It seems that an aspiring rocket scientist in Wisconsin has a problem with being assigned homework over summer break.
“MILWAUKEE — A student whose vacation plans were spoiled has sued to end summer homework in Wisconsin, claiming it creates an unfair workload and unnecessary stress”.
“Peer Larson, 17, had lined up a dream camp counselor job last June, but honors pre-calculus homework turned his summer into a headache.”
"It didn't completely ruin my summer, but it did give me a lot of undue stress both at home and at work," the high school junior said Thursday. "I just didn't have the energy or the time for it."
So help me see if I have this story straight.
This guy has attained the ripe old of age of 17. He’s going to a watered down, politically correct, metal detector equipped government school to get a so-called “education.” He is apparently smart enough to be allowed to enroll in “honors pre-calculus.”
After Mr. Larson is forced to burn the midnight oil solving a few math problems in between summer camp panty raids and singing “Kumbaya” by the campfire, he decides to file a lawsuit to change the curriculum so that future students won’t be forced to endure the mental anguish of choosing between studying Calculus and playing video games or running around spending their hard earned summer job cash.
Is that the way you see the situation?
Well then, let me ask you this…
Why the heck does Peer (I bet that being tagged with the name “Peer” represents a ticket to a lifetime of rhyming taunts in school) think that the administration might have chosen to include the word “HONORS” in the course title. Might not it involve an effort to identify a class that includes advanced subject matter and extra coursework?
If “Peer” didn’t want to do homework over his beloved summer break, why didn’t he elect to take “CALCULUS FOR DUMBASSES,” Abacus 101, or maybe “counting past ten with your shoes on?” Unless the “honors pre-calculus” class has just been added to the curriculum, I’m sure that the teenaged rumor mill had previously documented the requirement for summer homework.
And the most damning thing about this story is that Peer’s father is helping him pursue the lawsuit and is acting as the attorney.
It would seem that stupidity runs deep in the Larson family tree.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Feckless--Part II
Last month I published my post entitled Feckless addressing, of all things, the United Nations. In that writing I mentioned that the dictionary gave this definition for the word Feckless:
Feckless (adj.) 1. Lacking purpose or vitality; feeble or ineffective.
2. Careless and irresponsible
Well, not to appear to be flogging the proverbial dead horse, but I have yet another problem with the UN this evening. I seems that the UN has decided that it cannot be responsible for observing the Iraqi elections this month.
Further, they waited until 10 days before the election to make the announcement. Where is my passport and shotgun, looks like I’ve got to make a trip next week…
Listen to this lame crap:
“United Nations diplomats are warning that Iraq's first democratic election will be held without wide-scale international monitoring.
The UN says it cannot observe the January 30 poll because it played a role in setting up the elections, and no other international organisation has stepped in to offer assistance.”
My response to these two sentences is: a) so what and b) since when?
So what if wide scale international monitoring isn’t available? I suggest that if the Iraqi people and the interim governing council are happy with the outcome, it’s none of the UN’s damn business how the election was handled. Remember that the UN was on Saddam’s payroll for 8 or 10 years and they didn’t seem to have a problem with him being an un-elected leader?
Since when has the UN excluded themselves from being the official international busybodies in every other countries’ business including elections over the past 60 years? And what do they mean when they say that they can't monitor the elections because they set them up? Are the elections rigged and they can't monitor them because they know where to look for evidence of hanky-panky or what.
They are only now making this belated “announcement” because they are pissed off that the US wouldn’t delay the election and they can’t control the process to their satisfaction.
What other international organization would they like to step in in their absence? The NBA, the FAA, NASA, the EU, or perhaps the NCAA? Maybe they would rather have a soccer game or a cricket match rather than an election.
“The absence of international monitoring could undermine confidence in the results of elections that are already threatened by widespread voter intimidation and the boycott of Sunni Arab parties.
But one UN official said there would be sufficient scrutiny by local party observers and domestic non-governmental organisations. “It's not essential to have international election observers,” said Carlos Valenzuela, the UN's Iraq election expert. A Canada-based umbrella group of electoral experts, the International Mission for Iraqi Elections, was established in December to help assess the process, but insists it is not a monitoring mission.
“Monitoring is a big problem. There won't be any international observation mechanism,” said one UN diplomat. “The UN is not willing. No one is willing. No one wants to send their people there.”
Even the number of Iraqis expected to oversee the process was “less than expected or needed”.
The diplomat described IMIE as a “last-minute” initiative, which will send experts to Jordan and Baghdad's green zone “to provide a kind of out-of-country monitoring mission”.
Another claimed it would provide helpful scrutiny of “organisational points of the process”, but added: “You can't expect international monitors to be located across the country.”
IMIE refuses to answer press enquiries about its job. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, its head, refuses interview requests, and journalists are referred to the body's website.
This Canada based International Mission for Iraqi Elections has the distinct odor of smelly socks and sweaty feet, in my opinion. It is so appropriate that their leader is named Jean-Pierre. Can you say France West?
The IMIE (as in Imie, Meemie , Mimie, Moe?), has spent all of their time running around outside of Iraq, avoiding car bombs, looking for so-called Iraqi nationals to vote. What I want to know is, how do you tell an Iraqi from a Saudi? Do they have a class ring, a driver’s license, or a fraternity jersey, or maybe a tattoo that gives them away on a positive ID basis? What are the odds that the Iraqi nationals that the IMIE does find and positively identify are actually displaced Saddam supporters who had enough money to get the hell out to avoid the fighting and are just itching for the opportunity to move back in country and pick up where they left off two years ago?
Again, all that the UN has proven here is how absolutely useless they are in achieving a basic mission that they claim to be experts at. This election has been scheduled for over six months and the UN can’t recruit and train enough indigenous personnel to accomplish what they claim is a vital mission.
Other than bitching and complaining and fund raising, what the heck can the UN actually be counted on to accomplish?
Just wondering….
Feckless (adj.) 1. Lacking purpose or vitality; feeble or ineffective.
2. Careless and irresponsible
Well, not to appear to be flogging the proverbial dead horse, but I have yet another problem with the UN this evening. I seems that the UN has decided that it cannot be responsible for observing the Iraqi elections this month.
Further, they waited until 10 days before the election to make the announcement. Where is my passport and shotgun, looks like I’ve got to make a trip next week…
Listen to this lame crap:
“United Nations diplomats are warning that Iraq's first democratic election will be held without wide-scale international monitoring.
The UN says it cannot observe the January 30 poll because it played a role in setting up the elections, and no other international organisation has stepped in to offer assistance.”
My response to these two sentences is: a) so what and b) since when?
So what if wide scale international monitoring isn’t available? I suggest that if the Iraqi people and the interim governing council are happy with the outcome, it’s none of the UN’s damn business how the election was handled. Remember that the UN was on Saddam’s payroll for 8 or 10 years and they didn’t seem to have a problem with him being an un-elected leader?
Since when has the UN excluded themselves from being the official international busybodies in every other countries’ business including elections over the past 60 years? And what do they mean when they say that they can't monitor the elections because they set them up? Are the elections rigged and they can't monitor them because they know where to look for evidence of hanky-panky or what.
They are only now making this belated “announcement” because they are pissed off that the US wouldn’t delay the election and they can’t control the process to their satisfaction.
What other international organization would they like to step in in their absence? The NBA, the FAA, NASA, the EU, or perhaps the NCAA? Maybe they would rather have a soccer game or a cricket match rather than an election.
“The absence of international monitoring could undermine confidence in the results of elections that are already threatened by widespread voter intimidation and the boycott of Sunni Arab parties.
But one UN official said there would be sufficient scrutiny by local party observers and domestic non-governmental organisations. “It's not essential to have international election observers,” said Carlos Valenzuela, the UN's Iraq election expert. A Canada-based umbrella group of electoral experts, the International Mission for Iraqi Elections, was established in December to help assess the process, but insists it is not a monitoring mission.
“Monitoring is a big problem. There won't be any international observation mechanism,” said one UN diplomat. “The UN is not willing. No one is willing. No one wants to send their people there.”
Even the number of Iraqis expected to oversee the process was “less than expected or needed”.
The diplomat described IMIE as a “last-minute” initiative, which will send experts to Jordan and Baghdad's green zone “to provide a kind of out-of-country monitoring mission”.
Another claimed it would provide helpful scrutiny of “organisational points of the process”, but added: “You can't expect international monitors to be located across the country.”
IMIE refuses to answer press enquiries about its job. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, its head, refuses interview requests, and journalists are referred to the body's website.
This Canada based International Mission for Iraqi Elections has the distinct odor of smelly socks and sweaty feet, in my opinion. It is so appropriate that their leader is named Jean-Pierre. Can you say France West?
The IMIE (as in Imie, Meemie , Mimie, Moe?), has spent all of their time running around outside of Iraq, avoiding car bombs, looking for so-called Iraqi nationals to vote. What I want to know is, how do you tell an Iraqi from a Saudi? Do they have a class ring, a driver’s license, or a fraternity jersey, or maybe a tattoo that gives them away on a positive ID basis? What are the odds that the Iraqi nationals that the IMIE does find and positively identify are actually displaced Saddam supporters who had enough money to get the hell out to avoid the fighting and are just itching for the opportunity to move back in country and pick up where they left off two years ago?
Again, all that the UN has proven here is how absolutely useless they are in achieving a basic mission that they claim to be experts at. This election has been scheduled for over six months and the UN can’t recruit and train enough indigenous personnel to accomplish what they claim is a vital mission.
Other than bitching and complaining and fund raising, what the heck can the UN actually be counted on to accomplish?
Just wondering….
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Don't Drink The Water
(More insanity at the EPA)
I’m having a hard time understanding this issue and to date I’ve avoided publicly commenting, but after reading the latest hysterical news story, thinking about it for a while this afternoon thereby getting up a good head of steam, I believe it is time to cut loose and see what happens. Here goes…
It seems that the EPA still has a problem with the quality of the drinking water stored in the holding tanks of some airliners. This story has already made the rounds once last fall on the local and national TV news shows and in the newspapers. Everybody…quick… wrinkle up your noses and make a face like your smelling cat poo and yell a collective “yuck!”
“About one in six airliners in the latest round of tests conducted in November and December had drinking water that failed to meet federal safety standards, EPA said. Similar tests in August and September showed the water in one in eight aircraft testing positive for coliform bacteria.
The latest round of testing produced positive results for presence of the bacteria in 29 of 169 randomly selected passenger aircraft carrying domestic and international passengers. The tests were done on water from galley water taps and lavatory faucets on planes at 14 airports throughout the United States.
The coliform bacteria — usually harmless itself but an indicator of the possible presence of other harmful organisms — was found in the planes ranging from small commuter aircraft to jumbo jets. None had E. coli bacteria (news - web sites ), which can cause gastrointestinal illness.
"It's an issue that's of concern," said Thomas V. Skinner, acting assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "It's not an indication that anyone needs to panic."
Despite the increased rate of aircraft testing positive over a previous round of testing, Skinner said he "would still maintain that the vast majority of planes do not come up positive."
He said the government does not plan a third round of tests.”
First things first. Finding coliform bacteria in 1/8th of the airliners in one test and 1/6th of the airliners in another is not a trend.
Why?
They only looked at 169 airplanes, that's why!
There are over 13,000 McDonald Douglas, Boeing, and Airbus airliners in service today worldwide. There are also a bunch of other smaller "regional jets" flying around not included in that number.
I suspect that at least half of them are operating domestically or arrive in the US occasionally on international flights. How in the world can the EPA honestly tell us anything about the quality of water on airliners by looking at only 169 airplanes twice? Did they look at the same planes each time or choose different ones?
And why would anyone actually care? Don’t we all usually drink bottled water served off of the little cart that comes rolling down the isle, served by the frowning flight attendant, five minutes before the airplane begins it’s “initial descent into the airport area” thereby forcing you to relinquish you much awaited cup of ice and water into the trash after you’ve “returned your tray table and seatback into the upright and locked position?” It’s not like I’m running into the urine-spattered restroom and lapping up handfuls of water out of the sink, you know?
I suspect that if they did two more tests involving the same number of airplanes they’d get two different sets of results, again. And the most damming thing about this story is this. If we are really supposed to be concerned about water quality issues on airliners, why isn’t the EPA going to do another set of follow up tests?
BECAUSE THE EPA IS GOVERNMENT, THAT’S WHY.
Based on my past experience with “water quality” issues on recreational vehicles (motor homes and cabin cruisers,) the best that you can do is keep the water looking relatively clear and not smelling like Okefenokee Swamp water. All you can do is basically change the water every now and then and dump a few caps of Clorox in for good measure and that’s about it. Bathing in the holding tank water and washing some pots and pans is OK, but bottled water is the way to go in your Winnebago or Sea Ray. Why should it be any different on a Delta Flight?
And really, if the airlines wanted to and could actually afford to worry about and ensure that they have surgically steralized water meeting the vaulted "EPA standards" on an airliner, I would hope that they could do it. Otherwise, how can we expect them to ensure that the fuel tanks aren't also contaminated with rat turds and that the freaking General Electric gas turbines will actually reliably operate for three and one-half hours between Atlanta and LA, turning at 30,000 RPM and flying at 40,000 feet in minus 20 degrees Celsius air?
Once again people, what we have here is a bored reporter and a slow news day and the end result is…
Much Ado About Nothing! Now find something that actually matters to worry about...
Update...January 19, 2005, 6:45 PM, after some more thought.....
If I were the EPA or the FAA, I would start checking the TANKER TRUCKS that are delivering the water to the offending airliners rather than pontificating about the water quality of the airplanes themselves. Do they think that somehow the airplanes are catching raindrops in flight or have really long wicks or siphon hoses that pick up water in route from the Rio Grande or Loche Ness or what.???
I can just hear the announcement over the intercom now..."Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen... Please remain calm, but do we have Jesus on board the aircraft ...we're a bit short on our wine inventory and the water looks a little bit tepid???"
Can't we just change my headline to "DON'T DRINK THE WATER (from the tanker trucks in the parking lot)??
Damn, I'm really stupid for not thinking of this angle from the outset when I first posted my ranting and raving. Come on People...HELP ME THINK for a CHANGE...Plueaseee ...Don't make me work so hard!
I’m having a hard time understanding this issue and to date I’ve avoided publicly commenting, but after reading the latest hysterical news story, thinking about it for a while this afternoon thereby getting up a good head of steam, I believe it is time to cut loose and see what happens. Here goes…
It seems that the EPA still has a problem with the quality of the drinking water stored in the holding tanks of some airliners. This story has already made the rounds once last fall on the local and national TV news shows and in the newspapers. Everybody…quick… wrinkle up your noses and make a face like your smelling cat poo and yell a collective “yuck!”
“About one in six airliners in the latest round of tests conducted in November and December had drinking water that failed to meet federal safety standards, EPA said. Similar tests in August and September showed the water in one in eight aircraft testing positive for coliform bacteria.
The latest round of testing produced positive results for presence of the bacteria in 29 of 169 randomly selected passenger aircraft carrying domestic and international passengers. The tests were done on water from galley water taps and lavatory faucets on planes at 14 airports throughout the United States.
The coliform bacteria — usually harmless itself but an indicator of the possible presence of other harmful organisms — was found in the planes ranging from small commuter aircraft to jumbo jets. None had E. coli bacteria (news - web sites ), which can cause gastrointestinal illness.
"It's an issue that's of concern," said Thomas V. Skinner, acting assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "It's not an indication that anyone needs to panic."
Despite the increased rate of aircraft testing positive over a previous round of testing, Skinner said he "would still maintain that the vast majority of planes do not come up positive."
He said the government does not plan a third round of tests.”
First things first. Finding coliform bacteria in 1/8th of the airliners in one test and 1/6th of the airliners in another is not a trend.
Why?
They only looked at 169 airplanes, that's why!
There are over 13,000 McDonald Douglas, Boeing, and Airbus airliners in service today worldwide. There are also a bunch of other smaller "regional jets" flying around not included in that number.
I suspect that at least half of them are operating domestically or arrive in the US occasionally on international flights. How in the world can the EPA honestly tell us anything about the quality of water on airliners by looking at only 169 airplanes twice? Did they look at the same planes each time or choose different ones?
And why would anyone actually care? Don’t we all usually drink bottled water served off of the little cart that comes rolling down the isle, served by the frowning flight attendant, five minutes before the airplane begins it’s “initial descent into the airport area” thereby forcing you to relinquish you much awaited cup of ice and water into the trash after you’ve “returned your tray table and seatback into the upright and locked position?” It’s not like I’m running into the urine-spattered restroom and lapping up handfuls of water out of the sink, you know?
I suspect that if they did two more tests involving the same number of airplanes they’d get two different sets of results, again. And the most damming thing about this story is this. If we are really supposed to be concerned about water quality issues on airliners, why isn’t the EPA going to do another set of follow up tests?
BECAUSE THE EPA IS GOVERNMENT, THAT’S WHY.
Based on my past experience with “water quality” issues on recreational vehicles (motor homes and cabin cruisers,) the best that you can do is keep the water looking relatively clear and not smelling like Okefenokee Swamp water. All you can do is basically change the water every now and then and dump a few caps of Clorox in for good measure and that’s about it. Bathing in the holding tank water and washing some pots and pans is OK, but bottled water is the way to go in your Winnebago or Sea Ray. Why should it be any different on a Delta Flight?
And really, if the airlines wanted to and could actually afford to worry about and ensure that they have surgically steralized water meeting the vaulted "EPA standards" on an airliner, I would hope that they could do it. Otherwise, how can we expect them to ensure that the fuel tanks aren't also contaminated with rat turds and that the freaking General Electric gas turbines will actually reliably operate for three and one-half hours between Atlanta and LA, turning at 30,000 RPM and flying at 40,000 feet in minus 20 degrees Celsius air?
Once again people, what we have here is a bored reporter and a slow news day and the end result is…
Much Ado About Nothing! Now find something that actually matters to worry about...
Update...January 19, 2005, 6:45 PM, after some more thought.....
If I were the EPA or the FAA, I would start checking the TANKER TRUCKS that are delivering the water to the offending airliners rather than pontificating about the water quality of the airplanes themselves. Do they think that somehow the airplanes are catching raindrops in flight or have really long wicks or siphon hoses that pick up water in route from the Rio Grande or Loche Ness or what.???
I can just hear the announcement over the intercom now..."Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen... Please remain calm, but do we have Jesus on board the aircraft ...we're a bit short on our wine inventory and the water looks a little bit tepid???"
Can't we just change my headline to "DON'T DRINK THE WATER (from the tanker trucks in the parking lot)??
Damn, I'm really stupid for not thinking of this angle from the outset when I first posted my ranting and raving. Come on People...HELP ME THINK for a CHANGE...Plueaseee ...Don't make me work so hard!
The Boxer Rebellion
I’m an Alabama boy. I haven’t lived there for over 28 years, but I still consider myself an Alabamian. Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice is also from Alabama. Although she and I are from opposite sides of the state and 1960’s political landscape, we have evolved separately into the same side of the political spectrum—Miss Rice vastly exceeding my educational and professional accomplishments in the ensuing years. I'd vote for her for president right now if I had the opportunity.
I watched an hour of Barbara Boxer questioning Miss Rice on CSPAN last evening. Then I went into the kitchen and got a large spoon out of the utensil drawer, went into the bathroom, and gagged myself.
How in the world can anyone watch this crap and take Senorita Boxer seriously. Just like the congressional hearings on 9/11, every time Miss Rice would answer a question, Barbara Boxer would ignore the answer and drone on endlessly with a rhetorical list of complete crap aimed at the “congressional record” and the TV cameras.Condi is a tough cookie, however, not asking Mrs. Boxer to perform any sexual acts on herself or suggesting her to place her head in an anatomically impossible location.
At one point Mrs. Boxer actually asked that her point be read procedurally into the record. And this is the democratic party that panders to African Americans and every other downtrodden minority group, “feeling their pain” and promising to raise taxes on all of the darned old, mean old, rich achievers that have “won life’s lottery” through education and hard work.
I would like to see California congress ladies Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi compete on their own special episode of “Fear Factor.” The test would involve a 100 feet of water, a great big burlap bag, some rope, three cinder blocks, along with a single scuba tank and regulator.
May the best woman win...
I watched an hour of Barbara Boxer questioning Miss Rice on CSPAN last evening. Then I went into the kitchen and got a large spoon out of the utensil drawer, went into the bathroom, and gagged myself.
How in the world can anyone watch this crap and take Senorita Boxer seriously. Just like the congressional hearings on 9/11, every time Miss Rice would answer a question, Barbara Boxer would ignore the answer and drone on endlessly with a rhetorical list of complete crap aimed at the “congressional record” and the TV cameras.Condi is a tough cookie, however, not asking Mrs. Boxer to perform any sexual acts on herself or suggesting her to place her head in an anatomically impossible location.
At one point Mrs. Boxer actually asked that her point be read procedurally into the record. And this is the democratic party that panders to African Americans and every other downtrodden minority group, “feeling their pain” and promising to raise taxes on all of the darned old, mean old, rich achievers that have “won life’s lottery” through education and hard work.
I would like to see California congress ladies Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi compete on their own special episode of “Fear Factor.” The test would involve a 100 feet of water, a great big burlap bag, some rope, three cinder blocks, along with a single scuba tank and regulator.
May the best woman win...
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
If If's And But's Were Candy And Nuts...
Every Day'd Be Christmas
I'm a bit short on time here, but I'm so excited that I just have to tell you the good news just announced by the UN.
Here's the intro quotation from the UN press release...
"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - More than 500 million people can escape abject poverty, 250 million people will no longer go to bed hungry and 30 million children can be saved if rich countries double development aid over the next 10 years to $195 billion, a new U.N.-sponsored report said on Monday."
Now here is the punch line...
"Government aid from rich countries should amount to $135 billion in 2003, rising to $195 billion in 2015 or about 0.54 percent of these nations' GNP, about twice the current level to reach the Millennium goals, the report said. World leaders have agreed on 0.7 percent of GNP for development aid for the Millennium goals and other projects.
UNITED STATES LAGGING
But the United States with its $12 trillion economy would have to raise its contributions considerably.
Although the United States is the largest donor in the world, it contributes the smallest proportion of its GNP to development aid among 22 industrial nations.
Washington spends some 0.16 percent or $25 billion and to reach a target of 0.7 percent of its GNP, it would have to spend $80 billion.
Japan, the world's second largest economy, is also low at 0.20 percent as is Italy at 0.17 percent, and Germany at 0.27.
Among industrial nations, only Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Luxembourg have spent more than the world target of 0.7 percent of their gross national product. Britain, Belgium, France, Finland and Ireland have made promised to reach the target before 2015. "
Who the hell gets to decide how much "Government Aid" should come from "Rich Countries?"
They actually have the audacity to suggest that we should more than TRIPLE our spending on the UN? ($25 billion versus $80 billion.) Well let me get my wallet out...huummmhhh...I seem to be a little short, Kofi.
Isn't this sort of like an eight year old kid going to their parents and announcing that they don't get enough allowance? All the while the parents are providing a roof over their head (in NY City in the case of the UN), clothing, food, etc.
All of these statistics quoted only account for official government giving to the UN. They don't count the value of things like military support in the form of the Carrier Abraham Lincoln and all of the aircraft currently in the Tsunami ravaged areas. And what about the US presence in Afgahnistan and Iraq?
Adding insult to injury, the figures also don't count the value of private donations by US citizens.
And regarding Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, (and Belgium, France, and Finland for that matter) isn't it easy to pony up a wad of cash when you can huddle in the safety of the massive US military presence and the flight paths of a few hundred ICBM's bought and paid for by our tax dollars? Only Britain is even remotely capable of defending themselves without substantial support from the US.
Now, if you have the time, feel free to jump to my previous post, Nearly 15 Billion Down A Rat Hole, and find out how I really feel about the United Nations.
Any Questions??
I'm a bit short on time here, but I'm so excited that I just have to tell you the good news just announced by the UN.
Here's the intro quotation from the UN press release...
"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - More than 500 million people can escape abject poverty, 250 million people will no longer go to bed hungry and 30 million children can be saved if rich countries double development aid over the next 10 years to $195 billion, a new U.N.-sponsored report said on Monday."
Now here is the punch line...
"Government aid from rich countries should amount to $135 billion in 2003, rising to $195 billion in 2015 or about 0.54 percent of these nations' GNP, about twice the current level to reach the Millennium goals, the report said. World leaders have agreed on 0.7 percent of GNP for development aid for the Millennium goals and other projects.
UNITED STATES LAGGING
But the United States with its $12 trillion economy would have to raise its contributions considerably.
Although the United States is the largest donor in the world, it contributes the smallest proportion of its GNP to development aid among 22 industrial nations.
Washington spends some 0.16 percent or $25 billion and to reach a target of 0.7 percent of its GNP, it would have to spend $80 billion.
Japan, the world's second largest economy, is also low at 0.20 percent as is Italy at 0.17 percent, and Germany at 0.27.
Among industrial nations, only Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Luxembourg have spent more than the world target of 0.7 percent of their gross national product. Britain, Belgium, France, Finland and Ireland have made promised to reach the target before 2015. "
Who the hell gets to decide how much "Government Aid" should come from "Rich Countries?"
They actually have the audacity to suggest that we should more than TRIPLE our spending on the UN? ($25 billion versus $80 billion.) Well let me get my wallet out...huummmhhh...I seem to be a little short, Kofi.
Isn't this sort of like an eight year old kid going to their parents and announcing that they don't get enough allowance? All the while the parents are providing a roof over their head (in NY City in the case of the UN), clothing, food, etc.
All of these statistics quoted only account for official government giving to the UN. They don't count the value of things like military support in the form of the Carrier Abraham Lincoln and all of the aircraft currently in the Tsunami ravaged areas. And what about the US presence in Afgahnistan and Iraq?
Adding insult to injury, the figures also don't count the value of private donations by US citizens.
And regarding Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, (and Belgium, France, and Finland for that matter) isn't it easy to pony up a wad of cash when you can huddle in the safety of the massive US military presence and the flight paths of a few hundred ICBM's bought and paid for by our tax dollars? Only Britain is even remotely capable of defending themselves without substantial support from the US.
Now, if you have the time, feel free to jump to my previous post, Nearly 15 Billion Down A Rat Hole, and find out how I really feel about the United Nations.
Any Questions??
Paralized With Indecision
I have a vapor lock on my brain this evening (some might ask--so what else is new?) I spent much of the day working on a book idea that I've decided to throw myself into this winter. I wish that I could tell you a little about it, but Michael Crichton might be reading and this million is MINE.
Seriously, besides some personal correspondence and blog reading, I just can't seem to find anything that strikes my fancy to write about. No Dan Rather (*%$# head), no UN, no tsunami, no Democrats, no liberals, and least of all,
NO TED KENNEDY.
Actually, I feel better already...
Seriously, besides some personal correspondence and blog reading, I just can't seem to find anything that strikes my fancy to write about. No Dan Rather (*%$# head), no UN, no tsunami, no Democrats, no liberals, and least of all,
NO TED KENNEDY.
Actually, I feel better already...
Monday, January 17, 2005
The Airbus A-380 Is A Big Damn Airplane
I’m an airplane nut. There was a time in college when I aspired to be a Navy F-14 pilot, before my eyesight decided to slide a few points off of 20-20. I abandoned the idea of being a Naval aviator because I refused to accept flying a “fling wing” (a helicopter) or be relegated to hauling plastic dog poop in a rusty transport plane out of Subic Bay Philippines. It was jets or nuthin’.
Later on I started working on being a private pilot, until the FAA bureaucracy ended my flying endeavors with medical limitations the details of which I won’t bore you with here. Any way, I’ve spent a great deal of time building model airplanes, fooling around behind the controls of a Cessna 150, riding in airliners, and even more time reading about airplanes and aviation.
To date I have chosen to not assault you with my aviation knowledge and interests here in my blog, but now I’m asking that you humor me because I’m about to make an exception and I hope to make it worth your while reading my revelations.
Tomorrow, at 6:00 am EST in France, the European aviation manufacturing consortium Airbus will roll out for public viewing their new A-380 airliner, the largest passenger airplane ever produced.
Large is an understatement.
The newspapers and TV news will be filled with simplistic reviews telling you things like that the plane’s wingspan is almost as long as a football field and it holds 555 passengers, 109 more than the capacity of the Boeing 747.
Let me share with you some more details I’ve gotten from the Airbus web site that will put things into perspective, especially if you are a member of the “traveling public” like I am.
Did I say that this plane is huge already? Huge as in …
The fuselage is 238 feet long. The wingspan is 262 feet. The vertical tail is 80’ high and the horizontal stabilizer has a 100’ span. The Canadian regional jets operated by Delta that serve our little local airport have a smaller wingspan that the tail span of this beast.
The plane’s empty weight is 611,729 pounds and it has a maximum takeoff weight of 1,234,588 pounds, more than 600 tons.
Reversing a recent trend of building new airliners with only two engines, the A-340's giant size dictates the use of four (two on each wing) Trent 977 gas turbine engines developing 76,500 pounds of thrust each (thats 306,000 pounds total, boys and girls.)
The fuselage is 28’ high and 23’ wide. The pilots butt will be over 20' off the runway when the airplane is sitting on the runway. That's got to make things interesting when you're waiting for the wheels to touch. You could understand having a bumpy landing every now and then until he gets the hang of things. "Excuse me captain...did you actually land this thing, or were we shot down? Just wondering..."
In tourist class seating there are three seats on each side and four seats in the middle of two isles. It has 49% more floor space and 35% more seating that a 747-400. There are 17 food service galleys and 17 bathrooms.
There is room of 356 passengers including. 22 first class seats on the main deck and 199 (including 96 business class seats) on the upper deck. Each seat will have its own separate armrest. (My aching butt and the rest of my 6’3” frame will certainly enjoy that feature—not having to play dueling elbows with my seatmate.) There are two stairways between decks—one front and one rear.
There will be 12 flight attendants on the main deck and 8 attendants on the upper deck. “Would you like coffee, tea, or a road map to the bathroom, sir?”
It will take 48 minutes to pump 67,364 gallons of jet fuel from four hoses into its fuel tanks. The tanks can actually hold 81,893 gallons of fuel weighing over 247,000 pounds.
They optimistically project that it will take 28 minutes to load 555 passengers onto the two levels of seating through two jet ways (one on each level.) It will take 14 minutes to get everyone off the plane. (Based on my experience on much smaller planes, the A-380 must come with conveyor belts and/or built in electric cattle prods to get this herd moving at this rate.)
It can fly with a full passenger load nearly 14,400 miles without refueling. The expected fuel efficiency should allow operation at costs between 15% to 20% less than the existing 747’s.
They already have over 100 orders from airlines for use on international routes. The airports into which the A-380 will fly will have to modify one or two gates to include the double (or even triple) jet way tunnels and make clearances for all of the four fuel trucks, catering trucks, baggage carts, and other support vehicles.
And leave it to me to do it, but there is one final gruesome statistic that will probably escape mention in the media. With 578 persons on board (555 passengers, 20 flight attendants, and 3 crew members,) if one of these monsters happens to fall out of the sky and kill all aboard, the death toll will exceed the sum total of all of the lives lost in commercial aviation accidents since 1996, including the airplanes lost on 9/11.
Now isn’t that interesting???
Later on I started working on being a private pilot, until the FAA bureaucracy ended my flying endeavors with medical limitations the details of which I won’t bore you with here. Any way, I’ve spent a great deal of time building model airplanes, fooling around behind the controls of a Cessna 150, riding in airliners, and even more time reading about airplanes and aviation.
To date I have chosen to not assault you with my aviation knowledge and interests here in my blog, but now I’m asking that you humor me because I’m about to make an exception and I hope to make it worth your while reading my revelations.
Tomorrow, at 6:00 am EST in France, the European aviation manufacturing consortium Airbus will roll out for public viewing their new A-380 airliner, the largest passenger airplane ever produced.
Large is an understatement.
The newspapers and TV news will be filled with simplistic reviews telling you things like that the plane’s wingspan is almost as long as a football field and it holds 555 passengers, 109 more than the capacity of the Boeing 747.
Let me share with you some more details I’ve gotten from the Airbus web site that will put things into perspective, especially if you are a member of the “traveling public” like I am.
Did I say that this plane is huge already? Huge as in …
The fuselage is 238 feet long. The wingspan is 262 feet. The vertical tail is 80’ high and the horizontal stabilizer has a 100’ span. The Canadian regional jets operated by Delta that serve our little local airport have a smaller wingspan that the tail span of this beast.
The plane’s empty weight is 611,729 pounds and it has a maximum takeoff weight of 1,234,588 pounds, more than 600 tons.
Reversing a recent trend of building new airliners with only two engines, the A-340's giant size dictates the use of four (two on each wing) Trent 977 gas turbine engines developing 76,500 pounds of thrust each (thats 306,000 pounds total, boys and girls.)
The fuselage is 28’ high and 23’ wide. The pilots butt will be over 20' off the runway when the airplane is sitting on the runway. That's got to make things interesting when you're waiting for the wheels to touch. You could understand having a bumpy landing every now and then until he gets the hang of things. "Excuse me captain...did you actually land this thing, or were we shot down? Just wondering..."
In tourist class seating there are three seats on each side and four seats in the middle of two isles. It has 49% more floor space and 35% more seating that a 747-400. There are 17 food service galleys and 17 bathrooms.
There is room of 356 passengers including. 22 first class seats on the main deck and 199 (including 96 business class seats) on the upper deck. Each seat will have its own separate armrest. (My aching butt and the rest of my 6’3” frame will certainly enjoy that feature—not having to play dueling elbows with my seatmate.) There are two stairways between decks—one front and one rear.
There will be 12 flight attendants on the main deck and 8 attendants on the upper deck. “Would you like coffee, tea, or a road map to the bathroom, sir?”
It will take 48 minutes to pump 67,364 gallons of jet fuel from four hoses into its fuel tanks. The tanks can actually hold 81,893 gallons of fuel weighing over 247,000 pounds.
They optimistically project that it will take 28 minutes to load 555 passengers onto the two levels of seating through two jet ways (one on each level.) It will take 14 minutes to get everyone off the plane. (Based on my experience on much smaller planes, the A-380 must come with conveyor belts and/or built in electric cattle prods to get this herd moving at this rate.)
It can fly with a full passenger load nearly 14,400 miles without refueling. The expected fuel efficiency should allow operation at costs between 15% to 20% less than the existing 747’s.
They already have over 100 orders from airlines for use on international routes. The airports into which the A-380 will fly will have to modify one or two gates to include the double (or even triple) jet way tunnels and make clearances for all of the four fuel trucks, catering trucks, baggage carts, and other support vehicles.
And leave it to me to do it, but there is one final gruesome statistic that will probably escape mention in the media. With 578 persons on board (555 passengers, 20 flight attendants, and 3 crew members,) if one of these monsters happens to fall out of the sky and kill all aboard, the death toll will exceed the sum total of all of the lives lost in commercial aviation accidents since 1996, including the airplanes lost on 9/11.
Now isn’t that interesting???
Food For Thought--Part II
I’m sorry, but I just can’t seem to stop picking on the United Nations. On an intellectual basis, from its very inception, every single word uttered by UN “diplomats” and every written word issued by the UN simply begs for analysis and dissection—looking for some form of tangible use and meaning. I’ll keep trying to find something positive, but the prospects look rather bleak at this point.
Revisiting my last posting, Food For Thought, I realize that I really didn’t fully develop my criticisms of the lack of any rational intellectual substance in the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations. Well don’t worry everybody, because I’ve sharpened my knives and now I am going to take another cut at this topic this morning…here goes.
“We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined”
“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and”
An admirable goal—but at the time that the UN Charter was written they weren’t telling us anything new here in the US. I seem to recall that we were sitting around essentially minding our own business on our own continent and the rest of the world couldn’t play pretty with each other. We were forced to step into both WWI and WWII and kick a little butt to straighten things out.
Leave it to the French and British at the end of WWI to lay the groundwork for the current mess in the middle east when they were forced to divest themselves of their “empires.” They accomplished this by apparently drawing some lines in crayon on the map, essentially ignoring thousands of years of ethnic history. (Remember that the ethnic Kurds are split between Turkey and Iraq and related to the indigenous population of neither country?)
Also, as I recall, by 1950 the UN had asked the US to wade hip deep into the Korean Peninsula on a so called “PEACEKEEPING MISSION” that wound up involving nearly a million more soldiers than were involved in WWI and killing over 33,000 of them in the process. The UN also tucked tail and ran, leaving the majority of the fighting and nearly all of the dieing to our troops. So much for saving us from “the scourge of war…”
"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and"
Funny, but the Declaration of Independence states "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The UN likewise says they have “faith in fundamental human rights.” But I ask you, what entity do they have faith in? They didn’t come out and say God or Allah or Bob Marley or Jim and Tammy Fay Baker, did they? Where do the fundamental rights mentioned by the UN come from? I suggest that the UN wants you to believe that your rights come from the UN, not from your country and certainally not from your creator.
Further, and this is the scary part, men and women have equal rights, just like NATIONS LARGE AND SMALL have equal rights? I’m sorry, but the only way nations can have equal rights is if the UN truly believes that they are the source of omnipotent power on our planet. Remember that we believe that “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” A little country like Belize has the right to sovereignty within their borders and the right to suck in as many tourism dollars as they can from all of us Rednecks and Yankees, but they are not “equal” to the US in the bigger world picture, no matter what the gold cufflink wearing Euroweenies and the UN weasel bullies say.
"to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and"
Again, this part sounds fine in theory to me, since our existing constitution provides for legally signed and ratified treaties to become part of our laws. Regarding international law, I say that they can set up “World Court’s” and pass international laws all day; they can make Kofi Annon’s birthday a world holiday when he dies—but that doesn’t mean that we here in the US are compelled to close the malls and federal buildings for the day and all pack a picnic basket and go out and celebrate. (Some people might actually celebrate Kofi’s death if it happens while he is in office.)
"to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"
blaa, blaa, blaa, blaaaaaa, blaa, blaa, blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I suggest if the UN actually wanted “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,” they would bring their massive intellectual and military pressure to bear on the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, Haiti, and most of Africa to stop ripping off their own countries and oppressing their peoples.
It’s a no brainer as far as I’m concerned, but the UN is doomed to eternal fecklessness when it comes to actually accomplishing anything regarding human rights as long as they continue to embrace communism and socialism while despising democracy and capitalism. They can’t be serious— China, Cuba, Egypt, Nigeria, Morocco, Pakistan, and the Russian Federation are seven of the twenty six members of the UN's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. This is sort of like having Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahlmer on a US Commission for the Prevention of Mass Murder.
"And for these Ends
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and"
Does being tolerant involve looking the other way while billions of dollars intended for humanitarian relief in Iraq are diverted into the pockets of a brutal dictator for use in arms purchases and bribes for UN employees?
Does being a good neighbor involve raping young African girls and subjecting starving African women to having to provide sexual favors in order for them to receive from the UN the free food that we sent for their use?
"to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and"
Yeah, Right. Korea in 1950, followed by Bosnia, Serbia, Somalia, Croatia, and Rwanda in recent memory—some peace and security.
"to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and"
We can only accept principles that match our own. In the absence of principals, there are laws and ultimately things like guns and aircraft involved in the process. And let’s see, “institution of methods”—is that other words for 21 non-binding resolutions against Iraq? What a totally ineffective institution or method.
"to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,"
International Machinery—could that be another word for USS Abraham Lincoln, Ch-53 helicopter, Abrams M1/A1 tank? Or is international machinery built by John Deere?
"Have Resolved to Combine our Efforts to Accomplish these Aims
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."
There now, that about covers it. I think that I have done a pretty good job of proving that the UN was doomed to failure from its inception. Their mission statement was full of flowery words and high minded ideals, but it didn’t have any meat on its skinny carcass.
The Charter was signed on 26, June 1945.
To quote president Roosevelt, “A DATE THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY.”
Revisiting my last posting, Food For Thought, I realize that I really didn’t fully develop my criticisms of the lack of any rational intellectual substance in the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations. Well don’t worry everybody, because I’ve sharpened my knives and now I am going to take another cut at this topic this morning…here goes.
“We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined”
“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and”
An admirable goal—but at the time that the UN Charter was written they weren’t telling us anything new here in the US. I seem to recall that we were sitting around essentially minding our own business on our own continent and the rest of the world couldn’t play pretty with each other. We were forced to step into both WWI and WWII and kick a little butt to straighten things out.
Leave it to the French and British at the end of WWI to lay the groundwork for the current mess in the middle east when they were forced to divest themselves of their “empires.” They accomplished this by apparently drawing some lines in crayon on the map, essentially ignoring thousands of years of ethnic history. (Remember that the ethnic Kurds are split between Turkey and Iraq and related to the indigenous population of neither country?)
Also, as I recall, by 1950 the UN had asked the US to wade hip deep into the Korean Peninsula on a so called “PEACEKEEPING MISSION” that wound up involving nearly a million more soldiers than were involved in WWI and killing over 33,000 of them in the process. The UN also tucked tail and ran, leaving the majority of the fighting and nearly all of the dieing to our troops. So much for saving us from “the scourge of war…”
"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and"
Funny, but the Declaration of Independence states "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The UN likewise says they have “faith in fundamental human rights.” But I ask you, what entity do they have faith in? They didn’t come out and say God or Allah or Bob Marley or Jim and Tammy Fay Baker, did they? Where do the fundamental rights mentioned by the UN come from? I suggest that the UN wants you to believe that your rights come from the UN, not from your country and certainally not from your creator.
Further, and this is the scary part, men and women have equal rights, just like NATIONS LARGE AND SMALL have equal rights? I’m sorry, but the only way nations can have equal rights is if the UN truly believes that they are the source of omnipotent power on our planet. Remember that we believe that “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” A little country like Belize has the right to sovereignty within their borders and the right to suck in as many tourism dollars as they can from all of us Rednecks and Yankees, but they are not “equal” to the US in the bigger world picture, no matter what the gold cufflink wearing Euroweenies and the UN weasel bullies say.
"to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and"
Again, this part sounds fine in theory to me, since our existing constitution provides for legally signed and ratified treaties to become part of our laws. Regarding international law, I say that they can set up “World Court’s” and pass international laws all day; they can make Kofi Annon’s birthday a world holiday when he dies—but that doesn’t mean that we here in the US are compelled to close the malls and federal buildings for the day and all pack a picnic basket and go out and celebrate. (Some people might actually celebrate Kofi’s death if it happens while he is in office.)
"to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"
blaa, blaa, blaa, blaaaaaa, blaa, blaa, blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I suggest if the UN actually wanted “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,” they would bring their massive intellectual and military pressure to bear on the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, Haiti, and most of Africa to stop ripping off their own countries and oppressing their peoples.
It’s a no brainer as far as I’m concerned, but the UN is doomed to eternal fecklessness when it comes to actually accomplishing anything regarding human rights as long as they continue to embrace communism and socialism while despising democracy and capitalism. They can’t be serious— China, Cuba, Egypt, Nigeria, Morocco, Pakistan, and the Russian Federation are seven of the twenty six members of the UN's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. This is sort of like having Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahlmer on a US Commission for the Prevention of Mass Murder.
"And for these Ends
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and"
Does being tolerant involve looking the other way while billions of dollars intended for humanitarian relief in Iraq are diverted into the pockets of a brutal dictator for use in arms purchases and bribes for UN employees?
Does being a good neighbor involve raping young African girls and subjecting starving African women to having to provide sexual favors in order for them to receive from the UN the free food that we sent for their use?
"to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and"
Yeah, Right. Korea in 1950, followed by Bosnia, Serbia, Somalia, Croatia, and Rwanda in recent memory—some peace and security.
"to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and"
We can only accept principles that match our own. In the absence of principals, there are laws and ultimately things like guns and aircraft involved in the process. And let’s see, “institution of methods”—is that other words for 21 non-binding resolutions against Iraq? What a totally ineffective institution or method.
"to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,"
International Machinery—could that be another word for USS Abraham Lincoln, Ch-53 helicopter, Abrams M1/A1 tank? Or is international machinery built by John Deere?
"Have Resolved to Combine our Efforts to Accomplish these Aims
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."
There now, that about covers it. I think that I have done a pretty good job of proving that the UN was doomed to failure from its inception. Their mission statement was full of flowery words and high minded ideals, but it didn’t have any meat on its skinny carcass.
The Charter was signed on 26, June 1945.
To quote president Roosevelt, “A DATE THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY.”
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Food for Thought
It’s been a long time since I took a history class, and even longer since I took a “Civics” class. I’m not sure if they even teach what we called “civics” in high school anymore—what with all the time they have to spend teaching multiculturalism and secularism and tolerance. Then, of course, there is the time spent indoctrinating students with a large dose of general self-hate for our country.
I spent a little time looking up a few basic documents this morning in an effort to put the current state of world affairs into perspective for myself. Here is the first one of importance to me:
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I spent a little time looking up a few basic documents this morning in an effort to put the current state of world affairs into perspective for myself. Here is the first one of importance to me:
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
Read this again, and try to understand it this time. I doubt that anyone alive today could still think like this let alone write it down so eloquently. We here in the US are so far from this today that I doubt we can ever go back to where we started. Our present government is definitely "destructive to these ends..."
Then there is the preamble to the US Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Who were these men? We certainly aren’t turning out scholars like this from today’s public (government) schools.
And then there is this little tidbit of information that I had never read before:
Charter of the United Nations
Preamble
We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
And for these Ends
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
Have Resolved to Combine our Efforts to Accomplish these Aims
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
Sounded good on paper at first, didn't it? Now I ask you, after reading the citations from the first two documents, then reading the last rambling dissertation, is there any wonder why the United Nations is the completely lame, useless, feckless, wishy washy, piece of crap organization that it is today?
It seems to me that we've forgotten where we come from and where we were going...
