyl, and Fukushima, when radiation clouds drift over Canada, and manned, as in staff are
employed in jobs doing this, paid to do this, by government, our government, the government of the people, who pay the heavy taxation, that paid for and funded it all in order to help warn and protect the general population of Canada who are the people, who elect the politicians to be the government to protect the nation of the people,who paid the taxes to fund the system which was built by and arranged by a previous government who wished to know the level of radiations affecting the people adversely from things like Chernobyl, and of course,the then yet to come,many times more and future, Fukushimas, in an unbiased,uninfluenced way,twenty four hours (24Hours), a day,seven (7) days a week, twelve months (12 months) of the
year,each and every year.In short informing the people of the true levels of the harmful entity that is radiation that is floating around in the air about them from foreign nuclear accidents, uninfluenced by foreign governments which, say, might have loads of great dirt on the government with respect to its behaviour.
The latter is the only "justification" that can be thought of that would result in the turning off of the radiation monitoring system in light of the emergence of a massive nuclear emergency that the system was designed to inform the people of. The other can be, perhaps, let's say, a pay off of sorts, yes, money, the almighty dollar in various ways, but on national international scales,well Japan, has a national debt 225% of it's GNP, Canada only at 40% (Australia is at 20%,they're obviously doing very much better, they also didn't turn off their national radiation monitoring system realizing what the system was exactly for). so how could Japan influence Canada there, offer to pay off Canada's international debt and accept it in its place, increasing theirs, all for the requested turning off of the embarrassing(to them)(and for the Canadian people, damaging)nuclear radiation detection system. Let's see, can we think of any other things that might apply..any other reasons?Hmmm somebody in government heavily in to farming say and if they,we, the people,the citizens of Canada, find out there's radiation on the veggies in any particular region, then they,the Canadian people ,we,won't buy the veggies the lad is selling in that nuclear infestation region, or perhaps the milk, yes, the dairies won't accept his milk in
that region,or perhaps, the Canadian people won't buy the local milk, in efforts to protect themselves and future generations of Canadians from the mutating effects of nuclear radiations? Could that enter in to the picture?Hmmmm... strange things are Canadian politicians, the Canadian form of government.What possible reason is there to hide the truth, the actual readings, from the people of Canada whom they supposedly revere,and serve?
I'm not criticizing the system, of monitoring,but I am criticizing the fact that it has been turned off, by political command, and by political command the people of Canada are not being informed by the system meant to keep them inform,ed, of the radiation clouds drifting over them,over Canada, as it is capable of, and supposed to do.Curious it is that hey turn off a monitoring system in times of nuclear radiation cloud crisis,which is actually meant to monitor the radiation cloud and it's spread itself,at a time when the system is supposed to be functional to do just that,inform of the spread of a dangerous radioactive cloud over and through a nation, the nation of Canada in this instance. We note the Europeans haven't turned theirs off, that the cloud has gone over Canada, and has reached there and is detectable there(indeed the Swedish monitoring
station that detected Chernobyl, has detected also Fukushima, after the cloud passed over and through Canada, over the Atlantic, to there,(and one assumes that it lessened on it's long journey there, but was obviously much more potent, whilst over Canada).Curious, it did have to pass over Canada to get there, as it's drifting in that direction,we know that by and through American monitoring of the cloud over their nation, they have a national radiation monitoring system which they didn't turn off,it's supposed to detect and monitor such clouds, the radiation levels,,course and spread, that's what they use it for.But they,in Canada,the Canadian government, decided to turn off the monitoring system,which is always supposed to be on, since they are detecting radiation levels which are said to be too low, yes, too low, too low to monitor and inform us
of,true,levels,(assuming you could ever get any truth at all from a politician, especially,as is evidenced, by a Canadian one.Yes, levels of radiation so low, that the cloud has reached Europe, and is detected there, at levels.On the way there, over Canada, particles of nuclear radiation contaminant dropped, and entered the solid, they water, landed on the veggies, found it's way in to the milk,landed on you, and was breathed in by you, at whatever levels the cloud did produce but are forever unbeknownst to you,
1) because they turned the system off,
and
2) because you know you couldn't believe the levels that it was at as you can't NOW trust a politician, your own government, to tell you NOW,after all this. You know the logic there,IF we reveal the true levels now, things will be worse for US(the politician), so lets keep things low.
Well what did Canada do, what happened?Well,remember how we(oh dear I used we, when I meant government of the people of Canada) started to detect some of the radioactive fallout from Fukushima as it began raining down upon Canada?Well, the Prime Minister of Canada,(with the knowledge and consent of the rest of the collected politicians, known as Parliament,evidently
said,"Well, I have a great idea. Let's turn OFF all the detectors so that we stop detecting radiation!" And so it was with their knowledge and consent, their complacency,it was decided that we turn off the radiation detecting system, and then we won't have to worry about a problem of radiation floating over and descending on Canada, there will no zero reading, zero
radiation then,and everything will be fine.Seems all that expensive equipment, and the cost of the staff to maintain and use it,didn't go to waste, not the millions it cost and cost to maintain.And don't worry about the radioactive fallout. It's all safe now.And we can turn the system back on and go back to doing nothing.Or perhaps we can scrap the entire system as being unnecessary, a redundancy and we could save millions.No waste there, we could sell it used to say, Europeans perhaps,they use theirs for something, yet more equipment and they could do an even yet better job! Hey why not,get some resale value off the system the Canadian government doesn't use!!Mind you,I don't believe they'd really like to assist any other nations you know.
The Americans responded with an interesting manoeuver with respect to the Japanese triple meltdown.They realized that one day they will be faced with a similar situation,and they noted,we noted, that SUDDENLY, as if in some form of catastrophic event, the Japanese quickly raised acceptable levels of radiation, in food, in drinking water, in milk..........quite a studied response. They also raised the "acceptable" levels of radiation a body could be exposed to,supposedly safely,as in no harm done, no cancers later on etc. Strangely this happened just after the Fukushima reactor meltdowns(they now admit that all three melted down in the first three days,well, we did seem them explode,wasn't rocket science to figure they'd been holed earlier on!). And now, what has been the US EPA response..........So what to do? If you’re the United States Environment Protection Agency, there’s only one option: Declare radiation to be safe!Yes indeed, friends, they reached a moment of comedic insanity at the EPA, where those in charge of protecting the environment are hastily rewriting the definition of “radioactive contamination” in order to make sure that whatever fallout reaches and reached, the United States, falls under
the new limits of “safe” radiation.And so..........all's well! Now, not before, but now, until the next one with higher levels when the EPA will raise the bar once again! Now that's really grand, it's like discovering there massive numbers of rapes, and then simply declaring rape is no longer a crime, so the crime figures show well, and all's grand,no crime.
Of course, Canada,the Canadian government, the Canadian politician, follows suit.In Vegas they can make white tigers disappear right in front of your very eyes, but with the help of government, (the Government of,Japan,The United States,Canada)they can cause the world’s largest nuclear catastrophe to vanish by simply redefining radiation exposure limits,now we’re going to add Chernobyl-sized radiation releases to the equation of our lives, too?Talk about Health Canada
being the stupidest people in Government, while low doses are being seen in BC, those low doses add up daily to harmful effects after time. Health Canada are a group of people who have no common sense what so ever. It seems the governments need to protect the nuclear industry, just as those same Governments Have Been Covering Up Nuclear Meltdowns for Fifty Years to
Protect the Nuclear Power Industry,even with respect to the recent cover-up in Canada,the recent Radioactive Leak Into Lake Ontario. They couldn't even get their story straight about that one. With all the focus placed on the Japanese radiation leaks as well as the toxic plume of radioactive particles now in the United States,in Canada the potential disaster is
receiving virtually no attention,there are no figures released for the radiation plume in Canada, and we all know why,don't we. After all the government just tells you there's nothing to see here, move along, everything is fine....Do they really think people are just too stupid to figure it out?
Ah, the fascination of watching this tragic comedy of errors unfold,with respect to Environmental Protection Agency activities, in the U.S.,in Japan, government almost cannot be exceeded. But Canada is sure trying. Its own nuclear monitoring network has simply been shut off, and its website now reads “Please note that as of March 25, 2011, the frequency of data collection by NRCan using the mobile surveys has been decreased due to the low levels of radiation being detected.”Yep, since they’re detecting low levels of radiation, this is apparently justification for turning off the monitors altogether, which of course is the kind of brilliant early warning plan that could have only been dreamed up by a brain-dead bureaucrat.
Canada stands condemned, the government of Canada stands condemned,the politicians of Canada stand condemned,and they have condemned the people of Canada.And we can be sure, that it is the people's wish, the people's increasing wish, that they
could be, in future, spoken of,should be spoken of,in only,rather self-illuminating, glowing terms.It is their wish,but, sadly the people never seem to get their wish,but perhaps, what with the lie of the nuclear dream,perhaps,just perhaps,it may happen.In the meantime, all the people can do is heap condemnation,derision and abuse on them,while nuclear radiation particles rain down on they,the people, and the government won't tell the people exactly how much, and where it is.
For you in Canada,there's no help nor hope for you,with respect to the radiation levels, however using these two sites......
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/radnet-data-map.html
The EPA government network,USA.
http://www.radiationnetwork.com/
A private network established by a geiger counter sales group.
You can draw a near conclusion,but you have to assume a higher reading than the nearest America site shows for you, since Fukushima and Canada are higher up,more inline as it were, than lower down America.That's the best I can do for you,that and suggest to you that you get your own reliable geiger counter, and know how to use it.Of Course,your government can do
better,the Canadian government could do better, it could tell you the actual readings,but it won't, it doesn't want to, it's turned the monitoring system off or it won't inform you, and,or,both, and it may still, for some reason, choose to lie to you when it does.So it goes, for you.Sad for you,sad you're a Canadian.
watching this tragic comedy of errors unfold in Japan,and one ponders that this almost cannot be exceeded. However,in the United States we see new guidelines for radiation ingestion and exposure being changed, upgraded,increased almost daily as the Japanese initiate such changes in Japan,to accommodate the increasingly radioactive situation as it is.Truly comic is it
not?One imagines that this cannot be exceeded.But Canada is sure trying. It's own nuclear monitoring network has simply been shut off,as they say, and its website now reads "Please note that as of March 25, 2011, the frequency of data collection by NRCan using the mobile surveys has been decreased due to the low levels of radiation being detected." It is,of course, to
laugh.And it is the politicians who are laughing, at Canadians.
As a matter of fact, the system is always on,supposedly,unless they switch it off, guarding Canadians, keeping them informed, of the nuclear radiation dangers present in the atmos over Canada, over the people of Canada, at any given time, especially in times of emergency such as Chernobyl, and Fukushima, when radiation clouds drift over Canada, and manned, as in staff are
employed in jobs doing this, paid to do this, by government, our government, the government of the people, who pay the heavy taxation, that paid for and funded it all in order to help warn and protect the general population of Canada who are the people, who elect the politicians to be the government to protect the nation of the people,who paid the taxes to fund the system which was built by and arranged by a previous government who wished to know the level of radiations affecting the people adversely from things like Chernobyl, and of course,the then yet to come,many times more and future, Fukushimas, in an unbiased,uninfluenced way,twenty four hours (24Hours), a day,seven (7) days a week, twelve months (12 months) of the
year,each and every year.In short informing the people of the true levels of the harmful entity that is radiation that is floating around in the air about them from foreign nuclear accidents, uninfluenced by foreign governments which, say, might have loads of great dirt on the government with respect to its behaviour.
The latter is the only "justification" that can be thought of that would result in the turning off of the radiation monitoring system in light of the emergence of a massive nuclear emergency that the system was designed to inform the people of. The other can be, perhaps, let's say, a pay off of sorts, yes, money, the almighty dollar in various ways, but on national international scales,well Japan, has a national debt 225% of it's GNP, Canada only at 40% (Australia is at 20%,they're obviously doing very much better, they also didn't turn off their national radiation monitoring system realizing what the system was exactly for). so how could Japan influence Canada there, offer to pay off Canada's international debt and accept it in its place, increasing theirs, all for the requested turning off of the embarrassing(to them)(and for the Canadian people, damaging)nuclear radiation detection system. Let's see, can we think of any other things that might apply..any other reasons?Hmmm somebody in government heavily in to farming say and if they,we, the people,the citizens of Canada, find out there's radiation on the veggies in any particular region, then they,the Canadian people ,we,won't buy the veggies the lad is selling in that nuclear infestation region, or perhaps the milk, yes, the dairies won't accept his milk in
that region,or perhaps, the Canadian people won't buy the local milk, in efforts to protect themselves and future generations of Canadians from the mutating effects of nuclear radiations? Could that enter in to the picture?Hmmmm... strange things are Canadian politicians, the Canadian form of government.What possible reason is there to hide the truth, the actual readings, from the people of Canada whom they supposedly revere,and serve?
I'm not criticizing the system, of monitoring,but I am criticizing the fact that it has been turned off, by political command, and by political command the people of Canada are not being informed by the system meant to keep them inform,ed, of the radiation clouds drifting over them,over Canada, as it is capable of, and supposed to do.Curious it is that hey turn off a monitoring system in times of nuclear radiation cloud crisis,which is actually meant to monitor the radiation cloud and it's spread itself,at a time when the system is supposed to be functional to do just that,inform of the spread of a dangerous radioactive cloud over and through a nation, the nation of Canada in this instance. We note the Europeans haven't turned theirs off, that the cloud has gone over Canada, and has reached there and is detectable there(indeed the Swedish monitoring
station that detected Chernobyl, has detected also Fukushima, after the cloud passed over and through Canada, over the Atlantic, to there,(and one assumes that it lessened on it's long journey there, but was obviously much more potent, whilst over Canada).Curious, it did have to pass over Canada to get there, as it's drifting in that direction,we know that by and through American monitoring of the cloud over their nation, they have a national radiation monitoring system which they didn't turn off,it's supposed to detect and monitor such clouds, the radiation levels,,course and spread, that's what they use it for.But they,in Canada,the Canadian government, decided to turn off the monitoring system,which is always supposed to be on, since they are detecting radiation levels which are said to be too low, yes, too low, too low to monitor and inform us
of,true,levels,(assuming you could ever get any truth at all from a politician, especially,as is evidenced, by a Canadian one.Yes, levels of radiation so low, that the cloud has reached Europe, and is detected there, at levels.On the way there, over Canada, particles of nuclear radiation contaminant dropped, and entered the solid, they water, landed on the veggies, found it's way in to the milk,landed on you, and was breathed in by you, at whatever levels the cloud did produce but are forever unbeknownst to you,
1) because they turned the system off,
and
2) because you know you couldn't believe the levels that it was at as you can't NOW trust a politician, your own government, to tell you NOW,after all this. You know the logic there,IF we reveal the true levels now, things will be worse for US(the politician), so lets keep things low.
Well what did Canada do, what happened?Well,remember how we(oh dear I used we, when I meant government of the people of Canada) started to detect some of the radioactive fallout from Fukushima as it began raining down upon Canada?Well, the Prime Minister of Canada,(with the knowledge and consent of the rest of the collected politicians, known as Parliament,evidently
said,"Well, I have a great idea. Let's turn OFF all the detectors so that we stop detecting radiation!" And so it was with their knowledge and consent, their complacency,it was decided that we turn off the radiation detecting system, and then we won't have to worry about a problem of radiation floating over and descending on Canada, there will no zero reading, zero
radiation then,and everything will be fine.Seems all that expensive equipment, and the cost of the staff to maintain and use it,didn't go to waste, not the millions it cost and cost to maintain.And don't worry about the radioactive fallout. It's all safe now.And we can turn the system back on and go back to doing nothing.Or perhaps we can scrap the entire system as being unnecessary, a redundancy and we could save millions.No waste there, we could sell it used to say, Europeans perhaps,they use theirs for something, yet more equipment and they could do an even yet better job! Hey why not,get some resale value off the system the Canadian government doesn't use!!Mind you,I don't believe they'd really like to assist any other nations you know.
The Americans responded with an interesting manoeuver with respect to the Japanese triple meltdown.They realized that one day they will be faced with a similar situation,and they noted,we noted, that SUDDENLY, as if in some form of catastrophic event, the Japanese quickly raised acceptable levels of radiation, in food, in drinking water, in milk..........quite a studied response. They also raised the "acceptable" levels of radiation a body could be exposed to,supposedly safely,as in no harm done, no cancers later on etc. Strangely this happened just after the Fukushima reactor meltdowns(they now admit that all three melted down in the first three days,well, we did seem them explode,wasn't rocket science to figure they'd been holed earlier on!). And now, what has been the US EPA response..........So what to do? If you’re the United States Environment Protection Agency, there’s only one option: Declare radiation to be safe!Yes indeed, friends, they reached a moment of comedic insanity at the EPA, where those in charge of protecting the environment are hastily rewriting the definition of “radioactive contamination” in order to make sure that whatever fallout reaches and reached, the United States, falls under
the new limits of “safe” radiation.And so..........all's well! Now, not before, but now, until the next one with higher levels when the EPA will raise the bar once again! Now that's really grand, it's like discovering there massive numbers of rapes, and then simply declaring rape is no longer a crime, so the crime figures show well, and all's grand,no crime.
Of course, Canada,the Canadian government, the Canadian politician, follows suit.In Vegas they can make white tigers disappear right in front of your very eyes, but with the help of government, (the Government of,Japan,The United States,Canada)they can cause the world’s largest nuclear catastrophe to vanish by simply redefining radiation exposure limits,now we’re going to add Chernobyl-sized radiation releases to the equation of our lives, too?Talk about Health Canada
being the stupidest people in Government, while low doses are being seen in BC, those low doses add up daily to harmful effects after time. Health Canada are a group of people who have no common sense what so ever. It seems the governments need to protect the nuclear industry, just as those same Governments Have Been Covering Up Nuclear Meltdowns for Fifty Years to
Protect the Nuclear Power Industry,even with respect to the recent cover-up in Canada,the recent Radioactive Leak Into Lake Ontario. They couldn't even get their story straight about that one. With all the focus placed on the Japanese radiation leaks as well as the toxic plume of radioactive particles now in the United States,in Canada the potential disaster is
receiving virtually no attention,there are no figures released for the radiation plume in Canada, and we all know why,don't we. After all the government just tells you there's nothing to see here, move along, everything is fine....Do they really think people are just too stupid to figure it out?
Ah, the fascination of watching this tragic comedy of errors unfold,with respect to Environmental Protection Agency activities, in the U.S.,in Japan, government almost cannot be exceeded. But Canada is sure trying. Its own nuclear monitoring network has simply been shut off, and its website now reads “Please note that as of March 25, 2011, the frequency of data collection by NRCan using the mobile surveys has been decreased due to the low levels of radiation being detected.”Yep, since they’re detecting low levels of radiation, this is apparently justification for turning off the monitors altogether, which of course is the kind of brilliant early warning plan that could have only been dreamed up by a brain-dead bureaucrat.
Canada stands condemned, the government of Canada stands condemned,the politicians of Canada stand condemned,and they have condemned the people of Canada.And we can be sure, that it is the people's wish, the people's increasing wish, that they
could be, in future, spoken of,should be spoken of,in only,rather self-illuminating, glowing terms.It is their wish,but, sadly the people never seem to get their wish,but perhaps, what with the lie of the nuclear dream,perhaps,just perhaps,it may happen.In the meantime, all the people can do is heap condemnation,derision and abuse on them,while nuclear radiation particles rain down on they,the people, and the government won't tell the people exactly how much, and where it is.
For you in Canada,there's no help nor hope for you,with respect to the radiation levels, however using these two sites......
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/radnet-data-map.html
The EPA government network,USA.
http://www.radiationnetwork.com/
A private network established by a geiger counter sales group.
You can draw a near conclusion,but you have to assume a higher reading than the nearest America site shows for you, since Fukushima and Canada are higher up,more inline as it were, than lower down America.That's the best I can do for you,that and suggest to you that you get your own reliable geiger counter, and know how to use it.Of Course,your government can do
better,the Canadian government could do better, it could tell you the actual readings,but it won't, it doesn't want to, it's turned the monitoring system off or it won't inform you, and,or,both, and it may still, for some reason, choose to lie to you when it does.So it goes, for you.Sad for you,sad you're a Canadian.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Secret Squirrel Finds Skirt Length Is The Measure Of The Economy.
Secret Squirrel has made a scientific study of the economy,and, being the savante that he is,the economic connaisseur,the shaman that he is,the necromancer of the economy, the Mesmer of things financial, has determined,by a study so scientifically researched he has been able to find a predictable indicator of the economy as it is and a predictor of the economy as it shall be.In the long, and the short of things, Squirrel has determined that the length of skirts,mini skirt to the maxi skirt,as hemlines rise and fall, indicates the economy of the day as it is and is also reflected in the value of stocks on the stock market.Indeed just look at the evidence Squirrel has gathered, and subjected it to the most severe scientific scrutiny.
Indeed Squirrel was not, and has not, been the first.In 1926 professor George Taylor from the University of Pennsylvania came up with the hemline index.
Although funny at first – it has proven itself well against the test of time.The hemline index stands for professor Taylor’s observation that hemlines on women’s dresses rise along with stock prices. Or in other words – as the economy gets better women get shorter and shorter skirts – topping with the miniskirt. When the economy gets worse they tend to wear longer skirts.This was also noted with respect to the stock market,the idea that skirt lengths are a predictor of the stock market direction.The key to success in the stock market is simple: buy low and sell high. The hard part is knowing when the market will be low and when it will be high. To address this challenge, Squirrel has come up with metrics that have nothing to do with alpha beta, the Sharpe ratio or any of the other more traditional analytical measures,indeed not, the metrics have to do with the shortness of skirts as worn by females(kilted Scottsmen don't count, as the Scottish kilt is usually unvarying in
its preceived length,but on the other hand the Scottish economy has been also stagnent for centuries).
In the 1960s there was a stock analyst named Ralph Rotnem who was head of research for an old white shoe brokerage house called Harris, Upham & Company. Mr. Rotnem made the Harris Upham (which later merged into Smith Barney) name slightly famous because of his really famous “hemline theory.” Mr. Rotnem had noticed that as hemlines on women’s skirts moved up (or down, according to the season), so too went the Dow Jones Industrials. According to the theory, if skirts are short, it means the markets are going up. And if skirt are long, it means the markets are heading down.The idea behind this theory is that shorter skirts tend to appear in times when general consumer confidence and excitement is high, meaning the markets are bullish. In contrast, the theory says long skirts are worn more in times of fear and general gloom, indicating that things are bearish.So we see,in skirting issues financial, the skirt length affects both the economy in general, and the stock market is applied directly as a tool, to the skirt.
We see that while rising skirt lengths are a symbol of youth, playfulness and women's liberation,are they also related most directly,to any given nation's prosperity.But it is a proveable and direct fact,that skirt hems rose to miniskirt shortness in the 1920s (flappers) and in the 1960s (mods), peaking with stock prices in the US both times.In the 1960s,stock prices were not exactly high,but there certainly wasn't a depressed market, by any means, and the early part of the period is remembered for its economic affluence and high employment rate. The standard of living improved steadily throughout the decade.
The 1960s are thought of as being “swinging” and liberal, with increased consumer confidence and the blossoming of pop culture that spread across the world.So, rising hemlines are an indication of the mood of the times,and reflected in the
stock market. The shortening of skirts shows a general increase in friskiness, excitement and daring among the population, and long skirts are worn in times of fear and general gloom. The stock market changes direction in step with these
expressions of mood. Floor-length fashions appeared in the 1930s and 1970s (the Maxi), and the price of stocks dropped at the same time.
Let's look at the general scientific evidence correlating the length of skirts with the economy and the stock market.........
The high skirts of the 20s were a complete break from centuries where women's dresses and skirts ended somewhere between the ankle and the floor. Not much room for correlation with this Golden Age or that Panic. Sweet Young Things and wannabes during the Roaring Twenties wore knee-length skirts.
1920's: Highest stock prices in the early part of that century. Very short flapper skirts.
Then there is the experience of the Great Depression of the 1930s.The 1930's: The Great Depression began in 1929, bringing the worst economic conditions in American memory. Women wore very conservative ankle-dusting skirts.Floor length fashions were it in the 1930's, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged from 395 to 195 in 1929, and to 40 in 1931. By 1935 hems dropped to a few inches above the ankle: call it the lower calf area. And in the early 1940s hems were back to the lower edge of the knee.
So far, so good for the theory.
Flip to post-World War 2. Wartime skirt lengths came crashing down with Dior's New Look launched in 1947. For the next dozen years or so, skirt hems hovered near mid-calf. During which time we went through at least two economic downturns of note (1949 and 1958) plus Eisenhower's prosperity years.1940's and '50's: This was a post-War economy. Women were still adjusting to our entrance in the workplace; family life restructured. Employment recovered, but the War took a terrible toll on morale -- and therefore on investment. Skirts were tea-length or just higher, hitting the knee.
As the 1958 recession eased, hems did rise in accord with the recovery. Around 1960 came A-line dresses where hems were just below the knee. As 1960s prosperity continued, hems went up. And up and up until the turn of the decade when there were miniskirts, micro-minis and and all sorts of eye-candy. I'm not sure whether this had anything to do with the economy or if it was launched by the invention of pantyhose in the late 60s.1960's: Boomtime. This was a period of enormous growth. The mini skirt debuted in 1965.
1970's: America suffered with the Oil Crisis in '73 and a market crash the following year. Mini skirts were out; the "mod" decade took a breather. Women wore long, flowy skirts and dresses and welcomed the "gas, grass, or ass" Grateful Dead-following drifter years.
1980's: The '80's were a power decade. Shoulder pads for men and women. Women wore power suits with shorter skirts. After the 1987 Black Monday crash hemlines dropped.
1990's: Skirts stayed longish for the first part of the decade, then hiked to retro microminis as the market gained strength. The second half of the '90's saw growth and lots of bare thigh.Madonna helped bring back the miniskirt in the mid-'90's. You
guessed it: The ticker was up again, this time rushing to 10,000.
2000's: We stuck with short lengths for a few years, but in 2008 the markets plunged the furthest they've gone since the Great Depression. And fashion is having another nostalgic moment -- nostalgic for the long Bohemian styles of the 70's, and reinventing drapey silhouettes.
Correlation is causation. The theory scientifically holds!When times are good, fashions do indeed show skin,lots of skin, hemlines are short, it's mini-skirt time! When fashions change,to short skirts, times are good! If you are speculating on the stock market, you'd best be buying in recessions when the market,hence the stocks, are low, and affordable,and selling based on skirt length,when skirts are short!Smart market watchers take their cues from watching women's legs.
According to the skirt length theory, when skirts get shorter, it's time to buy; when skirts get longer, it's time to sell. The logic behind this indicator dictates that positive markets lead to a happy nation and an atmosphere of fun. Fun times send hemlines rising, making micro minis great for the markets, while conservative floor-length dresses are bad news.
The newest skirt-length survey, conducted on the Internet from Jan. 21 -- Feb. 12 by Market Strategies International, acknowledged history, asking: "They say that hemlines will go up when the economy improves; if that's true, where do you
think skirt lengths will be this spring?" Possible answers were ankle duster (uncertain times ahead), just below the knee (cautious optimism), above the knee (light at the end of the tunnel) and cheesecake (good news ahead).
In all, 82% fell in the below and above the knee categories, with 14% more pessimistic and 4% going for the cheese. While the results are encouraging -- if you put stock in the theory, that is -- consider that in 2004, 51% of those surveyed predicted above-the-knee skirts, compared to 38% today.So keep a sharp eye on hemlines,and when they're short, laissez les bons temps roullez!!!!!!!!
Secret Squirrel,
M.R.L.,(MP,Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged re-Engineering.
Indeed Squirrel was not, and has not, been the first.In 1926 professor George Taylor from the University of Pennsylvania came up with the hemline index.
Although funny at first – it has proven itself well against the test of time.The hemline index stands for professor Taylor’s observation that hemlines on women’s dresses rise along with stock prices. Or in other words – as the economy gets better women get shorter and shorter skirts – topping with the miniskirt. When the economy gets worse they tend to wear longer skirts.This was also noted with respect to the stock market,the idea that skirt lengths are a predictor of the stock market direction.The key to success in the stock market is simple: buy low and sell high. The hard part is knowing when the market will be low and when it will be high. To address this challenge, Squirrel has come up with metrics that have nothing to do with alpha beta, the Sharpe ratio or any of the other more traditional analytical measures,indeed not, the metrics have to do with the shortness of skirts as worn by females(kilted Scottsmen don't count, as the Scottish kilt is usually unvarying in
its preceived length,but on the other hand the Scottish economy has been also stagnent for centuries).
In the 1960s there was a stock analyst named Ralph Rotnem who was head of research for an old white shoe brokerage house called Harris, Upham & Company. Mr. Rotnem made the Harris Upham (which later merged into Smith Barney) name slightly famous because of his really famous “hemline theory.” Mr. Rotnem had noticed that as hemlines on women’s skirts moved up (or down, according to the season), so too went the Dow Jones Industrials. According to the theory, if skirts are short, it means the markets are going up. And if skirt are long, it means the markets are heading down.The idea behind this theory is that shorter skirts tend to appear in times when general consumer confidence and excitement is high, meaning the markets are bullish. In contrast, the theory says long skirts are worn more in times of fear and general gloom, indicating that things are bearish.So we see,in skirting issues financial, the skirt length affects both the economy in general, and the stock market is applied directly as a tool, to the skirt.
We see that while rising skirt lengths are a symbol of youth, playfulness and women's liberation,are they also related most directly,to any given nation's prosperity.But it is a proveable and direct fact,that skirt hems rose to miniskirt shortness in the 1920s (flappers) and in the 1960s (mods), peaking with stock prices in the US both times.In the 1960s,stock prices were not exactly high,but there certainly wasn't a depressed market, by any means, and the early part of the period is remembered for its economic affluence and high employment rate. The standard of living improved steadily throughout the decade.
The 1960s are thought of as being “swinging” and liberal, with increased consumer confidence and the blossoming of pop culture that spread across the world.So, rising hemlines are an indication of the mood of the times,and reflected in the
stock market. The shortening of skirts shows a general increase in friskiness, excitement and daring among the population, and long skirts are worn in times of fear and general gloom. The stock market changes direction in step with these
expressions of mood. Floor-length fashions appeared in the 1930s and 1970s (the Maxi), and the price of stocks dropped at the same time.
Let's look at the general scientific evidence correlating the length of skirts with the economy and the stock market.........
The high skirts of the 20s were a complete break from centuries where women's dresses and skirts ended somewhere between the ankle and the floor. Not much room for correlation with this Golden Age or that Panic. Sweet Young Things and wannabes during the Roaring Twenties wore knee-length skirts.
1920's: Highest stock prices in the early part of that century. Very short flapper skirts.
Then there is the experience of the Great Depression of the 1930s.The 1930's: The Great Depression began in 1929, bringing the worst economic conditions in American memory. Women wore very conservative ankle-dusting skirts.Floor length fashions were it in the 1930's, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged from 395 to 195 in 1929, and to 40 in 1931. By 1935 hems dropped to a few inches above the ankle: call it the lower calf area. And in the early 1940s hems were back to the lower edge of the knee.
So far, so good for the theory.
Flip to post-World War 2. Wartime skirt lengths came crashing down with Dior's New Look launched in 1947. For the next dozen years or so, skirt hems hovered near mid-calf. During which time we went through at least two economic downturns of note (1949 and 1958) plus Eisenhower's prosperity years.1940's and '50's: This was a post-War economy. Women were still adjusting to our entrance in the workplace; family life restructured. Employment recovered, but the War took a terrible toll on morale -- and therefore on investment. Skirts were tea-length or just higher, hitting the knee.
As the 1958 recession eased, hems did rise in accord with the recovery. Around 1960 came A-line dresses where hems were just below the knee. As 1960s prosperity continued, hems went up. And up and up until the turn of the decade when there were miniskirts, micro-minis and and all sorts of eye-candy. I'm not sure whether this had anything to do with the economy or if it was launched by the invention of pantyhose in the late 60s.1960's: Boomtime. This was a period of enormous growth. The mini skirt debuted in 1965.
1970's: America suffered with the Oil Crisis in '73 and a market crash the following year. Mini skirts were out; the "mod" decade took a breather. Women wore long, flowy skirts and dresses and welcomed the "gas, grass, or ass" Grateful Dead-following drifter years.
1980's: The '80's were a power decade. Shoulder pads for men and women. Women wore power suits with shorter skirts. After the 1987 Black Monday crash hemlines dropped.
1990's: Skirts stayed longish for the first part of the decade, then hiked to retro microminis as the market gained strength. The second half of the '90's saw growth and lots of bare thigh.Madonna helped bring back the miniskirt in the mid-'90's. You
guessed it: The ticker was up again, this time rushing to 10,000.
2000's: We stuck with short lengths for a few years, but in 2008 the markets plunged the furthest they've gone since the Great Depression. And fashion is having another nostalgic moment -- nostalgic for the long Bohemian styles of the 70's, and reinventing drapey silhouettes.
Correlation is causation. The theory scientifically holds!When times are good, fashions do indeed show skin,lots of skin, hemlines are short, it's mini-skirt time! When fashions change,to short skirts, times are good! If you are speculating on the stock market, you'd best be buying in recessions when the market,hence the stocks, are low, and affordable,and selling based on skirt length,when skirts are short!Smart market watchers take their cues from watching women's legs.
According to the skirt length theory, when skirts get shorter, it's time to buy; when skirts get longer, it's time to sell. The logic behind this indicator dictates that positive markets lead to a happy nation and an atmosphere of fun. Fun times send hemlines rising, making micro minis great for the markets, while conservative floor-length dresses are bad news.
The newest skirt-length survey, conducted on the Internet from Jan. 21 -- Feb. 12 by Market Strategies International, acknowledged history, asking: "They say that hemlines will go up when the economy improves; if that's true, where do you
think skirt lengths will be this spring?" Possible answers were ankle duster (uncertain times ahead), just below the knee (cautious optimism), above the knee (light at the end of the tunnel) and cheesecake (good news ahead).
In all, 82% fell in the below and above the knee categories, with 14% more pessimistic and 4% going for the cheese. While the results are encouraging -- if you put stock in the theory, that is -- consider that in 2004, 51% of those surveyed predicted above-the-knee skirts, compared to 38% today.So keep a sharp eye on hemlines,and when they're short, laissez les bons temps roullez!!!!!!!!
Secret Squirrel,
M.R.L.,(MP,Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged re-Engineering.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Secret Squirrel Suggests America Form A National Guard To Assist In Times Of Disaster.
Secret Squirrel has turned his attention to America,extends a helping hand, lends his mental acumin,and intelligence, his thoughts,his ponderings, notices that across the Great Puddle,across the Great Pond, there are severe problems in America.Americans are suffering from increasing National Disasters, massive devastating disasters, and Squirrel sees that they have little help beyond themselves, and those around them.Squirrel sees this as being just not right,there should be assistance,organized assistance,for the people, for the America citizen,a States National Guard to assist the American people, the American citizen,in times of vicious devastating disasters.Squirrel sees an America that staggers from one
disaster to the other...at least it's people do....not that it seems that the government cares, it's President off in Europe and things on high profile luncheons, tying on the feed bag,hob knobbing with Royalty, with the creme de la creme of Europe,the Peers of The British Empire, dining,dancing the nights away ,tripping to the light fantastic of what is and are European parties, having a good time.
Meanwhile in America there is thundering,blundering,and it's certainly louder than before, gets so each time that there's a disaster of some sort,any sort,and it's Federal government,giving what little help it does,that looks like some kind of big
bassoon.Indeed Americans suffer from hurricanes,floods,massive forest fires, tornadoes, and they., the people of America,the tax payer, they, the American citizen,are left gazing at a vast field of ruins,debris,shattered lives.....there's no real help for them,for they,for you, you the people of America, you the America citizen, who paid and pays the taxes, to provide for the entity that they created,supposdely to help Americas ,American citizens, that missing entity called, The National Guard,no,the American people,you, they ,have to help themselves.............there's no help form the federal government, none from the state.Where's the National Guard? Don't see any"?Where have they gone? Hmmmmm whatever has happened?The National Guard,THEY,used to be there, helping the people, it was their job.But nowadays, we've noticably seen,there are
none.Indeed,disaster after disaster, in State after State,event after event, there is no National Guard.Where are the hundreds, the thousands,of State National Guard?
There just is nobody to help the people, at least cleanup some,to find,dig out the living,find the dead, help the people receive medical attention, food, shelter, but sees no organization beyond themselves. Years back there were some, I,Secret
Squirrel, remember, yes, there were,yes, it was called The National Guard,I,Squirrel, remember.It did exist. And they did help,greatly help, they'd help digging people out, finding people, gathering them,sheltering them and arranging shelters,
helping them find food and such places as to where they could find food, and shelter, and help them clean up, bring in emergency services, medical aid etc etc etc,I know,we saw them, in massive numbers,the National Guard, helping the American people as they were supposed to do,helping, bringing and keeping civil order as well, in times of crisis,disasters, but,sadly, it's come to this, there's none, no one,none anymore.
Well, It was a grand idea, a grand organized well working plan. Indeed we must look back at what was, and,taking a lesson from the past,I Squirrel suggest,that America,the individual States of America actually form a National Guard, separate if
needs be from the obviously disorganized Federal government(all they're good at is obviously going on foreign vacations, and official luncheons and dinners,visits and tour thither and yon, and visits for Government officials of all sorts.Well most
definitely America is out of sorts, and the people suffer. The States themselves, must form their own National Guard,once more, a National Guard to help the people as they did, in their days, and months, and time, of national state disasters.the
hurricanes, the floods, the tornadoes, the massive forest fires etc etc etc etc.......yes indeed this must be done.Consider! Isn't that a great idea, isn't it a good idea, isn't it the best idea?It is indeed, to me, to you....but we must approach the State Governors, the working State Government, to improve the State of Americans, bring them out of the state of confusion and disorganization, by and through an effect National Guard,a real National Guard, great for use in times of emergencies in America, a guard to serve,protect, assist the people of America! Indeed yes, the individual American States must form a National Guard.....and as was in the past, problem,emergencies etc etc etc effectively,efficiently solved!!!!!
Indeed Squirrel discovered, in his researches that there was, or is supposed to be a National Guard most definitely in existence,but seemingly presently misplaced.Indeed under the Government of The People of The United States,presently regulated and ruled by, and directed by ,one President, one Barack Obama,there was or is supposed to be what is described as being The National Guard of the United States which is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States. Militia members are citizen soldiers, meaning they work part time for the National Guard and hold a civilian job as well.Established under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code, state National Guard serves as part of the first-line defense for the United States. The state National Guard is divided into units stationed in each of the 50 states and US territories, and operates under their respective state governor or territorial adjutant general. The National Guard may be called up for active duty by state
governors or territorial adjutant general to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.
One discovers even yet there is a National Guard remnant site on the internet, and it states to the effect that "Missouri National Guard Soldiers with the 117th Engineer Team Missouri Guard activates after weekend storms." Well there were actually horrific storms,vicious tornadoes,tornado after tornado, striking towns etc et all,mercilessly, leaving scenes of devastation reminiscent of the atom bomb, fragments of trees sticking up here and there, even yet the bark stripped
off,that's all there is to see except for rubbish and litter knee deep on the ground.....remains of house and buildings,that's all folks.But where are these hundreds of National Guard,where are the thousands of National Guard,one
doesn't seem to see any,oh bless us all, send even a paltry few to help, something in a uniform, anything will do, something must do,do help.But why aren't they seen in numbers they used to be seen, there in numbers helping the people of America?Why they're just not even yet noticeable.They seem to be present on paper, somewhere's,but not noticeably or seemingly in America.Where are they?
There is also a direct American military, an army as it were, which seem to be in barracks and bases round and about the country, sitting powerfully, doing whatever it is they do as they sit there powerfully.These seem unable,or useless, to help
in National disasters.They are an army of some kind, used in foreign wars, invading foreign nations, defending Americans from invasions by doing all that but nothing else. We did notice some in New Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina emergency, but they didn't seem to do what the National Guard used to do,they most certainly didn't do what the National Guard was supposed to do and does, no indeed,the National Guard General went about directing rescue and relief efforts, alleviating the disaster situation, but the Army General just went round and about kissing babies.The rest of his Army,well, they just boated about, stood on street corners, and handed out water bottles here and there,but only if the people would leave New Orleans.Clearly there is a problem, American and Americans are in crisis,but Squirrel sees a cure to the problems, an assistance, aid,help for Americans,self help for Americans, through the revival of an idea, the idea of a cure,the formation in each State in the Union, the formation of a STATE National Guard, The National Guard,to assist America,Americans,the American citizen, in times of national disaster.This force could be mobile to assist other neighbouring states in their times of crisis in times of their disasters.Indeed, Americans helping Americans.Do it Barack Obama,do the right thing Barack Obama, help the American people Barack Obama.Form in each State, a State National Guard,to help Americans in time of disaster,when you return from your European Royal tours.Do it Barack Obama, I, Squirrel am telling you,I, Squirrel guarantee, it will work.
disaster to the other...at least it's people do....not that it seems that the government cares, it's President off in Europe and things on high profile luncheons, tying on the feed bag,hob knobbing with Royalty, with the creme de la creme of Europe,the Peers of The British Empire, dining,dancing the nights away ,tripping to the light fantastic of what is and are European parties, having a good time.
Meanwhile in America there is thundering,blundering,and it's certainly louder than before, gets so each time that there's a disaster of some sort,any sort,and it's Federal government,giving what little help it does,that looks like some kind of big
bassoon.Indeed Americans suffer from hurricanes,floods,massive forest fires, tornadoes, and they., the people of America,the tax payer, they, the American citizen,are left gazing at a vast field of ruins,debris,shattered lives.....there's no real help for them,for they,for you, you the people of America, you the America citizen, who paid and pays the taxes, to provide for the entity that they created,supposdely to help Americas ,American citizens, that missing entity called, The National Guard,no,the American people,you, they ,have to help themselves.............there's no help form the federal government, none from the state.Where's the National Guard? Don't see any"?Where have they gone? Hmmmmm whatever has happened?The National Guard,THEY,used to be there, helping the people, it was their job.But nowadays, we've noticably seen,there are
none.Indeed,disaster after disaster, in State after State,event after event, there is no National Guard.Where are the hundreds, the thousands,of State National Guard?
There just is nobody to help the people, at least cleanup some,to find,dig out the living,find the dead, help the people receive medical attention, food, shelter, but sees no organization beyond themselves. Years back there were some, I,Secret
Squirrel, remember, yes, there were,yes, it was called The National Guard,I,Squirrel, remember.It did exist. And they did help,greatly help, they'd help digging people out, finding people, gathering them,sheltering them and arranging shelters,
helping them find food and such places as to where they could find food, and shelter, and help them clean up, bring in emergency services, medical aid etc etc etc,I know,we saw them, in massive numbers,the National Guard, helping the American people as they were supposed to do,helping, bringing and keeping civil order as well, in times of crisis,disasters, but,sadly, it's come to this, there's none, no one,none anymore.
Well, It was a grand idea, a grand organized well working plan. Indeed we must look back at what was, and,taking a lesson from the past,I Squirrel suggest,that America,the individual States of America actually form a National Guard, separate if
needs be from the obviously disorganized Federal government(all they're good at is obviously going on foreign vacations, and official luncheons and dinners,visits and tour thither and yon, and visits for Government officials of all sorts.Well most
definitely America is out of sorts, and the people suffer. The States themselves, must form their own National Guard,once more, a National Guard to help the people as they did, in their days, and months, and time, of national state disasters.the
hurricanes, the floods, the tornadoes, the massive forest fires etc etc etc etc.......yes indeed this must be done.Consider! Isn't that a great idea, isn't it a good idea, isn't it the best idea?It is indeed, to me, to you....but we must approach the State Governors, the working State Government, to improve the State of Americans, bring them out of the state of confusion and disorganization, by and through an effect National Guard,a real National Guard, great for use in times of emergencies in America, a guard to serve,protect, assist the people of America! Indeed yes, the individual American States must form a National Guard.....and as was in the past, problem,emergencies etc etc etc effectively,efficiently solved!!!!!
Indeed Squirrel discovered, in his researches that there was, or is supposed to be a National Guard most definitely in existence,but seemingly presently misplaced.Indeed under the Government of The People of The United States,presently regulated and ruled by, and directed by ,one President, one Barack Obama,there was or is supposed to be what is described as being The National Guard of the United States which is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States. Militia members are citizen soldiers, meaning they work part time for the National Guard and hold a civilian job as well.Established under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code, state National Guard serves as part of the first-line defense for the United States. The state National Guard is divided into units stationed in each of the 50 states and US territories, and operates under their respective state governor or territorial adjutant general. The National Guard may be called up for active duty by state
governors or territorial adjutant general to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.
One discovers even yet there is a National Guard remnant site on the internet, and it states to the effect that "Missouri National Guard Soldiers with the 117th Engineer Team Missouri Guard activates after weekend storms." Well there were actually horrific storms,vicious tornadoes,tornado after tornado, striking towns etc et all,mercilessly, leaving scenes of devastation reminiscent of the atom bomb, fragments of trees sticking up here and there, even yet the bark stripped
off,that's all there is to see except for rubbish and litter knee deep on the ground.....remains of house and buildings,that's all folks.But where are these hundreds of National Guard,where are the thousands of National Guard,one
doesn't seem to see any,oh bless us all, send even a paltry few to help, something in a uniform, anything will do, something must do,do help.But why aren't they seen in numbers they used to be seen, there in numbers helping the people of America?Why they're just not even yet noticeable.They seem to be present on paper, somewhere's,but not noticeably or seemingly in America.Where are they?
There is also a direct American military, an army as it were, which seem to be in barracks and bases round and about the country, sitting powerfully, doing whatever it is they do as they sit there powerfully.These seem unable,or useless, to help
in National disasters.They are an army of some kind, used in foreign wars, invading foreign nations, defending Americans from invasions by doing all that but nothing else. We did notice some in New Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina emergency, but they didn't seem to do what the National Guard used to do,they most certainly didn't do what the National Guard was supposed to do and does, no indeed,the National Guard General went about directing rescue and relief efforts, alleviating the disaster situation, but the Army General just went round and about kissing babies.The rest of his Army,well, they just boated about, stood on street corners, and handed out water bottles here and there,but only if the people would leave New Orleans.Clearly there is a problem, American and Americans are in crisis,but Squirrel sees a cure to the problems, an assistance, aid,help for Americans,self help for Americans, through the revival of an idea, the idea of a cure,the formation in each State in the Union, the formation of a STATE National Guard, The National Guard,to assist America,Americans,the American citizen, in times of national disaster.This force could be mobile to assist other neighbouring states in their times of crisis in times of their disasters.Indeed, Americans helping Americans.Do it Barack Obama,do the right thing Barack Obama, help the American people Barack Obama.Form in each State, a State National Guard,to help Americans in time of disaster,when you return from your European Royal tours.Do it Barack Obama, I, Squirrel am telling you,I, Squirrel guarantee, it will work.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Secret Squirrel On Questions of Arctic Sovereignty And The Northwest Passage.
Secret Squirrel here turns his attention to events transpiring, and involving,the ever unthawing,ever warming,frozen polar north, the arctic specifically, which according to the events of the day went unwanted when it was cold,barren,frozen,to use an expression, colder than a whore's heart.Frozen over, heaps and heaps of snow on it, cold, blowing, utterly inhospitable,uninhabitable, home only those who would brave its climate in efforts to escape,unnoticed,from the world of bad actors.Indeed t'is the land nobody wants, or rather nobody wanted. You see now that there is global warming,things are heating up, the place is unthawing, the frozen over oceans opening up, allowing for the emergence of a NorthWest Passage to,well,China, as that's what they all were originally looking for up there.Well, it's been found, and what with global warming, it's become useable.Also emergent is the Russian NorthEast passage,presently being used more times than a whore's passage. Also as the lands unthaw and there are thoughts of the lands, and the seas,above and below, being searched ,for, minerals,gas,and oil as well.No less than five of them, count'em, five ,specifically,Denmark,the United
States,Norway,Russia,and Canada,are intent on garnering the most they can in an Arctic land grab,never mind the hundreds and hundreds of miles to the pole they are actually away from.
Firstly,since we'll go in listed order here, of no import otherwise,we'll consider the claims of Denmark.The foundation of Danish rule was laid by a mission at Godthab (now Nuuk),Greenland) in 1721 by a Norwegian missionary, Hans Egede.In Greenland. In the 19th century Greenland was explored and mapped by numerous explorers and navigators.The United States relinquished its claim to land in northern Greenland, based on the explorations of the American explorer Robert Edwin
Peary,(1886) when it purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917.It seems America had a habit of claiming to own anything an American happened to visit and explore, no doubt he reason so many American tourists are despised and have such
troubles whenever they visit anywhere in the world nowadays. In May 1921, Denmark declared the entire island of Greenland to be Danish territory, causing a dispute with Norway over hunting and fishing rights. In 1931 a strip of land on the east coast was claimed by some Norwegian hunters, whose action was later recognized by the Norwegian government. The occupation was invalidated by the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague in 1933.So...........Greenland belongs to and is part of......Denmark.So too then,the continental shelf and whatever is so many miles from it's shores.Denmark also claims Hans Island,in further attempts to exert and extend it's land grab,and so too does Canada,though the Denmarkians seem to be in a better position with regards to the name of the place,Viva la Isla de Hans libre!!! Hans is not Canadian! is the Danish rallying war cry,even yet forming The Hans Island Liberation Frontehurling defy in the face of the Canadians and their Prime Ministers. So Denmark has a firm stake in The Arctic,and firmly wishes to shove it in to the Canadian heart.
The United States also has a firm stake to wield in The Arctic.America is in with Alaska.The name "Alaska" was used by the Russians to refer only to the peninsula. This name was used by the United States to refer, first to the entire territory, and
then, to the State after its purchase in 1867.The name "Alaska" is taken from the Aleut word "aláxsxaq" that refers to an object to which the sea is directed, in this case the Alaska peninsula and mainland. This is sometimes loosely translated as
"great land."On March 30, 1867, the United States agreed to purchase Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million dollars, about two cents an acre; "Seward's Folly" many called it, after Secretary of State William H. Seward.Other satirical names were
"Icebergia," "Polaria," and "Walrussia." Critics of the purchase also chastised the President of the United State, Andrew Johnson, by referring to the Alaska territory as "Johnson's Polar Bear Garden." A check for $7,200,000.00 was issued on
August 1, 1868 and made payable to Edouard de Stoeckl, the Russian Minister to the United States.(Just as well this was done back then, as nowadays, the check might well have bounced).On January 3, 1959,Alaska, with a land mass larger than Texas, California and Montana combined, became the 49th state in the union.America is in it for a piece of,or in it's entirety as they all are,the North Pole, and the rocks,minerals,oil and gas. And a touch more, further on amplified,access to,The Northwest Passage.
Norway has a stake in The Arctic, as an extension of it's continental shelf,claims to oil,gas,rocks,minerals etc ,and the North Pole, and by virtue of the claims of many of it's explorers wandering about the Arctic in and after the fashion of the American Peary.Notable is Roald Amundsen who made many trips to the Arctic regions,poles etc, starting 1897 onwards(this trip was with Belgians),flew over and visited the North Pole,and he even yet on another trip reached Nome,Alaska,making a crossing of the Northwest Passage.For some reason they were forever looking for a route to China.So we have ROALD AMUNDSEN: The Northwest Passage,First Navigation by Ship 1905: In mid August, Amundsen sailed from Gjøahaven (today: Gjoa Haven, Nunavut) in the vessel Gjøa,east to west. On August 26 they encountered a ship bearing down on them from the west, and with that they were through the passage.
Russia has,of course, it's own Arctic reaches, and also, a working,what with the effects of global warming,NorthEast Passage,and as an extension of it's continental shelf, claims to gas,oil,rocks,and minerals, and the North Pole.Unlike the
Northwest Passage,the passage is considerably much easier,and the Soviets wish to employ the route as a shortcut from Asia to Europe and vice versa.Now the question of the Soviet NorthEast passage arises in equity ,does it not,it's opening,the NorthEast passage is opening up, as receding ice melts,revealing an elusive trade route from Asia to the West sought after for centuries by explorers.The Russians are exerting control over it,as when the United States dispatched icebreakers to Proliv Vil'kitskogo (Vil'kitskii Strait),the shallow, ice-choked strait, named after Russian explorer Boris Vilkitsky who mapped it in 1913.Now it separates the Kara Sea from the Laptev Sea about halfway along the Siberian coastline,and there is only 11 miles between transited and navigable islands in places. In 1967, the Soviet Union did not allow the American vessels to accomplish the passage, basing their refusal on a requirement, provided for in municipal legislation, that warships seek prior authorization. During the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973–82) the USSR reversed this policy: innocent passage was granted in principle to merchant and war vessels alike.The Northeast passage if freely used by international shipping, moving goods by vessel from say, Asia, Japan,Korea or whatever, across the top of the
Soviet Union between any islands as it were, and thence to Europe, Britain,the Scandinavian countries as it were...so then too should Canada not allow the same, under the same rules and regulations and agreements?Russia presently regulates vessel movements, and rents out,then, it's icebreakers to accompany(this may not be required as the ice opens ups further).Russia hopes to make the Arctic route a competitor to the Suez Canal and increase cargo traffic along its Siberian coast from two million tonnes a year now to 30 million tonnes — profiting off taxes and the lease of its unique fleet of nuclear ice breakers,thinking economically.But mariners admit many obstacles remain before Russia's shipping route might steal business from established southern thoroughfares — not least because of a summer that lasts just a few weeks.Sovcomflot said it must find new deep-water routes to steer heavy tankers through the perilous coastal waters and contend
with free-floating icebergs that make the route hard to time and unreliable.
“The summer in Arctic waters lasts 2-2.5 months. It's winter the rest of the time,” chief engineer Boris Abakhov told NTV, bundled in a parka and wool hat aboard the mighty ice-breaker Rossiya.This route is viable, Europe to Asia,and Asia to Europe.No problems there really,just definitions of management of the route.
Now we come to Canada.Canada, of course,as an extension of it's continental shelf claims rocks,mineral,oil,gas, but seems to have no designs on the North Pole.It does and doesn't wish a Northwest Passage, it wishes control over the Northwest
passage,and there the major clash is with the Americans.Let's look first at the history of Canada, the youngest of the Arctic players,and the most confused as to existence in the first place, and claims on the Arctic in the second place. With respect to Canada as is, there was Canada as was, when England owned and ruled Canada as a colony,Canada was not a separate entity,until England performed an act of separation, therefor all conditions with respect to the arctic islands etc that
Canada presently claim, have no relevancy beyond a wish things were so, with respect not so much to territorial but to things such as right of passage,internationally in said area...there is that to be considered, the events that made things international with respect to passage, right of exploration, cliams of rights of passage even yet due to exploration.....there we have Russia,Norway,Sweden,Great Britain(which being done for Britain would thence encompass
Scotland,Ireland,Northern Ireland,and Wales),Denmark.Sweden actually completed the first passage through the Northeast passage, which throws a wrench in to the Russian works somewhat,Norwegian Otto Sverdrup discovered islands in the Canadian Arctic - which he claimed for Norway and then sold back to Canada.........so still there remains an exploratory right of
passage,not the same as a territorial right acquired by Canada with the acquisition sale, which I point out was made, as in sale, acknowledgement by that act that said islands and territory did indeed not belong to Canada territorially at that time.Britain itself only gave the arctic territories to Canada in the nineteenth century,(1800's).At 1867,Confederation itself, the northern territory areas and islands, were, in fact, known as Rupert's Land, and belonged to,still, Britain,as well as Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island(noticeably and worthy of note, at that time, Quebec actually included half of Labrador as it is today).as the map here shows historically
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/New%20Canada%20Guide/content/early/1867.gif
Rupert's Land was given to Canada in 1870,which in fact had belonged, privately, to the Hudson's Bay Company........BUT the so called Arctic Islands still, at that time, belonged to Britain,note the map here,
http://www.edmaps.com/canada_1870.gif
and note also Quebec has grown,and encompasses almost all of what is Labrador,with only a tiny strip portion belonging to the British possession of NewFoundland(note also British Columbia is just that, still British).(Strangely, view the map again, Britain gave present Labrador to NewFoundland in 1927...curiouser and curiouser, whatever happened there?).Canada's acquisition of the arctic islands,the ones remaining, the Northwest Passage islands, took place circa 1882.Now let's look at the politics involved with respect to Canada claiming the Northwest Passage and full control over the same.
Under international law, no country currently owns the North Pole or the region of the Arctic Ocean surrounding it.Documents obtained by the Danish media in mid-2011 revealed that by 2014 Denmark intends to submit a formal claim for sovereignty over the North Pole to the United Nations, The five surrounding Arctic states, Russia, the United States, Canada, Norway and Denmark (via Greenland), are limited to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) adjacent to their coasts.The status of certain portions of the Arctic sea region are in dispute for various reasons. Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States all regard parts of the Arctic seas as "national waters" (territorial waters out to 12 nautical miles) or "internal waters". There also are disputes regarding what passages constitute "international seaways" and rights to passage along them (Northwest Passage).Upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a country has a ten year period to make claims to an extended continental shelf which, if validated, gives it exclusive rights to resources on or below the seabed of that extended shelf area. Due to this, Norway , Russia, Canada and Denmark launched projects to provide a basis for seabed claims on extended continental shelves beyond their exclusive economic zones. The United States has signed, but not yet ratified this treaty. In 1925, based upon the Sector Principle, Canada became the first country to extend its maritime boundaries northward to the North Pole, at least on paper, between 60°W and 141°W longitude, a claim that is not universally recognized (there are in fact 415 nmi (769 km; 478 mi) nautical miles of ocean between the Pole and Canada's northernmost land point). In 1926 Russia fixed its claim in Soviet law (32°04'35"E to 168°49'30"W). Norway (5°E to 35°E) made similar sector claims — as did the United States (170°W to 141°W), but that sector contained only a few islands so the claim was not pressed. Denmark's sovereignty over all of Greenland was recognized by the United States in 1916 and by an international court in 1933. Denmark could also conceivably claim an Arctic sector (60°W to 10°W).In addition, Canada claims the water within the Canadian Arctic Archipelago as its own internal waters.
The United States is one of the countries which does not recognize Canada's, or any other countries', Arctic water claims, and has allegedly sent nuclear submarines under the ice near Canadian islands without requesting permission.The dispute involves, rights of passage on free and open waters,oil and gas on ocean floor beds etc, involving, Canada,Russia,Iceland,Denmark,and the United States(Alaska).One recalls one Xaviera Hollander,and we find the NorthWest Passage to be as popular as hers in her day.
Let's look further at Canada's claims and problems it has been having with it's claim.The Canadian government claims that some of the waters of the Northwest Passage, particularly those in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, are internal to Canada, giving Canada the right to bar transit through these waters. Most maritime nations,including the United States and the nations of the European Union, consider them to be an international strait, where foreign vessels have the right of "transit passage".In such a régime, Canada would have the right to enact fishing and environmental regulation, and fiscal and smuggling laws, as well as laws intended for the safety of shipping, but not the right to close the passage. If the passage’s deep waters become completely ice-free in summer months, they would be particularly enticing for massive supertankers that are forced to plow around the tip of South America because they are too big to pass through the Panama Canal.In 1985, the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea passed through from Greenland to Alaska; the ship submitted to inspection by the Canadian Coast Guard before passing through, but the event infuriated the Canadian public and resulted in a diplomatic incident. The United States government, when asked by a Canadian reporter, indicated that they did not ask for permission as they were not legally required to. The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming
Canadian rights to the waters. However, the United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In 1988 the governments of Canada and the U.S. signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation", that resolved the practical issue without solving the sovereignty questions. Under the law of the sea, ships engaged in transit passage are not permitted to engage in research. The agreement states that all US Coast Guard vessels are engaged in research, and so would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through.
In late 2005, it was alleged that U.S. nuclear submarines had travelled unannounced through Canadian Arctic waters, sparking outrage in Canada. In his first news conference after the 2006 federal election, Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper contested an earlier statement made by the U.S. ambassador that Arctic waters were international, stating the Canadian government's intention to enforce its sovereignty there. The allegations arose after the U.S. Navy released photographs of the USS Charlotte surfaced at the North Pole.
On April 9, 2006, Canada's Joint Task Force North declared that the Canadian military will no longer refer to the region as the Northwest Passage, but as the Canadian Internal Waters.The declaration came after the successful completion of Operation Nunalivut (Inuktitut for "the land is ours"), which was an expedition into the region by five military patrols.
In 2006 a report prepared by the staff of the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of Canada suggested that because of the September 11 attacks the United States might be less interested in pursuing the international waterways claim in the interests of having a more secure North American perimeter.This report was based on an earlier paper, The Northwest Passage Shipping Channel: Is Canada’s Sovereignty Really Floating Away? by Andrea Charron, given to the 2004 Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute Symposium.Later in 2006 former United States Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci agreed with this position; however, the succeeding ambassador, David Wilkins, stated that the Northwest Passage was in international waters.
On July 9, 2007, Prime Minister Harper announced the establishment of a deep-water port in the far North. In the government press release the Prime Minister is quoted as saying, “Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic. We either use it or lose it. And make no mistake, this Government intends to use it. Because Canada’s Arctic is central to our national identity as a northern nation. It is part of our history. And it represents the tremendous potential of our future."
On July 10, 2007, Rear Admiral Timothy McGee of the United States Navy, and Rear Admiral Brian Salerno of the United States Coast Guard announced that the United States would also be increasing its ability to patrol the Arctic.
Law of The Sea.......
Internal waters
Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage within internal waters.This means between islands, up to 24miles between them or the island and the base shore.
Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage
of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not “innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.There is a further 12 miles added to that for military control.
The United States has not ratified the Law of The Sea, they and nations such as Columbia,Thailand,Laos,Cambodia,North Korea,Afghanistan, and 6 other minor African nationsRatification is the approval of the principal of an act of its agent
where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal. Countries that have not signed — (16 of them)Andorra, Azerbaijan, Ecuador, Eritrea, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, San Marino, Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela and the states with limited recognition.Countries that have signed, but not yet ratified — (18 of them)Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Libya, Liechtenstein, Niger, Rwanda, Swaziland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United States.Canada and the US are also engaged in a dispute over the future of the Northwest Passage, the partially frozen waterway that links the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
The US says it regards it as an international strait but Mr Harper has vociferously defended the passage as Canadian territory.The Canadian government considers the Northwestern Passages part of Canadian Internal Waters, but the United States
and various European countries maintain they are an international strait or transit passage, allowing free and unencumbered passage.Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in1903–1906.The Canadian government claims that some of the waters of the Northwest Passage, particularly those in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, are internal to Canada, giving Canada the right to bar transit through these waters. Most maritime
nations, including the United States and the nations of the European Union, consider them to be an international strait,where foreign vessels have the right of "transit passage".In such a régime, Canada would have the right to enact fishing and
environmental regulation, and fiscal and smuggling laws, as well as laws intended for the safety of shipping, but not the right to close the passage. If the passage’s deep waters become completely ice-free in summer months, they would be particularly enticing for massive supertankers that are forced to plow around the tip of South America because they are too big to pass through the Panama Canal.The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters. However, the United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In 1988 the governments of Canada and the U.S. signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation", that resolved the practical issue without solving the sovereignty questions. Under the law of the sea, ships engaged in transit passage are not permitted to engage in research. The agreement states that all
US Coast Guard vessels are engaged in research, and so would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through,here we can see a map of things,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Northwest_passage.jpg
Presently the Northwest Passage is as International as Marilyn Chambers'.
Let's now turn our attention to other areas of the world where vessels of commerce, and others, freely pass,areas both between sea bordering nations, and also through nations,as in straits, or even yet archipelago crossings between nations islands.
First example, let's look at Turkey's Bosphorous,(Istanbul Strait,and the border between Europe and Asia),it connects the Black Sea with the Sea of Marmara,which is connected by the Dardanelles to the Aegean Sea, and thereby to the Mediterranean Sea, Free passage to trading vessels of all countries.......warships can be restricted.Turkey is interesting as the strait area is entirely within Turkey.
Second example,the Panama canal,a canal artificially constructed, with a system of locks,allows for passage between the Atlantic area in the Carribbean, and the Pacific Ocean,constructed in and through the single nation of Panama. The canal,as built,would be permanently neutralized (as would any other international waterway later constructed wholly or partly in Panamanian territory), with the object of securing it for peaceful transit in time of peace or of war for vessels
of all nations on equal terms (arts. 1, 2). The right of passage extends not only to merchant ships but to vessels of war and auxiliary vessels in noncommercial service of all nations "at all times," irrespective of their internal operations, means of propulsion, origin, destination, or armament.Similarly there is the Suez canal,which has no locks, but was artificially constructed,in and through, Egpyt, and has the right of passage of all ships through the Suez Canal,as long as the do their
paperwork and pay the tariff,in short, it still has a private nature to it, and CAN restrict access to and through with respect to nations, and also military vessels,though Egypt does not have the tendency to do this,
Now let's look at the International Strait of gibraltar,a strait running in part between Morocco and Spain, but also between and in Spain, through it's extended territory of Ceuta.Straits used for international navigation through the territorial sea between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone are subject to the legal regime of transit passage (Strait of Gibraltar, Dover Strait, Strait of Hormuz). The regime of innocent passage applies in straits used for international navigation (1) that connect a part of high seas or an exclusive economic zone with the territorial sea of coastal nation (Strait of Tiran, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Baltiysk) and (2) in straits formed by an island of a state bordering the strait and its mainland if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an
exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics (Strait of Messina, Pentland Firth). There may be no suspension of innocent passage through such straits.So too thence passage
concerning and between Alaska and Russia and also under the same rules of governance for foreign warships as decided. BUT as to commercial venture passage, there the rules and regs must thence be the same for all, as with respect to international right of passage.BUT here, wiht respect to the Bosphorous,or Suez,there may thence be a fee levied by Canada, on agreement, in equity with respect to such as the Bhopsorous in equity, or, as with the Strait of Gibraltar, free and open to all..........feeless as it were.
There are other passage rights which can be applied, as in Archipelagic Sea Lanes Passage,The right of transit by ships and aircraft(hasn't been considered has it, but applicable) through Archipelagos, such as the Philippines and Indonesia,Seychelles,the Greek islands.here are fragments of the Lwas concernig the Archipelagic Sea Lane Passages,as points of information.
2) Subject to subsection (5), the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage shall be exercised only through sea lanes or air routes designated pursuant to section 19.
a) Freedom of navigation; and
(b) Freedom of overflight.
16. (1) Without prejudice to any other written law but subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4), foreign ships shall enjoy the
right of innocent passage through the territorial sea and archipelagic waters.
Article 53
Right of archipelagic sea lanes passage
1. An archipelagic State may designate sea lanes and air routes thereabove, suitable for the continuous and expeditious
passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea.
2. All ships and aircraft enjoy the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea lanes and air routes.
3. Archipelagic sea lanes passage means the exercise in accordance with this Convention of the rights of navigation and overflight in the normal mode solely for the purpose of continuous, expeditious and unobstructed transit between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.
4. Such sea lanes and air routes shall traverse the archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea and shall include all normal passage routes used as routes for international navigation or overflight through or over archipelagic waters and,
within such routes, so far as ships are concerned, all normal navigational channels, provided that duplication of routes of similar convenience between the same entry and exit points shall not be necessary.
Article 52
Right of innocent passage
1. Subject to Article 53 and without prejudice to article 50 , ships of all States enjoy the right of innocent passage
through archipelagic waters, in accordance with Part II, section 3.
2. The archipelagic State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its archipelagic waters the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.
In short,now as the ice is melting, an economic Northwest Passage has ensued, passing between the Canadian islands in the North, emphasis on the Canadian,politics aside.The maximum distance between any such traveresed island straits is small in size, in short much less than 12 miles from any and either(24 between), and greatly less than a military control extended zone of a further 12 miles(then being 48 miles between).In short transit is then between Canadian Islands,but the transit IS archipelagic,and it is this,and the Americans,which are turning Canada into a quadrapelegic internationally but simply ignoring things and sending their submarines whilly nilly in and through and under Canada's arctic as it were. Now if Canada wishes to use other international passages,for it's naval civilian commerce, and any military transit for it's naval warships,in equality and equity,Canada, and it's present Prime Minister,must allow and acknowledge international passage through and using the Northwest Passage,in and after the same fashion following the same rules and guidelines as do the other strait,archipelagic,or passage owning nations...however, it can and should thnec have the equal ability to restrict passage to any foreign warships as it wishes.The Americans have chosen to ignore the Canadian claims, and have violated time after
time the Canadian territorial rights in the north,which for some reason the Canadians have failed to have established similar in nature to those other archipelagic nations such as The Phillipines,Seychelles,Greece,Indonesia et all.
Canada can claim that if there MUST be a passage in between it's island, of an international nature, subject to rules of allowance for warships as may or may not be arranged, thence also a similar one must exist for the Russian area as well,governed by the same rules and regulations with respect to the right of passage, or not, of all foreign warships and under which conditions,as are pre defined.
However, the contested sovereignty claims over the waters may complicate future shipping through the region: The Canadian government considers the Northwestern Passages part of Canadian Internal Waters, but the United States and various European countries maintain they are an international strait or transit passage, allowing free and unencumbered passage in the outright.Canada must have the exact same control which the Russians exact over the Northeastpassage,Heidi Fleiss allowed people to rent a passage, if the Soviets rent, then the Canadians must be allowed in equity to rent their passages as well.
The Americans have been careful to respect Russian Sovereignty , and Russia's rule over it's arctic, with respect to transits of the Russian Northeast Passage, and with respect to it's military vessels infringing on Russian Sovereignty , but with respect to Canada, America shows only utter contempt,disrespect,discourtesy,incivility.In short, Canada is being treated differently with respect to other nations of the world,there is maritime inequality,inequity, iniquity for some reason,not only from the Americans, but from other nations as well. and this must be reversed.
States,Norway,Russia,and Canada,are intent on garnering the most they can in an Arctic land grab,never mind the hundreds and hundreds of miles to the pole they are actually away from.
Firstly,since we'll go in listed order here, of no import otherwise,we'll consider the claims of Denmark.The foundation of Danish rule was laid by a mission at Godthab (now Nuuk),Greenland) in 1721 by a Norwegian missionary, Hans Egede.In Greenland. In the 19th century Greenland was explored and mapped by numerous explorers and navigators.The United States relinquished its claim to land in northern Greenland, based on the explorations of the American explorer Robert Edwin
Peary,(1886) when it purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917.It seems America had a habit of claiming to own anything an American happened to visit and explore, no doubt he reason so many American tourists are despised and have such
troubles whenever they visit anywhere in the world nowadays. In May 1921, Denmark declared the entire island of Greenland to be Danish territory, causing a dispute with Norway over hunting and fishing rights. In 1931 a strip of land on the east coast was claimed by some Norwegian hunters, whose action was later recognized by the Norwegian government. The occupation was invalidated by the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague in 1933.So...........Greenland belongs to and is part of......Denmark.So too then,the continental shelf and whatever is so many miles from it's shores.Denmark also claims Hans Island,in further attempts to exert and extend it's land grab,and so too does Canada,though the Denmarkians seem to be in a better position with regards to the name of the place,Viva la Isla de Hans libre!!! Hans is not Canadian! is the Danish rallying war cry,even yet forming The Hans Island Liberation Frontehurling defy in the face of the Canadians and their Prime Ministers. So Denmark has a firm stake in The Arctic,and firmly wishes to shove it in to the Canadian heart.
The United States also has a firm stake to wield in The Arctic.America is in with Alaska.The name "Alaska" was used by the Russians to refer only to the peninsula. This name was used by the United States to refer, first to the entire territory, and
then, to the State after its purchase in 1867.The name "Alaska" is taken from the Aleut word "aláxsxaq" that refers to an object to which the sea is directed, in this case the Alaska peninsula and mainland. This is sometimes loosely translated as
"great land."On March 30, 1867, the United States agreed to purchase Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million dollars, about two cents an acre; "Seward's Folly" many called it, after Secretary of State William H. Seward.Other satirical names were
"Icebergia," "Polaria," and "Walrussia." Critics of the purchase also chastised the President of the United State, Andrew Johnson, by referring to the Alaska territory as "Johnson's Polar Bear Garden." A check for $7,200,000.00 was issued on
August 1, 1868 and made payable to Edouard de Stoeckl, the Russian Minister to the United States.(Just as well this was done back then, as nowadays, the check might well have bounced).On January 3, 1959,Alaska, with a land mass larger than Texas, California and Montana combined, became the 49th state in the union.America is in it for a piece of,or in it's entirety as they all are,the North Pole, and the rocks,minerals,oil and gas. And a touch more, further on amplified,access to,The Northwest Passage.
Norway has a stake in The Arctic, as an extension of it's continental shelf,claims to oil,gas,rocks,minerals etc ,and the North Pole, and by virtue of the claims of many of it's explorers wandering about the Arctic in and after the fashion of the American Peary.Notable is Roald Amundsen who made many trips to the Arctic regions,poles etc, starting 1897 onwards(this trip was with Belgians),flew over and visited the North Pole,and he even yet on another trip reached Nome,Alaska,making a crossing of the Northwest Passage.For some reason they were forever looking for a route to China.So we have ROALD AMUNDSEN: The Northwest Passage,First Navigation by Ship 1905: In mid August, Amundsen sailed from Gjøahaven (today: Gjoa Haven, Nunavut) in the vessel Gjøa,east to west. On August 26 they encountered a ship bearing down on them from the west, and with that they were through the passage.
Russia has,of course, it's own Arctic reaches, and also, a working,what with the effects of global warming,NorthEast Passage,and as an extension of it's continental shelf, claims to gas,oil,rocks,and minerals, and the North Pole.Unlike the
Northwest Passage,the passage is considerably much easier,and the Soviets wish to employ the route as a shortcut from Asia to Europe and vice versa.Now the question of the Soviet NorthEast passage arises in equity ,does it not,it's opening,the NorthEast passage is opening up, as receding ice melts,revealing an elusive trade route from Asia to the West sought after for centuries by explorers.The Russians are exerting control over it,as when the United States dispatched icebreakers to Proliv Vil'kitskogo (Vil'kitskii Strait),the shallow, ice-choked strait, named after Russian explorer Boris Vilkitsky who mapped it in 1913.Now it separates the Kara Sea from the Laptev Sea about halfway along the Siberian coastline,and there is only 11 miles between transited and navigable islands in places. In 1967, the Soviet Union did not allow the American vessels to accomplish the passage, basing their refusal on a requirement, provided for in municipal legislation, that warships seek prior authorization. During the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973–82) the USSR reversed this policy: innocent passage was granted in principle to merchant and war vessels alike.The Northeast passage if freely used by international shipping, moving goods by vessel from say, Asia, Japan,Korea or whatever, across the top of the
Soviet Union between any islands as it were, and thence to Europe, Britain,the Scandinavian countries as it were...so then too should Canada not allow the same, under the same rules and regulations and agreements?Russia presently regulates vessel movements, and rents out,then, it's icebreakers to accompany(this may not be required as the ice opens ups further).Russia hopes to make the Arctic route a competitor to the Suez Canal and increase cargo traffic along its Siberian coast from two million tonnes a year now to 30 million tonnes — profiting off taxes and the lease of its unique fleet of nuclear ice breakers,thinking economically.But mariners admit many obstacles remain before Russia's shipping route might steal business from established southern thoroughfares — not least because of a summer that lasts just a few weeks.Sovcomflot said it must find new deep-water routes to steer heavy tankers through the perilous coastal waters and contend
with free-floating icebergs that make the route hard to time and unreliable.
“The summer in Arctic waters lasts 2-2.5 months. It's winter the rest of the time,” chief engineer Boris Abakhov told NTV, bundled in a parka and wool hat aboard the mighty ice-breaker Rossiya.This route is viable, Europe to Asia,and Asia to Europe.No problems there really,just definitions of management of the route.
Now we come to Canada.Canada, of course,as an extension of it's continental shelf claims rocks,mineral,oil,gas, but seems to have no designs on the North Pole.It does and doesn't wish a Northwest Passage, it wishes control over the Northwest
passage,and there the major clash is with the Americans.Let's look first at the history of Canada, the youngest of the Arctic players,and the most confused as to existence in the first place, and claims on the Arctic in the second place. With respect to Canada as is, there was Canada as was, when England owned and ruled Canada as a colony,Canada was not a separate entity,until England performed an act of separation, therefor all conditions with respect to the arctic islands etc that
Canada presently claim, have no relevancy beyond a wish things were so, with respect not so much to territorial but to things such as right of passage,internationally in said area...there is that to be considered, the events that made things international with respect to passage, right of exploration, cliams of rights of passage even yet due to exploration.....there we have Russia,Norway,Sweden,Great Britain(which being done for Britain would thence encompass
Scotland,Ireland,Northern Ireland,and Wales),Denmark.Sweden actually completed the first passage through the Northeast passage, which throws a wrench in to the Russian works somewhat,Norwegian Otto Sverdrup discovered islands in the Canadian Arctic - which he claimed for Norway and then sold back to Canada.........so still there remains an exploratory right of
passage,not the same as a territorial right acquired by Canada with the acquisition sale, which I point out was made, as in sale, acknowledgement by that act that said islands and territory did indeed not belong to Canada territorially at that time.Britain itself only gave the arctic territories to Canada in the nineteenth century,(1800's).At 1867,Confederation itself, the northern territory areas and islands, were, in fact, known as Rupert's Land, and belonged to,still, Britain,as well as Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island(noticeably and worthy of note, at that time, Quebec actually included half of Labrador as it is today).as the map here shows historically
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/New%20Canada%20Guide/content/early/1867.gif
Rupert's Land was given to Canada in 1870,which in fact had belonged, privately, to the Hudson's Bay Company........BUT the so called Arctic Islands still, at that time, belonged to Britain,note the map here,
http://www.edmaps.com/canada_1870.gif
and note also Quebec has grown,and encompasses almost all of what is Labrador,with only a tiny strip portion belonging to the British possession of NewFoundland(note also British Columbia is just that, still British).(Strangely, view the map again, Britain gave present Labrador to NewFoundland in 1927...curiouser and curiouser, whatever happened there?).Canada's acquisition of the arctic islands,the ones remaining, the Northwest Passage islands, took place circa 1882.Now let's look at the politics involved with respect to Canada claiming the Northwest Passage and full control over the same.
Under international law, no country currently owns the North Pole or the region of the Arctic Ocean surrounding it.Documents obtained by the Danish media in mid-2011 revealed that by 2014 Denmark intends to submit a formal claim for sovereignty over the North Pole to the United Nations, The five surrounding Arctic states, Russia, the United States, Canada, Norway and Denmark (via Greenland), are limited to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) adjacent to their coasts.The status of certain portions of the Arctic sea region are in dispute for various reasons. Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States all regard parts of the Arctic seas as "national waters" (territorial waters out to 12 nautical miles) or "internal waters". There also are disputes regarding what passages constitute "international seaways" and rights to passage along them (Northwest Passage).Upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a country has a ten year period to make claims to an extended continental shelf which, if validated, gives it exclusive rights to resources on or below the seabed of that extended shelf area. Due to this, Norway , Russia, Canada and Denmark launched projects to provide a basis for seabed claims on extended continental shelves beyond their exclusive economic zones. The United States has signed, but not yet ratified this treaty. In 1925, based upon the Sector Principle, Canada became the first country to extend its maritime boundaries northward to the North Pole, at least on paper, between 60°W and 141°W longitude, a claim that is not universally recognized (there are in fact 415 nmi (769 km; 478 mi) nautical miles of ocean between the Pole and Canada's northernmost land point). In 1926 Russia fixed its claim in Soviet law (32°04'35"E to 168°49'30"W). Norway (5°E to 35°E) made similar sector claims — as did the United States (170°W to 141°W), but that sector contained only a few islands so the claim was not pressed. Denmark's sovereignty over all of Greenland was recognized by the United States in 1916 and by an international court in 1933. Denmark could also conceivably claim an Arctic sector (60°W to 10°W).In addition, Canada claims the water within the Canadian Arctic Archipelago as its own internal waters.
The United States is one of the countries which does not recognize Canada's, or any other countries', Arctic water claims, and has allegedly sent nuclear submarines under the ice near Canadian islands without requesting permission.The dispute involves, rights of passage on free and open waters,oil and gas on ocean floor beds etc, involving, Canada,Russia,Iceland,Denmark,and the United States(Alaska).One recalls one Xaviera Hollander,and we find the NorthWest Passage to be as popular as hers in her day.
Let's look further at Canada's claims and problems it has been having with it's claim.The Canadian government claims that some of the waters of the Northwest Passage, particularly those in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, are internal to Canada, giving Canada the right to bar transit through these waters. Most maritime nations,including the United States and the nations of the European Union, consider them to be an international strait, where foreign vessels have the right of "transit passage".In such a régime, Canada would have the right to enact fishing and environmental regulation, and fiscal and smuggling laws, as well as laws intended for the safety of shipping, but not the right to close the passage. If the passage’s deep waters become completely ice-free in summer months, they would be particularly enticing for massive supertankers that are forced to plow around the tip of South America because they are too big to pass through the Panama Canal.In 1985, the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea passed through from Greenland to Alaska; the ship submitted to inspection by the Canadian Coast Guard before passing through, but the event infuriated the Canadian public and resulted in a diplomatic incident. The United States government, when asked by a Canadian reporter, indicated that they did not ask for permission as they were not legally required to. The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming
Canadian rights to the waters. However, the United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In 1988 the governments of Canada and the U.S. signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation", that resolved the practical issue without solving the sovereignty questions. Under the law of the sea, ships engaged in transit passage are not permitted to engage in research. The agreement states that all US Coast Guard vessels are engaged in research, and so would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through.
In late 2005, it was alleged that U.S. nuclear submarines had travelled unannounced through Canadian Arctic waters, sparking outrage in Canada. In his first news conference after the 2006 federal election, Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper contested an earlier statement made by the U.S. ambassador that Arctic waters were international, stating the Canadian government's intention to enforce its sovereignty there. The allegations arose after the U.S. Navy released photographs of the USS Charlotte surfaced at the North Pole.
On April 9, 2006, Canada's Joint Task Force North declared that the Canadian military will no longer refer to the region as the Northwest Passage, but as the Canadian Internal Waters.The declaration came after the successful completion of Operation Nunalivut (Inuktitut for "the land is ours"), which was an expedition into the region by five military patrols.
In 2006 a report prepared by the staff of the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of Canada suggested that because of the September 11 attacks the United States might be less interested in pursuing the international waterways claim in the interests of having a more secure North American perimeter.This report was based on an earlier paper, The Northwest Passage Shipping Channel: Is Canada’s Sovereignty Really Floating Away? by Andrea Charron, given to the 2004 Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute Symposium.Later in 2006 former United States Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci agreed with this position; however, the succeeding ambassador, David Wilkins, stated that the Northwest Passage was in international waters.
On July 9, 2007, Prime Minister Harper announced the establishment of a deep-water port in the far North. In the government press release the Prime Minister is quoted as saying, “Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic. We either use it or lose it. And make no mistake, this Government intends to use it. Because Canada’s Arctic is central to our national identity as a northern nation. It is part of our history. And it represents the tremendous potential of our future."
On July 10, 2007, Rear Admiral Timothy McGee of the United States Navy, and Rear Admiral Brian Salerno of the United States Coast Guard announced that the United States would also be increasing its ability to patrol the Arctic.
Law of The Sea.......
Internal waters
Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage within internal waters.This means between islands, up to 24miles between them or the island and the base shore.
Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage
of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not “innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.There is a further 12 miles added to that for military control.
The United States has not ratified the Law of The Sea, they and nations such as Columbia,Thailand,Laos,Cambodia,North Korea,Afghanistan, and 6 other minor African nationsRatification is the approval of the principal of an act of its agent
where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal. Countries that have not signed — (16 of them)Andorra, Azerbaijan, Ecuador, Eritrea, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, San Marino, Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela and the states with limited recognition.Countries that have signed, but not yet ratified — (18 of them)Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Libya, Liechtenstein, Niger, Rwanda, Swaziland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United States.Canada and the US are also engaged in a dispute over the future of the Northwest Passage, the partially frozen waterway that links the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
The US says it regards it as an international strait but Mr Harper has vociferously defended the passage as Canadian territory.The Canadian government considers the Northwestern Passages part of Canadian Internal Waters, but the United States
and various European countries maintain they are an international strait or transit passage, allowing free and unencumbered passage.Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in1903–1906.The Canadian government claims that some of the waters of the Northwest Passage, particularly those in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, are internal to Canada, giving Canada the right to bar transit through these waters. Most maritime
nations, including the United States and the nations of the European Union, consider them to be an international strait,where foreign vessels have the right of "transit passage".In such a régime, Canada would have the right to enact fishing and
environmental regulation, and fiscal and smuggling laws, as well as laws intended for the safety of shipping, but not the right to close the passage. If the passage’s deep waters become completely ice-free in summer months, they would be particularly enticing for massive supertankers that are forced to plow around the tip of South America because they are too big to pass through the Panama Canal.The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters. However, the United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In 1988 the governments of Canada and the U.S. signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation", that resolved the practical issue without solving the sovereignty questions. Under the law of the sea, ships engaged in transit passage are not permitted to engage in research. The agreement states that all
US Coast Guard vessels are engaged in research, and so would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through,here we can see a map of things,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Northwest_passage.jpg
Presently the Northwest Passage is as International as Marilyn Chambers'.
Let's now turn our attention to other areas of the world where vessels of commerce, and others, freely pass,areas both between sea bordering nations, and also through nations,as in straits, or even yet archipelago crossings between nations islands.
First example, let's look at Turkey's Bosphorous,(Istanbul Strait,and the border between Europe and Asia),it connects the Black Sea with the Sea of Marmara,which is connected by the Dardanelles to the Aegean Sea, and thereby to the Mediterranean Sea, Free passage to trading vessels of all countries.......warships can be restricted.Turkey is interesting as the strait area is entirely within Turkey.
Second example,the Panama canal,a canal artificially constructed, with a system of locks,allows for passage between the Atlantic area in the Carribbean, and the Pacific Ocean,constructed in and through the single nation of Panama. The canal,as built,would be permanently neutralized (as would any other international waterway later constructed wholly or partly in Panamanian territory), with the object of securing it for peaceful transit in time of peace or of war for vessels
of all nations on equal terms (arts. 1, 2). The right of passage extends not only to merchant ships but to vessels of war and auxiliary vessels in noncommercial service of all nations "at all times," irrespective of their internal operations, means of propulsion, origin, destination, or armament.Similarly there is the Suez canal,which has no locks, but was artificially constructed,in and through, Egpyt, and has the right of passage of all ships through the Suez Canal,as long as the do their
paperwork and pay the tariff,in short, it still has a private nature to it, and CAN restrict access to and through with respect to nations, and also military vessels,though Egypt does not have the tendency to do this,
Now let's look at the International Strait of gibraltar,a strait running in part between Morocco and Spain, but also between and in Spain, through it's extended territory of Ceuta.Straits used for international navigation through the territorial sea between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone are subject to the legal regime of transit passage (Strait of Gibraltar, Dover Strait, Strait of Hormuz). The regime of innocent passage applies in straits used for international navigation (1) that connect a part of high seas or an exclusive economic zone with the territorial sea of coastal nation (Strait of Tiran, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Baltiysk) and (2) in straits formed by an island of a state bordering the strait and its mainland if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an
exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics (Strait of Messina, Pentland Firth). There may be no suspension of innocent passage through such straits.So too thence passage
concerning and between Alaska and Russia and also under the same rules of governance for foreign warships as decided. BUT as to commercial venture passage, there the rules and regs must thence be the same for all, as with respect to international right of passage.BUT here, wiht respect to the Bosphorous,or Suez,there may thence be a fee levied by Canada, on agreement, in equity with respect to such as the Bhopsorous in equity, or, as with the Strait of Gibraltar, free and open to all..........feeless as it were.
There are other passage rights which can be applied, as in Archipelagic Sea Lanes Passage,The right of transit by ships and aircraft(hasn't been considered has it, but applicable) through Archipelagos, such as the Philippines and Indonesia,Seychelles,the Greek islands.here are fragments of the Lwas concernig the Archipelagic Sea Lane Passages,as points of information.
2) Subject to subsection (5), the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage shall be exercised only through sea lanes or air routes designated pursuant to section 19.
a) Freedom of navigation; and
(b) Freedom of overflight.
16. (1) Without prejudice to any other written law but subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4), foreign ships shall enjoy the
right of innocent passage through the territorial sea and archipelagic waters.
Article 53
Right of archipelagic sea lanes passage
1. An archipelagic State may designate sea lanes and air routes thereabove, suitable for the continuous and expeditious
passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea.
2. All ships and aircraft enjoy the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea lanes and air routes.
3. Archipelagic sea lanes passage means the exercise in accordance with this Convention of the rights of navigation and overflight in the normal mode solely for the purpose of continuous, expeditious and unobstructed transit between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.
4. Such sea lanes and air routes shall traverse the archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea and shall include all normal passage routes used as routes for international navigation or overflight through or over archipelagic waters and,
within such routes, so far as ships are concerned, all normal navigational channels, provided that duplication of routes of similar convenience between the same entry and exit points shall not be necessary.
Article 52
Right of innocent passage
1. Subject to Article 53 and without prejudice to article 50 , ships of all States enjoy the right of innocent passage
through archipelagic waters, in accordance with Part II, section 3.
2. The archipelagic State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its archipelagic waters the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.
In short,now as the ice is melting, an economic Northwest Passage has ensued, passing between the Canadian islands in the North, emphasis on the Canadian,politics aside.The maximum distance between any such traveresed island straits is small in size, in short much less than 12 miles from any and either(24 between), and greatly less than a military control extended zone of a further 12 miles(then being 48 miles between).In short transit is then between Canadian Islands,but the transit IS archipelagic,and it is this,and the Americans,which are turning Canada into a quadrapelegic internationally but simply ignoring things and sending their submarines whilly nilly in and through and under Canada's arctic as it were. Now if Canada wishes to use other international passages,for it's naval civilian commerce, and any military transit for it's naval warships,in equality and equity,Canada, and it's present Prime Minister,must allow and acknowledge international passage through and using the Northwest Passage,in and after the same fashion following the same rules and guidelines as do the other strait,archipelagic,or passage owning nations...however, it can and should thnec have the equal ability to restrict passage to any foreign warships as it wishes.The Americans have chosen to ignore the Canadian claims, and have violated time after
time the Canadian territorial rights in the north,which for some reason the Canadians have failed to have established similar in nature to those other archipelagic nations such as The Phillipines,Seychelles,Greece,Indonesia et all.
Canada can claim that if there MUST be a passage in between it's island, of an international nature, subject to rules of allowance for warships as may or may not be arranged, thence also a similar one must exist for the Russian area as well,governed by the same rules and regulations with respect to the right of passage, or not, of all foreign warships and under which conditions,as are pre defined.
However, the contested sovereignty claims over the waters may complicate future shipping through the region: The Canadian government considers the Northwestern Passages part of Canadian Internal Waters, but the United States and various European countries maintain they are an international strait or transit passage, allowing free and unencumbered passage in the outright.Canada must have the exact same control which the Russians exact over the Northeastpassage,Heidi Fleiss allowed people to rent a passage, if the Soviets rent, then the Canadians must be allowed in equity to rent their passages as well.
The Americans have been careful to respect Russian Sovereignty , and Russia's rule over it's arctic, with respect to transits of the Russian Northeast Passage, and with respect to it's military vessels infringing on Russian Sovereignty , but with respect to Canada, America shows only utter contempt,disrespect,discourtesy,incivility.In short, Canada is being treated differently with respect to other nations of the world,there is maritime inequality,inequity, iniquity for some reason,not only from the Americans, but from other nations as well. and this must be reversed.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Secret Squirrel Sees Separation Of Quebec And Scotland Intertwined
Secret Squirrel here ponders the election of the Scottish National Party (SNP)to majority in Scotland,and a similar parallel in Quebec(Canada), as both are "provinces" of a greater combined country and both seek stated independence, separation as it were,was,and might well be yet again,driven by revolutionary ardour, much as the Americans separatists were,directing their
efforts against the injustices of the British versus the colonists of the day. There there were first political formations, and attempts, and thence the generator of separation was driven by guerrilla military actions.Here we find both are at the political stage of things,and in both places there is relative calm on the militant front. Further both were and are encouraged by the success of the IRA, albeit the IRA of Gerry Adams sought militaristic urban guerrilla tactics and employed
them highly successfully in their quest for the first stage of their aims, that of political recognition and realizations,but fell short a their actual aims, which they all still work heavily towards.Any further success either Quebec,or Scotland have, will encourage the IRA to further its aim, thence politically,with respect to Northern Ireland.Methinks also, that farther on the road, though many years hence,the summers of discontent will ferment and reveal themselves yet still in Wales as
well.
And so it will go, a domino effect will initiate itself,an automatic,irreversible effect,one effecting the other. So now indeed we find that with respect to the separational developments of both Scotland and Quebec,we find that,indeed,one encouraged the other, and now the other yet encourages back the other,so both seem to have their destinies,independent or not, separated or not, intertwined,though they both are oceans away.It is here,Scotland,Quebec, where the shape of things to come will be defined for both Britain, and Canada.
Either learns from the experiences of the other,as things have developed and yet continue to develop, and it is believed that either will share in the fate of each other,when it comes down to brass tacks concerning their future as a an independent nation, or not.So now,newly elected to majority in Scotland, the SNP has made it clear, following its landslide election win , that it will hold a vote on Scottish independence over the course of its five-year mandate,specifically in the
second half of it's mandate.The SNP holds a majority for the first time in Scotland's parliament, a position roughly analogous to where the Parti Quebecois(PQ),of Quebec(Canada) found itself 35 years ago after its first win in a provincial election.Quebec has already held two such,in 1980 and 1995. It lost both times, though it came within less than a percentage point of triumph on the second try.
But Bernard Landry,former PM of Quebec, commented,"If I have one bit of advice to offer, it is that they take all the necessary precautions so that the referendum is equal for all sides and honest," Landry said."The federal government didn't do that here... They violated the spirit of our laws."He believed there was heavy Canadian Federal government interference and juggling of the outcome of their referendums.The march for Quebec independence continues,buoyed up by the SNP victory......Louise Beaudoin, the PQ's critic for international relations, said she "rejoiced" when she heard the news of the SNP's victory in the May 5 election.
"It is important for them but it's also important for all those who are trying to do the same thing," she said.
"That's what is interesting for us, to have partners who are equals."
Beaudoin said it is likely that a PQ delegation will travel to meet with SNP representatives in the fall.
"The federal government didn't do that here... They violated the spirit of our laws."
With the Scottish National Party’s recent election victory in mind,SNP leader Alex Salmond should enjoy this moment,The Scottish National Party’s astounding election victory ,Quebec is the right analogy, because in both cases "independence" is mainly of emotional importance–and the emotion is not all that powerful. Basque separatists in Spain, Kurds in Turkey, and Tamils in Sri Lanka have bitter memories of mistreatment and repression by the majority nationality in relatively recent times, but for French-Canadians and Scots it is mainly a legacy issue.The basic argument of separatists in both of these places is that history took a wrong turn a few hundred years ago.For the French in Quebec, it was by defeat of Montcalm at
Quebec City, by the English,Wolfe.For Scotland it actually occurred when the Scot became King James 1st of England (he also was known as King James VI of Scotland)and Scotland, and then destroyed the Scottish nobility fearing revolts and rebellions.Hardly the same,but the Scots had obviously, and still do,expect,and expected, the reverse to occur.Things have just not been the same since.
Basque separatists in Spain,working for their separation from Spain,perhaps, though yet working to thence join with France.With respect to developments in Quebec,Quebec also seems to have a separational element related to the dreams of joining with France,and it was one General Charles DeGaulle, who really lit off the present Quebec separational aspirations with his famous words,"Vie Le Quebec!Vive Le Quebec Libre!!",which triggered offa rather militant revolutionary arm of the Quebec separatists, The FLQ(Front De Liberation Quebecquois)which certainly added extremely hot spice to the fermenting Quebec stew pot of separation.There are Kurds in the way in Turkey, and Tamils in Sri Lanka all of whom have bitter memories of mistreatment and repression by the majority nationality in relatively recent times,and so, they too, are embarked on attempts at separational independence for their enclave ethnic areas.
Scots already control most domestic issues in Scotland through their own parliament, as does the French-speaking majority in the province of Quebec. GDP per capita in Scotland is 95 percent of the average figure for all of Britain, the same as Quebec's in relation to the rest of Canada.Quebec already has mechanisms in place, such as,in foreign nations, their own economic missions, also seemingly political missions as well,and economic mechanisms in it's own control,such as separate income tax determination,have their own banks,the most familiar Caisse Populaire,their own health care system.........usual school boards and universities......Quebec has a wealth of mining and utterly important, electrical generation, not depending in any way shape nor form of either nuclear nor thermal electrical generation of electricity...(hydro is regarded as free,renewable and utterly green),massive mining in all sectors, the province being extremely rich in mineable rocks and minerals.Even though it is not a country, the economy of Quebec, ranks close to that of Portugual.Quebec's GDP is set at 303billion.In short, on infrastructure, and economically, Quebec is miles ahead of Scotland.
Scotland's gdp is at 144 billion,half of comparable Quebec,but the cost of bailing out Scotland’s two biggest banks emerged as a staggering £470 billion — three times the size of the Scottish economy......the English may be pondering was it worth the cost to them,then,and in the future?In the real world, many Scots are afraid that their small country, with only one-tenth of England's population, would be too vulnerable to the financial and strategic storms that shake the world.Like the PQ versus the Liberals in Quebec, the SNP has established itself as the only practical alternative to Labour in Scotland.After a generation of effort to convince Quebecers to vote for independence, the Parti Québécois tumbled to third-party status in last March's Quebec election.
The SNP is riding high at the moment, but the same fate may await it further down the road, because the majority response to its grand project is likely to be "Why bother?"English Canada is reluctant to allow Quebec independence, due to its grand,really necessity,the very things that would support Quebec, are a critical necessity to the rest of Canada,actually, so the English of the rest of Canada do not favor Quebec independence, but in Britain,59 percent of English people, are in favour of Scottish independence–more than twice the proportion of Scots who are,at least at the last poll. But that may yet have changed in light of the recent SNP grand success.Also,unlike Quebec which is in fact economically necessary to the rest of Canada, most English people would hardly notice if the northernmost bit of Britain, containing less than a tenth of the country's population, became a separate country,not that it could ever actually support itself independently as a separate nation.
The SNP today faces the same problem as the PQ did – running a government while making uncompromised choices that risk party splits. Nine years after his initial triumph, René Lévesque was forced to resign as PQ leader and Quebec Premier because of party divisions over sovereignty and the economy. Like Salmond now, Lévesque then was grappling with a recession. After two failed referendums and interminable constitutional battles with Ottawa, support for sovereignty in Quebec has dwindled and left the province isolated from the rest of the country.
Scottish opinion polls indicate that less than a third of the people favour full independence. In Quebec, a referendum on independence in 1980 was soundly defeated but another referendum in 1995 almost squeezed through.what would happen to Scotland if the separatists lose the forthcoming referendum but keep on trying. That's what happened in Quebec, where the separatists first came to the fore politically in the 1960s.Quebec separatists held and lost two referendums, in 1980 and 1995, but for half a century the prospect that there would eventually be a referendum (or yet another referendum) on separation from Canada was there every year.
Salmond suggests that a referendum might include an extra question on giving Holyrood greater financial freedom while keeping Scotland within the UK. This echoes Quebec’s hazy concept of sovereignty-association. The question for Canada—and Quebec—is what it would mean if the Scottish independence referendum succeeded. In all likelihood, it would give fresh impetus to
Quebec`s independence movement. But the opposite might also be true. If the Scottish referendum failed, or separation negotiations proved enormously difficult, then this would likely discourage any future independence movement in Quebec as well.But should Scotland succeed,and secede,separate,gain independence, Quebec would benefit vastly from the experience of the Scots, and without a doubt,follow in the footsteps of the Scottish success,should that be achieved.
efforts against the injustices of the British versus the colonists of the day. There there were first political formations, and attempts, and thence the generator of separation was driven by guerrilla military actions.Here we find both are at the political stage of things,and in both places there is relative calm on the militant front. Further both were and are encouraged by the success of the IRA, albeit the IRA of Gerry Adams sought militaristic urban guerrilla tactics and employed
them highly successfully in their quest for the first stage of their aims, that of political recognition and realizations,but fell short a their actual aims, which they all still work heavily towards.Any further success either Quebec,or Scotland have, will encourage the IRA to further its aim, thence politically,with respect to Northern Ireland.Methinks also, that farther on the road, though many years hence,the summers of discontent will ferment and reveal themselves yet still in Wales as
well.
And so it will go, a domino effect will initiate itself,an automatic,irreversible effect,one effecting the other. So now indeed we find that with respect to the separational developments of both Scotland and Quebec,we find that,indeed,one encouraged the other, and now the other yet encourages back the other,so both seem to have their destinies,independent or not, separated or not, intertwined,though they both are oceans away.It is here,Scotland,Quebec, where the shape of things to come will be defined for both Britain, and Canada.
Either learns from the experiences of the other,as things have developed and yet continue to develop, and it is believed that either will share in the fate of each other,when it comes down to brass tacks concerning their future as a an independent nation, or not.So now,newly elected to majority in Scotland, the SNP has made it clear, following its landslide election win , that it will hold a vote on Scottish independence over the course of its five-year mandate,specifically in the
second half of it's mandate.The SNP holds a majority for the first time in Scotland's parliament, a position roughly analogous to where the Parti Quebecois(PQ),of Quebec(Canada) found itself 35 years ago after its first win in a provincial election.Quebec has already held two such,in 1980 and 1995. It lost both times, though it came within less than a percentage point of triumph on the second try.
But Bernard Landry,former PM of Quebec, commented,"If I have one bit of advice to offer, it is that they take all the necessary precautions so that the referendum is equal for all sides and honest," Landry said."The federal government didn't do that here... They violated the spirit of our laws."He believed there was heavy Canadian Federal government interference and juggling of the outcome of their referendums.The march for Quebec independence continues,buoyed up by the SNP victory......Louise Beaudoin, the PQ's critic for international relations, said she "rejoiced" when she heard the news of the SNP's victory in the May 5 election.
"It is important for them but it's also important for all those who are trying to do the same thing," she said.
"That's what is interesting for us, to have partners who are equals."
Beaudoin said it is likely that a PQ delegation will travel to meet with SNP representatives in the fall.
"The federal government didn't do that here... They violated the spirit of our laws."
With the Scottish National Party’s recent election victory in mind,SNP leader Alex Salmond should enjoy this moment,The Scottish National Party’s astounding election victory ,Quebec is the right analogy, because in both cases "independence" is mainly of emotional importance–and the emotion is not all that powerful. Basque separatists in Spain, Kurds in Turkey, and Tamils in Sri Lanka have bitter memories of mistreatment and repression by the majority nationality in relatively recent times, but for French-Canadians and Scots it is mainly a legacy issue.The basic argument of separatists in both of these places is that history took a wrong turn a few hundred years ago.For the French in Quebec, it was by defeat of Montcalm at
Quebec City, by the English,Wolfe.For Scotland it actually occurred when the Scot became King James 1st of England (he also was known as King James VI of Scotland)and Scotland, and then destroyed the Scottish nobility fearing revolts and rebellions.Hardly the same,but the Scots had obviously, and still do,expect,and expected, the reverse to occur.Things have just not been the same since.
Basque separatists in Spain,working for their separation from Spain,perhaps, though yet working to thence join with France.With respect to developments in Quebec,Quebec also seems to have a separational element related to the dreams of joining with France,and it was one General Charles DeGaulle, who really lit off the present Quebec separational aspirations with his famous words,"Vie Le Quebec!Vive Le Quebec Libre!!",which triggered offa rather militant revolutionary arm of the Quebec separatists, The FLQ(Front De Liberation Quebecquois)which certainly added extremely hot spice to the fermenting Quebec stew pot of separation.There are Kurds in the way in Turkey, and Tamils in Sri Lanka all of whom have bitter memories of mistreatment and repression by the majority nationality in relatively recent times,and so, they too, are embarked on attempts at separational independence for their enclave ethnic areas.
Scots already control most domestic issues in Scotland through their own parliament, as does the French-speaking majority in the province of Quebec. GDP per capita in Scotland is 95 percent of the average figure for all of Britain, the same as Quebec's in relation to the rest of Canada.Quebec already has mechanisms in place, such as,in foreign nations, their own economic missions, also seemingly political missions as well,and economic mechanisms in it's own control,such as separate income tax determination,have their own banks,the most familiar Caisse Populaire,their own health care system.........usual school boards and universities......Quebec has a wealth of mining and utterly important, electrical generation, not depending in any way shape nor form of either nuclear nor thermal electrical generation of electricity...(hydro is regarded as free,renewable and utterly green),massive mining in all sectors, the province being extremely rich in mineable rocks and minerals.Even though it is not a country, the economy of Quebec, ranks close to that of Portugual.Quebec's GDP is set at 303billion.In short, on infrastructure, and economically, Quebec is miles ahead of Scotland.
Scotland's gdp is at 144 billion,half of comparable Quebec,but the cost of bailing out Scotland’s two biggest banks emerged as a staggering £470 billion — three times the size of the Scottish economy......the English may be pondering was it worth the cost to them,then,and in the future?In the real world, many Scots are afraid that their small country, with only one-tenth of England's population, would be too vulnerable to the financial and strategic storms that shake the world.Like the PQ versus the Liberals in Quebec, the SNP has established itself as the only practical alternative to Labour in Scotland.After a generation of effort to convince Quebecers to vote for independence, the Parti Québécois tumbled to third-party status in last March's Quebec election.
The SNP is riding high at the moment, but the same fate may await it further down the road, because the majority response to its grand project is likely to be "Why bother?"English Canada is reluctant to allow Quebec independence, due to its grand,really necessity,the very things that would support Quebec, are a critical necessity to the rest of Canada,actually, so the English of the rest of Canada do not favor Quebec independence, but in Britain,59 percent of English people, are in favour of Scottish independence–more than twice the proportion of Scots who are,at least at the last poll. But that may yet have changed in light of the recent SNP grand success.Also,unlike Quebec which is in fact economically necessary to the rest of Canada, most English people would hardly notice if the northernmost bit of Britain, containing less than a tenth of the country's population, became a separate country,not that it could ever actually support itself independently as a separate nation.
The SNP today faces the same problem as the PQ did – running a government while making uncompromised choices that risk party splits. Nine years after his initial triumph, René Lévesque was forced to resign as PQ leader and Quebec Premier because of party divisions over sovereignty and the economy. Like Salmond now, Lévesque then was grappling with a recession. After two failed referendums and interminable constitutional battles with Ottawa, support for sovereignty in Quebec has dwindled and left the province isolated from the rest of the country.
Scottish opinion polls indicate that less than a third of the people favour full independence. In Quebec, a referendum on independence in 1980 was soundly defeated but another referendum in 1995 almost squeezed through.what would happen to Scotland if the separatists lose the forthcoming referendum but keep on trying. That's what happened in Quebec, where the separatists first came to the fore politically in the 1960s.Quebec separatists held and lost two referendums, in 1980 and 1995, but for half a century the prospect that there would eventually be a referendum (or yet another referendum) on separation from Canada was there every year.
Salmond suggests that a referendum might include an extra question on giving Holyrood greater financial freedom while keeping Scotland within the UK. This echoes Quebec’s hazy concept of sovereignty-association. The question for Canada—and Quebec—is what it would mean if the Scottish independence referendum succeeded. In all likelihood, it would give fresh impetus to
Quebec`s independence movement. But the opposite might also be true. If the Scottish referendum failed, or separation negotiations proved enormously difficult, then this would likely discourage any future independence movement in Quebec as well.But should Scotland succeed,and secede,separate,gain independence, Quebec would benefit vastly from the experience of the Scots, and without a doubt,follow in the footsteps of the Scottish success,should that be achieved.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Secret Squirrel Solves The Global National Debt Problem
Secret Squirrel has turned his attention to the national debt of nations of the world with the intent of solving their huge national debt problems and believes Squirrel has solved that very problem.He we commence to ponder the problem,analyze it.So the national debt of all nations is...............whatever, in percentile of GDP,Gross Domestic Product.Japan has the largest at 225% of GDP, at 137(there are 152 total nations in the world, but we'll leave most else unnamed and unshammed), in the list,we have lowly Libya at only, 3.3% of GDP,there are others lower, but most everybody,ALL the large nations, are in between Libya and Japan, USA at 58.90, Canada at 34.00,Australia at 22.40, UK at 76.50%.Hmmmmmmmm what's to be done.Everybody is in debt to everybody else, somewhere's else.Now what can we do?Gather in all the I.O.U's? Well we could, in terms of debt to each other,nations to nations, between nations,IF the national debt reflected just that.We could call in all the I.O.U.'s compare, and pay everybody off with everybody' else's debt, and that would clear some nation's debt in their entirety and still leave
others in debt though, and some still enormously so. It would all be so very complex, and seemingly inflexible, unworkable,the bookkeeping an utter and complete nightmare.But,remember, the national debts ALSO include internal debts, debts of the nation itself,internally, a nation overspending internally, paying itself off internally,and that figures in and throws everything off.So sadly, that becomes confusingly unfathomable,incalculable,unworkable.....impossible?It hasn't been attempted.
But wait, there is an easier way to clear most everybody's debt,a way that would please EVERYBODY, except,in my calculations, for nine nations (9,count'em)who will just have to take their mulligan.So let us proceed with the solution.Firstly let's look at the horrible nine (9) who are going to be left, let's look at their debt figures
Japan 225.80%
Saint Kitts and Nevis 185.00
Lebanon 150.70
Zimbabwe 149.00
Greece 144.00
Iceland 123.80
Jamaica 123.20
Italy 118.10
Singapore 102.40
Now we use Belgium as a base,who happen to be the tenth worse in terms of GDP national debt,at 98.60% of gdp debt......so less draw the line at Belgium, at a healthy 98.6,works for body temperature, it's the cure for debt, in short we deduct 98.6 from everybody at 100% above GDP for debt and the new adjusted in debt nations are.......ONLY....9 in number....everybody else is at zero GDP national debt............of course some nations,as a matter of fact most all nations,got a really good deal, but Belgium got a really good deal being let off at 98.6% of GDP debt, and the smaller debt nations don't get quite such a good deal,but so it goes.Now isn't it a much better world all round and about with only 9 nations in debt,really now? Isn't it eh?
And is it fair? well, there are 9 left and only 9 ,a really small minority compared with the rest isn't....9,just 9.Can they complain? Yes, will anybody else?No.........so by Squirrel vote, and majority rule.......problems solved, for most all,except for the nine.Now since everybody is in debt to everybody else, we give most a break, say take the highest below 100,Belgium, and subtract that from everybody over 100% of GDP,and we're left with..............
Japan 127.2%
Saint Kitts & Nevis 86.4
Lebanon 51.4
Zimbabwe 50.4
Greece 45.4
Iceland 25.2
Jamaica 24.6
Italy 19.5
Singapore 3.8
Those remain in debt, at the level above, they, The Goat Nations,they The Nine Goat Nations....everybody else, has now ZERO debt.Problem solved, except for the nine who would remain,tough love,tough luck.But from approximately 195 countries in the world, give or take one or two or so.......The Nine,The Goats,would remain in debt, but the question is................ to whom?
Secret Squirrel,
M.R.L.,(MP,Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
others in debt though, and some still enormously so. It would all be so very complex, and seemingly inflexible, unworkable,the bookkeeping an utter and complete nightmare.But,remember, the national debts ALSO include internal debts, debts of the nation itself,internally, a nation overspending internally, paying itself off internally,and that figures in and throws everything off.So sadly, that becomes confusingly unfathomable,incalculable,unworkable.....impossible?It hasn't been attempted.
But wait, there is an easier way to clear most everybody's debt,a way that would please EVERYBODY, except,in my calculations, for nine nations (9,count'em)who will just have to take their mulligan.So let us proceed with the solution.Firstly let's look at the horrible nine (9) who are going to be left, let's look at their debt figures
Japan 225.80%
Saint Kitts and Nevis 185.00
Lebanon 150.70
Zimbabwe 149.00
Greece 144.00
Iceland 123.80
Jamaica 123.20
Italy 118.10
Singapore 102.40
Now we use Belgium as a base,who happen to be the tenth worse in terms of GDP national debt,at 98.60% of gdp debt......so less draw the line at Belgium, at a healthy 98.6,works for body temperature, it's the cure for debt, in short we deduct 98.6 from everybody at 100% above GDP for debt and the new adjusted in debt nations are.......ONLY....9 in number....everybody else is at zero GDP national debt............of course some nations,as a matter of fact most all nations,got a really good deal, but Belgium got a really good deal being let off at 98.6% of GDP debt, and the smaller debt nations don't get quite such a good deal,but so it goes.Now isn't it a much better world all round and about with only 9 nations in debt,really now? Isn't it eh?
And is it fair? well, there are 9 left and only 9 ,a really small minority compared with the rest isn't....9,just 9.Can they complain? Yes, will anybody else?No.........so by Squirrel vote, and majority rule.......problems solved, for most all,except for the nine.Now since everybody is in debt to everybody else, we give most a break, say take the highest below 100,Belgium, and subtract that from everybody over 100% of GDP,and we're left with..............
Japan 127.2%
Saint Kitts & Nevis 86.4
Lebanon 51.4
Zimbabwe 50.4
Greece 45.4
Iceland 25.2
Jamaica 24.6
Italy 19.5
Singapore 3.8
Those remain in debt, at the level above, they, The Goat Nations,they The Nine Goat Nations....everybody else, has now ZERO debt.Problem solved, except for the nine who would remain,tough love,tough luck.But from approximately 195 countries in the world, give or take one or two or so.......The Nine,The Goats,would remain in debt, but the question is................ to whom?
Secret Squirrel,
M.R.L.,(MP,Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Secret Squirrel Considers The Problems Of The Euro.
Secret Squirrel here ponders Europe's,The EEC's, The European Union's, The European Confederacy's,currency,the Euro(also known as the Ecu), and their individual currencies, et all. In short, here we are taking up,Eurology, also known as taking the piss out, as Euro IS Greek for
piss, and very close to the actual truth it is as well.Firstly we have to ponder and consider what Europe as it presently is, is, in reality.Well, they don't claim to be a country, but they do have a unified Parliament, with an elected but appointed (as of lately),President,(the people don't get to vote, the States do, much as did the American Confederacy),and this parliament can rule, overrule the individual nations that make it up, in short, and in right proper terms, it is not specifically a nation as the United States is, not a Union as it were, but a Confederacy as it was, and as Europe is. Fine, so in structure, it seems they wish everybody to believe that they are separate, and individual,but and not a collected aggregate of states, as in the individual states of America, and so The United States, in the American Union.However they ALL must follow the rules of the Parliament, laws etc etc etc.If there is dissent, with a law,
the problematic law can be avoided in implementation in that location,but only for a time, and then must be conformed with.Militarily they seem to presently be able to control their individual armies, but we notice reductions taking place, particularly in England.They have not gone to what seems not to be, a unified military command,nor uniformed unified military.
Out of the European ,military alliance, this NATO, with some outside Europe member, and out of the EEC,The European Economic Union, was born,actually, the present entity that this so-called so-called United Europe is. It was out of this Unification of sorts, though it may be of all sorts, very much out of sorts, they derived the idea,of some
sorts, of a common currency, The EURO. Indeed the idea was simplistic, a Euro was worth so much of the nation state's own currency.The basis was the fact that the many currencies of the world seemed to be pegged against the dollar, the US dollar, in short their value fluctuated against this fixed dollar,being worth so much against the dollar and compared with and to the dollar.
In practice, and reality, this was the same then for all member states, they could, for a time, continue to use and keep their own currency, but also use this second common currency,of fixed value, their currency being worth so many of their monetary units versus it, versus The Euro, the single Euro.In good time, the idea was to thence eventually abandon the state currency and use only the Euro.
It works in theory.It worked for America, as the individual states all had their own currency before they went to their common dollar.It worked at the time of the collapse of The American Confederacy which used their Confederate Dollar,when the Confederated States were absorbed,by military defeat, in to the United States, The Union as it were.So it works, and did work, in practice. But then there's the reality of Europe,today, where nothing and nobody seems to work.Is the Euro in trouble? Yes, it's value has gone down, fluctuated as it were and is. But why?Remember the value of anybody's dollar or whatever you choose to call it, is purely artificial, it's value is anything anybody in particular wishes to accept it's value as being at any given time.Currency is just that, based on the barter system, a potato is worth so many dollars,based on the potato in question, at time of urchase, it can be worth more or less, depending on acceptance. Now, what is causing the Euro not to be so accepted? Well, there is this thing called the economy,which encompasses all goods and services,governmental expenditures,imports,exports,the GDP(Gross Domestic Product....they seemed to prefer this to GNP which formerly was known as The Gross National Product).
Now of the 23 European Union nations, 16 of those use the Euro,as well as several outside the European Union,but here we'll deal only with those, and their GDP percentile national debt......
Austria 70.40%
Belgium 98.60
Cyprus 61.20
Estonia 7.70 (gee is this'n ever an embarrassment to Europe).
Finland 45.40
France 83.50
Germany 78.80
Greece 144.00
Ireland 94.20
Italy 118.00
Malta 72.60
Netherlands 64.60
Portugal 83.20
Slovakia 41.0
Slovenia 35.50
Spain 63.40
So the total of GDP percentile debt for European Union nations using the Euro, for the Euro, means the Euro European Union has a GDP percentile debt of 72.63% for their agregate GDP.At the formation and attempts to convert to the euro, the euro was run in parallel to the existent currencies,and things went understandably downhill from there. The national debts of the nations using the Euro rose, and as the debt rose, so then did the value of the Euro fall,falling to the extent that today it is considered to be a failed currency.Countries that play by the rules can collapse, and yet countries that run up wild debts,ever increasing such as the US, and Japan can remain stable for a lot longer than what math would suspect,their currencies still stable,you see the issue is political,not financial.You see in Europe, the European Union, there is really no central bank internally to control things,there is no central European Treasury with centralised economic and fiscal policy,so all the nations indulged in wild uncontrolled economic spending,particularly, Greece,Italy,Portugal,Ireland,Spain.It is now no longer a question of will the Euro fail, but rather when will it fail.The poorly led weak European governments lacked the essential backbone to take the decisions needed for essential economic reform,restraint, and in place of deficit reductions, engaged in policies increasing deficits with wild,uncontrolled abandon.The Euro,which was seen as a strong central currency within Europe, taking the place of the US dollar, all currencies revolving around it,the currencies rising and falling against it, was in fact not so.
Instead it was the currencies who cumulatively pulled down the value of the Euro globally.Any new attempts at debt restructuring will devalue the Eurozone currency in the same way as several south American countries have in the past.Should the Euro fail,
then a unified Europe,as an attempt as a Union( as the United States)will also fail, and simply become a reversion to the EEC(the European economic Union),a loose Confederacy,(as The American Confederacy).The monetary union WILL fail as each member states debt increases, and as those who join, similarly suffer from debt increases which are in fact inevitable due to the times........recession has, and will ,kill off the European economic Union.In good economic times, the differences could just
about be accommodated but the tensions became unsustainable when the Great Recession hit.The euro is defective because it seeks to bind together disparate countries which run their economies in very different ways.The attempt at monetary union came at the wrong time, it came at recession,that, and coupled with a lack of central monetary and fiscal policy,there was no ability in Europe to regulate in controlled centralized fashion(as with a single nation),the member states economic activities,and so it
was doomed to failure,failure since all and each of the individual currencies of the member states and resultant debt overprinting of said currencies,influences and brings down the Euro itself, rather than having the currency itself devalued against the Euro internally.
piss, and very close to the actual truth it is as well.Firstly we have to ponder and consider what Europe as it presently is, is, in reality.Well, they don't claim to be a country, but they do have a unified Parliament, with an elected but appointed (as of lately),President,(the people don't get to vote, the States do, much as did the American Confederacy),and this parliament can rule, overrule the individual nations that make it up, in short, and in right proper terms, it is not specifically a nation as the United States is, not a Union as it were, but a Confederacy as it was, and as Europe is. Fine, so in structure, it seems they wish everybody to believe that they are separate, and individual,but and not a collected aggregate of states, as in the individual states of America, and so The United States, in the American Union.However they ALL must follow the rules of the Parliament, laws etc etc etc.If there is dissent, with a law,
the problematic law can be avoided in implementation in that location,but only for a time, and then must be conformed with.Militarily they seem to presently be able to control their individual armies, but we notice reductions taking place, particularly in England.They have not gone to what seems not to be, a unified military command,nor uniformed unified military.
Out of the European ,military alliance, this NATO, with some outside Europe member, and out of the EEC,The European Economic Union, was born,actually, the present entity that this so-called so-called United Europe is. It was out of this Unification of sorts, though it may be of all sorts, very much out of sorts, they derived the idea,of some
sorts, of a common currency, The EURO. Indeed the idea was simplistic, a Euro was worth so much of the nation state's own currency.The basis was the fact that the many currencies of the world seemed to be pegged against the dollar, the US dollar, in short their value fluctuated against this fixed dollar,being worth so much against the dollar and compared with and to the dollar.
In practice, and reality, this was the same then for all member states, they could, for a time, continue to use and keep their own currency, but also use this second common currency,of fixed value, their currency being worth so many of their monetary units versus it, versus The Euro, the single Euro.In good time, the idea was to thence eventually abandon the state currency and use only the Euro.
It works in theory.It worked for America, as the individual states all had their own currency before they went to their common dollar.It worked at the time of the collapse of The American Confederacy which used their Confederate Dollar,when the Confederated States were absorbed,by military defeat, in to the United States, The Union as it were.So it works, and did work, in practice. But then there's the reality of Europe,today, where nothing and nobody seems to work.Is the Euro in trouble? Yes, it's value has gone down, fluctuated as it were and is. But why?Remember the value of anybody's dollar or whatever you choose to call it, is purely artificial, it's value is anything anybody in particular wishes to accept it's value as being at any given time.Currency is just that, based on the barter system, a potato is worth so many dollars,based on the potato in question, at time of urchase, it can be worth more or less, depending on acceptance. Now, what is causing the Euro not to be so accepted? Well, there is this thing called the economy,which encompasses all goods and services,governmental expenditures,imports,exports,the GDP(Gross Domestic Product....they seemed to prefer this to GNP which formerly was known as The Gross National Product).
Now of the 23 European Union nations, 16 of those use the Euro,as well as several outside the European Union,but here we'll deal only with those, and their GDP percentile national debt......
Austria 70.40%
Belgium 98.60
Cyprus 61.20
Estonia 7.70 (gee is this'n ever an embarrassment to Europe).
Finland 45.40
France 83.50
Germany 78.80
Greece 144.00
Ireland 94.20
Italy 118.00
Malta 72.60
Netherlands 64.60
Portugal 83.20
Slovakia 41.0
Slovenia 35.50
Spain 63.40
So the total of GDP percentile debt for European Union nations using the Euro, for the Euro, means the Euro European Union has a GDP percentile debt of 72.63% for their agregate GDP.At the formation and attempts to convert to the euro, the euro was run in parallel to the existent currencies,and things went understandably downhill from there. The national debts of the nations using the Euro rose, and as the debt rose, so then did the value of the Euro fall,falling to the extent that today it is considered to be a failed currency.Countries that play by the rules can collapse, and yet countries that run up wild debts,ever increasing such as the US, and Japan can remain stable for a lot longer than what math would suspect,their currencies still stable,you see the issue is political,not financial.You see in Europe, the European Union, there is really no central bank internally to control things,there is no central European Treasury with centralised economic and fiscal policy,so all the nations indulged in wild uncontrolled economic spending,particularly, Greece,Italy,Portugal,Ireland,Spain.It is now no longer a question of will the Euro fail, but rather when will it fail.The poorly led weak European governments lacked the essential backbone to take the decisions needed for essential economic reform,restraint, and in place of deficit reductions, engaged in policies increasing deficits with wild,uncontrolled abandon.The Euro,which was seen as a strong central currency within Europe, taking the place of the US dollar, all currencies revolving around it,the currencies rising and falling against it, was in fact not so.
Instead it was the currencies who cumulatively pulled down the value of the Euro globally.Any new attempts at debt restructuring will devalue the Eurozone currency in the same way as several south American countries have in the past.Should the Euro fail,
then a unified Europe,as an attempt as a Union( as the United States)will also fail, and simply become a reversion to the EEC(the European economic Union),a loose Confederacy,(as The American Confederacy).The monetary union WILL fail as each member states debt increases, and as those who join, similarly suffer from debt increases which are in fact inevitable due to the times........recession has, and will ,kill off the European economic Union.In good economic times, the differences could just
about be accommodated but the tensions became unsustainable when the Great Recession hit.The euro is defective because it seeks to bind together disparate countries which run their economies in very different ways.The attempt at monetary union came at the wrong time, it came at recession,that, and coupled with a lack of central monetary and fiscal policy,there was no ability in Europe to regulate in controlled centralized fashion(as with a single nation),the member states economic activities,and so it
was doomed to failure,failure since all and each of the individual currencies of the member states and resultant debt overprinting of said currencies,influences and brings down the Euro itself, rather than having the currency itself devalued against the Euro internally.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Secret Squirrel Ponders World Debts And Suggests A Cure
Secret Squirrel has had his attention drawn to America, and it's staggering debt,but on pondering national debt, taking in European nations national debts, has made a fascinating discovery. The debts you see, calculated in dollar figures, are balance calculated against the GDP(Gross Domestic Product,or productivity of a nation as it were), as a percentile. Interestingly,while America is shocked at it's 14.3trillion dollar national debt,coming in at 60% of GDP, other nations, particularly Europeanones, have much higher GDP percentile figures! And then Squirrel looked at some other nations, and discovered much lower,many times lower, GDP debt percentiles!
Well, what is the how and they why?Well, first let's ponder the headlines as they scream at us, those with respect to America,well,what do the headlines read?
Here we start with our epistle,and we commence,as quoted..........
US Set To Reach $14.3 Trillion 'Debt Ceiling'
(from........)
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-America-To-Reach-Debt-Ceiling-143-Trillion-Congress-To-Vote-To-Increase-Limit/Article/201105315992488?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15992488_Video%2C_America_To_Reach_Debt_Ceiling_%2414.3_Trillion%3A_Congress_To_Vote_To_Increase_Limit
by Greg Milam, US correspondent(Skynews)
America is set to reach its $14.3 trillion 'debt ceiling' - the amount it is legally allowed to borrow.America's deficit for 2011 is expected to be a record-breaking $1.5 trillion.
If the US Congress fails to vote to increase the debt limit, the White House has warned that the country would default on its debt and spark a new financial crisis.
The US Treasury says it will implement "extraordinary measures" so the country can keep paying its bills until August.But Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress last week that any delay in increasing the debt limit would result in higher interest rates and could have "extremely dire consequences for the US economy".President Barack Obama has been leading financial negotiations
And, while it is expected the debt ceiling will be increased, the debate has become wrapped up in the political row about how to cut the country's crippling debt.
And here ends the as quoted epistle.
So,is it frightening?Is this a ridiculous item or not?Is it likely that Congress won't allow an increase in the debt ceiling?So very...........not going to happen.But does it really all matter?Is the article in the first place ridiculous in another place, never mind the first place?Yes.Utterly!There is a system,but the ridiculous debt figure, just keeps increasing. So what of other nations? Can they do as America does? Seemingly not,but they do you see,all of them do you see,for that is how the system of economics works you see,they're even yet worse off you see, when all figures are taken in to account and calculated against their individual GDP's. So it's wonderful to run a country which prints up currency whilly nilly as it requires when and where and whenever and whatever,isn't it? They all actually do you know,or they couldn't run,it's part and parcel part of and is, the system.why just look at Japan, which has the world's highest debt figure, calculated as percentile of the GPD, and going to get far far worse what with the recent tsunami and nuclear disaster the Japanese are presently suffering from.It's stated figure of debt versus the GDP percentile is presently 225%,whilst America's is a meaghre 60%.
So for America it's debt is said to be 60% of the GDP(the figure of debt being stated as being 4.3trillion).Is America suffering very much?It seems so, but then the figures for Europe are much higher,for each member nation of Euro,Europe,EEC or whatever they are calling themselves as a nation state confederacy of whatever.The UK is at 76%,middle of the road for Europe(let's call it that),Greece is the highest at 144%,Roumania seems to be the lowest at 35%.Outside of things, looking in,and not
liking what they're seeing,Canada lists 34%,Australia a humble 23%.Interestingly China is at 18%,and Russia is at about 10%,only.
Hhmmmmmmmmmm,what have we here?Is there a trend?How did it all start?Well,let's go back in time, to better economic times.What was it like.Well,indeed things weren't
as they are now, in America,or in Europe. No indeed.The economies were solid, we were capitalist,we were consumer oriented, we had jobs building things.But then, we
started importing, buying cheaper from many other lands,increasing imports, we declined in internal jobs,and our debts started to build an climb.What is it like
now?Curious it is, isn't it?Does it seem that the less you know about capitalism the better off you are, and the least developed you are,and the least consumer goods
you have,as a nation, the better things are for you,in terms of economy and national debt!
So, where are we going here? Well, to level things out,what could be done,
is allow nations such as Russia and China to buy whatever, as they completely and utterly wished. This would improve them in making them more capitalist,more consumer oriented, and more developed.Our debt versus GDP would improve in figures, declining in the percentile,as we increasingly supply those lower GDP debt ridden nations, and theirs would thence increase towards ours in the percentile...........and so then our economies would improve and we would have employment etc, and they would have goods and services etc and their economy would there for drop to finally achieve at one point a balance with everyone else.At least that is as far as I have gotten,in figuring out how to bring things to a balance. Once level we could all safely thence again start building a debt and so recommence the entire process.
Well, what is the how and they why?Well, first let's ponder the headlines as they scream at us, those with respect to America,well,what do the headlines read?
Here we start with our epistle,and we commence,as quoted..........
US Set To Reach $14.3 Trillion 'Debt Ceiling'
(from........)
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-America-To-Reach-Debt-Ceiling-143-Trillion-Congress-To-Vote-To-Increase-Limit/Article/201105315992488?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15992488_Video%2C_America_To_Reach_Debt_Ceiling_%2414.3_Trillion%3A_Congress_To_Vote_To_Increase_Limit
by Greg Milam, US correspondent(Skynews)
America is set to reach its $14.3 trillion 'debt ceiling' - the amount it is legally allowed to borrow.America's deficit for 2011 is expected to be a record-breaking $1.5 trillion.
If the US Congress fails to vote to increase the debt limit, the White House has warned that the country would default on its debt and spark a new financial crisis.
The US Treasury says it will implement "extraordinary measures" so the country can keep paying its bills until August.But Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress last week that any delay in increasing the debt limit would result in higher interest rates and could have "extremely dire consequences for the US economy".President Barack Obama has been leading financial negotiations
And, while it is expected the debt ceiling will be increased, the debate has become wrapped up in the political row about how to cut the country's crippling debt.
And here ends the as quoted epistle.
So,is it frightening?Is this a ridiculous item or not?Is it likely that Congress won't allow an increase in the debt ceiling?So very...........not going to happen.But does it really all matter?Is the article in the first place ridiculous in another place, never mind the first place?Yes.Utterly!There is a system,but the ridiculous debt figure, just keeps increasing. So what of other nations? Can they do as America does? Seemingly not,but they do you see,all of them do you see,for that is how the system of economics works you see,they're even yet worse off you see, when all figures are taken in to account and calculated against their individual GDP's. So it's wonderful to run a country which prints up currency whilly nilly as it requires when and where and whenever and whatever,isn't it? They all actually do you know,or they couldn't run,it's part and parcel part of and is, the system.why just look at Japan, which has the world's highest debt figure, calculated as percentile of the GPD, and going to get far far worse what with the recent tsunami and nuclear disaster the Japanese are presently suffering from.It's stated figure of debt versus the GDP percentile is presently 225%,whilst America's is a meaghre 60%.
So for America it's debt is said to be 60% of the GDP(the figure of debt being stated as being 4.3trillion).Is America suffering very much?It seems so, but then the figures for Europe are much higher,for each member nation of Euro,Europe,EEC or whatever they are calling themselves as a nation state confederacy of whatever.The UK is at 76%,middle of the road for Europe(let's call it that),Greece is the highest at 144%,Roumania seems to be the lowest at 35%.Outside of things, looking in,and not
liking what they're seeing,Canada lists 34%,Australia a humble 23%.Interestingly China is at 18%,and Russia is at about 10%,only.
Hhmmmmmmmmmm,what have we here?Is there a trend?How did it all start?Well,let's go back in time, to better economic times.What was it like.Well,indeed things weren't
as they are now, in America,or in Europe. No indeed.The economies were solid, we were capitalist,we were consumer oriented, we had jobs building things.But then, we
started importing, buying cheaper from many other lands,increasing imports, we declined in internal jobs,and our debts started to build an climb.What is it like
now?Curious it is, isn't it?Does it seem that the less you know about capitalism the better off you are, and the least developed you are,and the least consumer goods
you have,as a nation, the better things are for you,in terms of economy and national debt!
So, where are we going here? Well, to level things out,what could be done,
is allow nations such as Russia and China to buy whatever, as they completely and utterly wished. This would improve them in making them more capitalist,more consumer oriented, and more developed.Our debt versus GDP would improve in figures, declining in the percentile,as we increasingly supply those lower GDP debt ridden nations, and theirs would thence increase towards ours in the percentile...........and so then our economies would improve and we would have employment etc, and they would have goods and services etc and their economy would there for drop to finally achieve at one point a balance with everyone else.At least that is as far as I have gotten,in figuring out how to bring things to a balance. Once level we could all safely thence again start building a debt and so recommence the entire process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)