This being the first day in April, let me first thank all of my 13,500 or so visitors, and thankyou for your 50 comments over the last three months. This response was totally unexpected. Few threats, and few attempts to crash my computer. Being an American Alien in Europe, I was expecting much more heat, because I usually get it from both sides being over here. Off Topic but Who Cares *Courtesy John McCrarey Korea I also noticed 75% of my visitors are American, followed by Brits, Canadians, Germans, and Singapore. These last four 15% of my fans. The other 10% comprise the other 2000 or so countries on the planet. This accomplishment was totally unexpected, and I wish to thank each of you for making this Blog success possible. Stumble It!

UPDATE Latest From Iran .... *Iran shows off nuclear centrepiece *Iran opens nuclear plant to media *Iran leader takes reporters to nuke plant The Coming War in Iran, continued ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme. The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert. Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities. The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed.... Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, said he believed that diplomacy was the only way to deal with the issue. But he warned: “The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but for the whole world.” Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, emphasised on Friday that Iran would face “stronger action” if it failed to respond. But yesterday Iran rejected the initiative, which provides for entry to the World Trade Organisation and a supply of spare parts for airliners if it co-operates. “No pressure, bribe or threat can make Iran give up its legitimate right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes,” said an Iranian spokesman. US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations. *The Coming War in Iran, cont SCENARIO Let us suppose, as certainly is quite possible (perhaps probable), that the Bush people are re-elected, legally or otherwise (legally, not legitimately!). Here is one scenario that may be in store, and that is certainly being discussed outside the mainstream media in the U.S., though not in sources for which I can find URLs. It is a scenario that may not even require a Bush victory, but is surely more probable to unfold in the form imagined under Bush. In any case, I offer it here for your horror. Iran is already increasingly defiant in the face of international pressure about its nuclear capabilities. Being a founding member of the "Axis of Evil," the Iranians have no doubt drawn the correct conclusion that their best protection against the American juggernaut is to acquire nuclear weapons. This story, in any event, is so far on the back burners in the mass media. At some point (probably after November 2), Israel will strike the Iranian nuclear facilities, as it did with Iraq more than two decades ago. Since Iran, unlike Iraq, is not a decimated country with a third-rate army, the Iranians will retaliate against "the Zionists." Assuming Israel does not, then, annihilate the Iranians with nuclear weapons, it will respond militarily in some other form, and the U.S. will come to Israel's "defense." With the pretext of an assault on a valued ally, the Bush war mongers will call for a new millitary draft, a proposal that will win the warm support of principled Democrats like Senator John Kerry, who also voted for the "Patriot [sic] Act" and the war in Iraq. With a concerted "Zionist" assault upon an Islamic nation, there will, of course, be upheaval throughout the Islamic world, including the toppling of Bush's man in Pakistan, who will be ousted by Islamic radicals in his own military. Assuming India does not then launch a preventive nuclear war against Pakistan, the Pakistanis will, no doubt, transfer some of their own nuclear capabilities to the beleagured Iranians. You can fill in the rest. It goes without saying that there will also be all kinds of terrorist incidents in the United States as "retaliation." Let us hope my powers of prognosis are poor. But who would have dreamed in the summer of 2001 that it would be a matter of national urgency within a year to invade Iraq? Once burned, twice shy.... Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant Uzi Mahnaimi ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme. The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert. Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities. The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed. Tehran claims that its programme is designed for peaceful purposes but Israeli and American intelligence officials — who have met to share information in recent weeks — are convinced that it is intended to produce nuclear weapons. The Israeli government responded cautiously yesterday to an announcement by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, that America would support Britain, France and Germany in offering economic incentives for Tehran to abandon its programme. In return, the European countries promised to back Washington in referring Iran to the United Nations security council if the latest round of talks fails to secure agreement. Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, said he believed that diplomacy was the only way to deal with the issue. But he warned: “The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but for the whole world.” Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, emphasised on Friday that Iran would face “stronger action” if it failed to respond. But yesterday Iran rejected the initiative, which provides for entry to the World Trade Organisation and a supply of spare parts for airliners if it co-operates. “No pressure, bribe or threat can make Iran give up its legitimate right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes,” said an Iranian spokesman. US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations. Additional reporting: Tony Allen-Mills, Washington *Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant By Mark Jensen Saturday, 19 February 2005 United for Peace of Pierce County (WA) Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has signed off on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq. The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq. On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism. The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%. Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh. On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, The next strategic target is Iran. Hersh also reported that The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer. According to Hersh, Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act. Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration. Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians. Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the devastation and death it is causing. *Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches News From Inside Iraq One Western military specialist based in Tehran said on condition of anonymity that over the last year, Iran was sharpening its abilities to wage a guerrilla war, the Boston Globe adds. But most analysts agree that the biggest trump card Iranians could play is to unleash havoc in neighboring Iraq, where Iraqis who spent years in Iran as exiles are about to assume a dominant role in the government. In other words, the U.S. will be confronted with a large number of resistance fighters in Iraq, conceivably upward to a million or more, and not the paltry 200,000 or so it currently faces and finds overwhelming. On the day after the Pentagon stupidly bombs Irans illusory nuclear facilities there will be hell to pay in Iraq. For over a week rumors have circulated in the Arab press that both napalm and other chemical weapons were used mainly in the Jolan district of Falluja, a major area of the fighting. Now, despite a US media blackout, more evidence is leaking out and causing a furor in the British Parliament. As Gilfeather reports: Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh. Blair is being pressed by furious MPs to clarify whether or not he knew that the banned weapon was being used. He is also being asked to withdraw British troops if the US continues its use of napalm. As of this writing, Blairs response remains unknown. The US has already admitted that it used napalm during the siege of Baghdad. The truth was reluctantly confirmed by the Pentagon after news reports corroborated the evidence. The military has tried to conceal the truth by saying that there is a distinction between its new weapon and traditional napalm. The improved product carries the Pentagon moniker Mark 77 firebombs and uses jet fuel to decrease environmental damage. The fact that military planners even considered environmental damage while developing the tools for incinerating human beings, gives us some insight into the deep vein of cynicism that permeates their ranks. The Pentagons hair-splitting has done little to obfuscate the facts. Marines returning from Iraq call the bombs napalm and napalm it is. Journalist Simon Jenkins of the British Sunday Times describes the incidents in Falluja like this: Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns. It is an excruciatingly painful way to die. Independent journalists have been reporting for some time now that the US has been using banned weapons in Falluja. Iraqi doctors have noted that many of the bodies they have examined have been swollen, yellowish and have no smell. Asia Times online has reported that Americans used chemical weapons in the bombing of Jolan, ash-Shuhada and al-Jubayl neighborhoods. They also say the neighborhoods were showered with cluster bombs; an allegation that refutes the Pentagons claim of precision bombing. Theres no doubt that the US embedded media is being prevented from seeing the vast devastation and carnage of Falluja so they wont be exposed to the suspicious looking corpses that still litter the city. So far, their collusive wall of silence has provided fairly good cover for American war crimes. Fortunately, the truth is slowly leeching out due to the efforts of the foreign press and independent media. Soon, the world will get a better rendering of Washingtons moral values by a full vetting of transgressions in Falluja. *Reference: US Aerial Attack on Iran Planned for June *Reference: Iran prepares for "Asymmetrical Warfare" Stumble It!

Stumble It!

(see above link for large version religion populations map) Bahai appeared 140 years ago The Bahai Faith arose from Islam in the 1800s based on the teachings of Baha'u'llah and is now a distinct worldwide faith. The faith's followers believe that God has sent nine great prophets to mankind through whom the Holy Spirit has revealed the "Word of God." This has given rise to the major world religions. Although these religions arose from the teachings of the prophets of one God, Bahai's do not believe they are all the same. The differences in the teachings of each prophet are due to the needs of the society they came to help and what mankind was ready to have revealed to it. Bahai beliefs promote gender and race equality, freedom of expression and assembly, world peace and world government. They believe that a single world government led by Bahai's will be established at some point in the future. The faith does not attempt to preserve the past but does embrace the findings of science. Bahai's believe that every person has an immortal soul which can not die but is freed to travel through the spirit world after death. Sikhism appeared 500 years ago The Sikh faith was founded by Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji in the Punjab area, now Pakistan. He began preaching the way to enlightenment and God after receiving a vision. After his death a series of nine Gurus (regarded as reincarnations of Guru Nanak) led the movement until 1708. At this time these functions passed to the Panth and the holy text. This text, the Shri Guru Granth Sahib, was compiled by the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh. It consists of hymns and writings of the first 10 Gurus, along with texts from different Muslim and Hindu saints. The holy text is considered the 11th and final Guru. Sikhs believe in a single formless God with many names, who can be known through meditation. Sikhs pray many times each day and are prohibited from worshipping idols or icons. They believe in samsara, karma, and reincarnation as Hindus do but reject the caste system. They believe that everyone has equal status in the eyes of God. During the 18th century, there were a number of attempts to prepare an accurate portrayal of Sikh customs. Sikh scholars and theologians started in 1931 to prepare the Reht Maryada -- the Sikh code of conduct and conventions. This has successfully achieved a high level of uniformity in the religious and social practices of Sikhism throughout the world. It contains 27 articles. Article 1 defines who is a Sikh: "Any human being who faithfully believes in: One Immortal Being, Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh, The Guru Granth Sahib, The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus and the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion, is a Sikh." Zoroastrianism appeared 1000 years ago Zoroastrianism was founded by Zarathushtra (Zoroaster) in Persia which followed an aboriginal polytheistic religion at the time. He preached what may have been the first monotheism with a single supreme god, Ahura Mazda. Zoroastrians belief in the dualism of good and evil as either a cosmic one between Ahura Mazda and an evil spirit of violence and death, Angra Mainyu, or as an ethical dualism within the human consciousness. The Zoroastrian holy book is called the Avesta which includes the teachings of Zarathushtra written in a series of five hymns called the Gathas. They are abstract sacred poetry directed towards the worship of the One God, understanding of righteousness and cosmic order, promotion of social justice, and individual choice between good and evil. The rest of the Avesta was written at a later date and deals with rituals, practice of worship, and other traditions of the faith. Zoroastrians worship through prayers and symbolic ceremonies that are conducted before a sacred fire which symbolizes their God. They dedicate their lives to a three-fold path represented by their motto: "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds." The faith does not generally accept converts but this is disputed by some members. Islam appeared 1400 years ago Islam was founded in 622 CE by Mohammed the Prophet, in Medina. Though it is the youngest of the world's great religions, Muslims do not view it as a new religion. They belief that it is the same faith taught by the prophets, Abraham, David, Moses and Jesus. The role of Mohammed as the last prophet was to formalize and clarify the faith and purify it by removing ideas which were added in error. The two sacred texts of Islam are the Qu'ran, which are the words of Allah "the One True God" as given to Mohammed, and the Hadith, which is a collection of Mohammed's sayings. The duties of all Muslims are known as the Five Pillars of Islam and are: 1. Recite the shahadah at least once. 2. Perform the salat (prayer) 5 times a day while facing Mecca. 3. Donate regularly to charity via the zakat, a 2.5% charity tax, and through additional donations to the needy. 4. Fast during the month of Ramadan, the month that Mohammed received the Qu'ran from Allah. 5. Make at least one pilgrimage to Mecca if economically and physically possible. Muslims follow a strict monotheism with one creator who is just, omnipotent and merciful. They also believe in Satan who drives people to sin, and that all unbelievers and sinners will spend eternity in Hell. Muslims who sincerely repent and submit to God will return to a state of sinlessness and go to Paradise after death. Alcohol, drugs, and gambling should be avoided and they reject racism. They respect the earlier prophets, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, but regard the concept of the divinity of Jesus as blasphemous and do not believe that he was executed on the cross. Christianity appeared 2005 years ago Christianity started out as a breakaway sect of Judaism nearly 2000 years ago. Jesus, the son of the Virgin Mary and her husband Joseph, but conceived through the Holy Spirit, was bothered by some of the practices within his native Jewish faith and began preaching a different message of God and religion. During his travels he was joined by twelve disciples who followed him in his journeys and learned from him. He performed many miracles during this time and related many of his teachings in the form of parables. Among his best known sayings are to "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek." At one point he revealed that he was the Son of God sent to Earth to save humanity from our sins. This he did by being crucified on the cross for his teachings. He then rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples and told them to go forth and spread his message. Since Christianity and Judaism share the same history up to the time of Jesus Christ, they are very similar in many of their core beliefs. There are two primary differences. One is that Christians believe in original sin and that Jesus died in our place to save us from that sin. The other is that Jesus was fully human and fully God and as the Son of God is part of the Holy Trinity: God the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. All Christians believe in heaven and that those who sincerely repent their sins before God will be saved and join Him in heaven. Belief in hell and satan varies among groups and individuals. There are a multitude of forms of Christianity which have developed either because of disagreements on dogma, adaptation to different cultures, or simply personal taste. For this reason there can be a great difference between the various forms of Christianity they may seem like different religions to some people. Judaism appeared 2005 years ago Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i faith all originated with a divine covenant between the God of the ancient Israelites and Abraham around 2000 BCE. The next leader of the the Israelites, Moses, led his people out of captivity in Egypt and received the Law from God. Joshua later led them into the promised land where Samuel established the Israelite kingdom with Saul as its first king. King David established Jerusalem and King Solomon built the first temple there. In 70 CE the temple was destroyed and the Jews were scattered throughout the world until 1948 when the state of Israel was formed. Jews believe in one creator who alone is to be worshipped as absolute ruler of the universe. He monitors peoples activities and rewards good deeds and punishes evil. The Torah was revealed to Moses by God and can not be changed though God does communicate with the Jewish people through prophets. Jews believe in the inherent goodness of the world and its inhabitants as creations of God and do not require a savior to save them from original sin. They believe they are God's chosen people and that the Messiah will arrive in the future, gather them into Israel, there will be a general resurrection of the dead, and the Jerusalem Temple destroyed in 70 CE will be rebuilt. Jainism appeared 2400 years ago The founder of the Jain community was Vardhamana, the last Jina in a series of 24 who lived in East India. He attained enlightenment after 13 years of deprivation and committed the act of salekhana, fasting to death, in 420 BCE. Jainism has many similarities to Hinduism and Buddhism which developed in the same part of the world. They believe in karma and reincarnation as do Hindus but they believe that enlightenment and liberation from this cycle can only be achieved through asceticism. Jains follow fruititarianism. This is the practice of only eating that which will not kill the plant or animal from which it is taken. They also practice ahimsa, non-violence, because any act of violence against a living thing creates negative karma which will adversely affect one's next life. Taoism appeared 2460 years ago Taoism was founded by Lao-Tse, a contemporary of Confucius in China. Taoism began as a combination of psychology and philosophy which Lao-Tse hoped would help end the constant feudal warfare and other conflicts of his time. His writings, the Tao-te-Ching, describe the nature of life, the way to peace and how a ruler should lead his life. Taoism became a religion in 440 CE when it was adopted as a state religion. Tao, roughly translated as path, is a force which flows through all life and is the first cause of everything. The goal of everyone is to become one with the Tao. Tai Chi, a technique of exercise using slow deliberate movements, is used to balance the flow of energy or "chi" within the body. People should develop virtue and seek compassion, moderation and humility. One should plan any action in advance and achieve it through minimal action. Yin (dark side) and Yang (light side) symbolize pairs of opposites which are seen through the universe, such as good and evil, light and dark, male and female. The impact of human civilization upsets the balance of Yin and Yang. Taoists believe that people are by nature, good, and that one should be kind to others simply because such treatment will probably be reciprocated. Shinto appeared 2500 years ago Shinto is an ancient Japanese religion, closely tied to nature, which recognizes the existence of various "Kami", nature dieties. The first two deities, Izanagi and Izanami, gave birth to the Japanese islands and their children became the deities of the various Japanese clans. One of their daughters, Amaterasu (Sun Goddess), is the ancestress of the Imperial Family and is regarded as the chief deity. All the Kami are benign and serve only to sustain and protect. They are not seen as separate from humanity due to sin because humanity is "Kami's Child." Followers of Shinto desire peace and believe all human life is sacred. They revere "musuhi", the Kami's creative and harmonizing powers, and aspire to have "makoto", sincerity or true heart. Morality is based upon that which is of benefit to the group. There are "Four Affirmations" in Shinto: 1. Tradition and family: the family is the main mechanism by which traditions are preserved. 2. Love of nature: nature is sacred and natural objects are to be worshipped as sacred spirits. 3. Physical cleanliness: they must take baths, wash their hands, and rinse their mouth often. 4. "Matsuri": festival which honors the spirits. Confucianism appeared 2500 years ago K'ung Fu Tzu (Confucius) was born in 551 BCE in the state of Lu in China. He traveled throughout China giving advice to its rulers and teaching. His teachings and writings dealt with individual morality and ethics, and the proper exercise of political power. He stressed the following values: Li: ritual, propriety, etiquette, etc. Hsiao: love among family members Yi: righteousness Xin: honesty and trustworthiness Jen: benevolence towards others; the highest Confucian virtue Chung: loyalty to the state, etc. Unlike most religions, Confucianism is primarily an ethical system with rituals at important times during one's lifetime. The most important periods recognized in the Confucian tradition are birth, reaching maturity, marriage, and death. Buddhism appeared 2600 years ago Buddhism developed out of the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama who, in 535 BCE, reached enlightenment and assumed the title Buddha. He promoted 'The Middle Way' as the path to enlightenment rather than the extremes of mortification of the flesh or hedonism. Long after his death the Buddha's teachings were written down. This collection is called the Tripitaka. Buddhists believe in reincarnation and that one must go through cycles of birth, life, and death. After many such cycles, if a person releases their attachment to desire and the self, they can attain Nirvana. In general, Buddhists do not believe in any type of God, the need for a savior, prayer, or eternal life after death. However, since the time of the Buddha, Buddhism has integrated many regional religious rituals, beliefs and customs into it as it has spread throughout Asia, so that this generalization is no longer true for all Buddhists. This has occurred with little conflict due to the philosophical nature of Buddhism. Hinduism appeared 4000 years ago The origins of Hinduism can be traced to the Indus Valley civilization sometime between 4000 and 2500 BCE. Though believed by many to be a polytheistic religion, the basis of Hinduism is the belief in the unity of everything. This totality is called Brahman. The purpose of life is to realize that we are part of God and by doing so we can leave this plane of existance and rejoin with God. This enlightenment can only be achieved by going through cycles of birth, life and death known as samsara. One's progress towards enlightenment is measured by his karma. This is the accumulation of all one's good and bad deeds and this determines the person's next reincarnation. Selfless acts and thoughts as well as devotion to God help one to be reborn at a higher level. Bad acts and thoughts will cause one to be born at a lower level, as a person or even an animal. Hindus follow a strict caste system which determines the standing of each person. The caste one is born into is the result of the karma from their previous life. Only members of the highest caste, the brahmins, may perform the Hindu religious rituals and hold positions of authority within the temples. *Major Branches of Religions Ranked by Number of Believers Stumble It!

Conspiracy Against Americans Or Just European Bureacracy My Own Situation here in Luxembourg is strangely repeated by another American in Rome ... I've been quite busy lately with things winding down for work as the whole entire country shuts down for about a week due to "Easter". Anyway, tomorrow I am going to apply for "residency". The fact that I work here, have an Italian Foreigners' Permit of Stay, pay taxes here, legally inhabit a home here, am enrolled in the Italian national healthcare, doesn't mean that I, well, live here. It should leave me ferociously angry enough to write a good blog brutally trashing Italian fascist bureaucracy in ways never known before so please stay tuned... *American In Rome In my case after five years of trying, it seems I must marry my girlfriend; an accepted German resident of Luxembourg. She has been living in this country for 25 years. This way I may get an official response and acknowledgement that I am alive and exist, from the Luxembourg Bureacracy. I wonder how many other expats have the same experience, which I found by chance on the Net. Stumble It!

Research Notes American/Euro Culture Clash (Commonly Held Views) Why does the fact that Germans don't have to work so hard to have a good life make you so angry? Have you even been to Germany? Do you even have a passport? A good life? 12.6% unemployment rate, 40% of the population not working fulltime, working an average of 13% of their lifetime, and a per capita GDP that is two-thirds of the US? Yes, some inherit wealth, but most work hard for it. I work hard to provied myself with the lifestle that I have. My parents are both alive, and I probably won't get anything from them until I am old. The life expectancy on my Mom's side of the family is the late 80s. I am sorry that you don't own a home, but don't take it out on me. There are few things that irritate me more than people who say, "you own your own business? Wow! Must be nice to work 20-30 hours a week and rake in all that dough." I busted my ass (and still do so) to get where I am and took a financial risk to do so. That is why I resent some of these govt workers who work 37.5 hours a week, get tons of benefits (from my tax dollars), and didn't have to put up a nickel to do so. I know 2 ladies that work at the Liquor Board store (govt-controlled) who get $25 per hour to stock the shelves and run the till. Wow. How many years of university did they take for that? I know a lady who works for the Canadian govt who brags about taking 30-40 minute coffee breaks (with her supervisor) and takes a hour and a half for lunch (instead of an hour). That is about 70 minutes per day of production per day that she wastes and I am not even counting everyone else in her dept. Does that sound efficient to you? It is MY tax dollars that are paying for that inefficiency. Although I make more money than her...On a per hour basis, she probably does better than me...and I am helping to pay for that waste. Also, I am a dual citizen. I was proud to vote for The Mighty Dubya last year. You just don't get it. Germany's economy is in the toilet; their govt is trying to implement changes and yet you insist that a country with a 233% more unemployment rate is better than the US. Look at the GDP growth between the two countries. Germany has glaical, if any, economic growth. 3 cars/100 people in the UK; 57 cars/100 people in the USA It's quite possible to achieve a good life without constantly working. Maybe in Germany a single-income family can still get by. Were we worse off when a woman could stay home and take care of kids? Your figure about 40% of the population in Germany not working full time may merely represent people making different choices. I've been to Germany, and I live in the USA, and I know where I see more people living in the streets. And it sure isn't Germany. And I think that's a fine measure of poverty. It's quite possible to achieve a good life without constantly working. Maybe in Germany a single-income family can still get by. Were we worse off when a woman could stay home and take care of kids? Your figure about 40% of the population in Germany not working full time may merely represent people making different choices. *Schroeders Economic Debacle: Over 5 Million Unemployed The high Euro means that if a European wants to buy an American product it costs 20% less than it a couple of years ago. How exactly is that bad for the Europeans? Because continental Western Europe's Big 3 (Germany, France, and Italy) all export more than they import, ergo their product costs more to buy on the world market. Germany - which is Europe's largest economy - exports $112 billion more than they import. *German Facts (Click on Economy or scroll down to it) Also, France is the most visited country in the world. Tourism is a large part of their economy. A high euro makes it more expensive to visit there. The few Europeans who have jobs? Are you actually asserting that most Europeans don't have jobs? That's absurd. Continental Western Europe's Big 3 all have unemployment rates over 10% (Germany is now at 12.6%) *More Euro Facts German Workers:"For Us A One Way Trip On the TITANIC." "This, after all, is a country where, contrary to the picture of hard-working Germans, 40 per cent of the population is not in full-time work and people spend only 13 per cent of their lives in employment." Hope that helps explains things a bit better. The Europeans are doing just fine. We should be looking to them for advice on how to build an economy that actually benefits the working class, not just those who benefit from the labor of the working class. I'm going to be nice and just say "Good Grief!" Assume the average American worker enters the work force at 20 (college, you know), works until age 65, lives to the age of 75, that means that pesron spends 14.24% of his life working. Oh, fuck, I forgot to factor in vacations, holidays, time between jobs, etc. Probably lowers the number to, what, about 13%? "40% of the population is not in full-time work..." Yeah, kids don't work. Damn them do-gooder socialists and their child labor laws! "The US economy is 20 years ahead of that of the EU and it will take decades for Europe to catch up." 1978. 20 years to catch up (actually 26 years). But go on and claim that socialism is all good. Ok just to clear something else up, whenever you mention the economies of Europe you say the big three are Germany France and Italy, when of course they are not. The Big three are Germany France and Britain. As for comparing unemployment rates, you would need to investigate how these are calculated, would someone be able to say how US unemployment figures are calculated? For instance do you stop getting unemployment after 3 months even if you still don't have ajob and do you vanish from the figures? It's 6 months til you don't count anymore and that's only if you qualify for unemplyment in the first place. If you don't then you are never part of the figures. 'Only 10% of Americans have passports, and they say that as though its a bad thing' Jimmy Carr *American/Euro Culture Clash Education Many overseas students including executives from North America come to Europe for their management education. Many US business schools establish partnerships with European counterparts because of Europe's plurality, its many languages, its distinct business practices, ethics and a culture that values "the human element in the deal". Felix Mueller, the director of marketing, explains the attraction of a base in Europe. "We have all the advantages in research terms of a US business school but we need to combine it with a global view, which is why we're here. Many people complain that US schools are too US focused." *Comparing American and European business schools is academic The USA and Europe: Two, three or more economic cultures? Samuel Brittan: Gulbenkian Foundation Conference, Lisbon 21/10/03 Stylised Differences I have felt for a number of years that speakers on the economic front at this type of conference have had a difficult task. For if there is a growing divergence between the US and Europe it relates more to foreign policy and defence than to economics. There are of course some differences of economic philosophy, but they are often exaggerated. A characteristically forthright statement of the perceived differences has recently been given by the pro-free market Czech president Vaclav Klaus: "The USA has a much more liberal economy and a less heavy social system than Europe. The country is consistently more anti-statist, individualistic, laissez faire (and because of its dynamics actually more egalitarian) than other democracies. This is what produces its wealth and strength." He then goes on to praise American "life styles and cultural patterns, attitudes to work, courage and decisiveness. The currently fashionable European anti-Americanism and the caricaturing of American life and culture are frustrating." (CESinfo Forum, Munich, 2003) An American legal advocate, James Heckman, has gone further: "The world economy is more variable and less predictable today than it was 30 years ago when the modern European welfare state with its high level of taxation and regulation was established. This variability is associated with the entry of many countries into world trade, with the creation of new financial markets, with the explosion in technology and biotechnology." He cites the Italian case where applying national wage setting norms to the Mezzogiono are a cause of low employment in that region. By contrast he praises the reform of British unionism during the government of Margaret Thatcher when the locus of bargaining was shifted from the national and industry level to the firm level." (CESInfo, op.cit) A remarkably similar picture was given, but from an opposite point of view, by a paper from the EU Commission presented at a conference I attended in 2000 at the EU University Institute in Florence. The authors examined several scenarios for the future; and the one they viewed with most horror was called "triumphant markets", which they identified with the American model and with materialism and consumerism. Such hostile attitudes are not confined to one part of the political spectrum. On the right they are seen in an extreme devotion to the nation state and a hostility to the European Union. On the left they often embody worship of an ill defined "community". My own impression is rather different. There are of course different attitudes to capitalism throughout the West, but they cut across continental divisions. If global capitalism is characterised by American values it is mainly because the US is certainly the largest and probably the most successful world economy. Some of the most strident attacks on capitalism, globalisation and international corporations which come across my desk come are the work of American authors. The differences are partly a matter of temperament. The English writer Dr Samuel Johnson once said that "a man is never more innocently employed than when making money." Even Lord Keynes, regarded as a hero by some of the critics of the American model, remarked that it was better that a rich man should tyrannise over his bank balance than over his fellow men. But there will always be those who instinctively recoil from the world of moneymaking, especially when the money is made by those whom they dislike. What is perhaps different is that the anti-capitalist critique is given more house room in some European official circles, especially in "old Europe" (that is France, Germany and Belgium,) than it is in the USA. But even this needs to be qualified. New American administrations often come to power spouting protectionist rhetoric about the threat to American jobs from overseas competition, previously Japan and now China. President Clinton's favourite reading about the time he was first elected in 1992 consisted of attacks on unfair competition and a call for an interventionist US industrial policy; and after a less interventionist interregnum President George W.Bush is tending in the same direction. The Rhenish Model It is helpful to recall a little piece of recent history. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 it was no longer feasible to praise the virtues of state socialism. A different way had to be found of criticising capitalism. This took the form of identifying two forms of capitalism, the so-called Anglo-American or Anglo-Saxon one, to be avoided at all costs, and a "Rhenish" (Rhineland) model to be emulated by all progressives. The thesis was most elegantly enshrined in a book by Michel Albert entitled Capitalism against Capitalism (Whurr, 1991). His model refers to the countries around the Rhine valley and would have to be modified if applied to the rest of Europe. It is characterised by an extensive system of social protection leading to high social insurance contributions superimposed on the wage bill. The model is "institutional, collectivist and based on consensus." Employers and unions are regarded as "social partners" who work together to determine remuneration and working conditions. This is done formally and by law in Germany, but is emulated elsewhere. The aim of enterprises is not to maximise shareholder value, but to "reconcile the interests of clients, employees, shareholders and the social environment in general" - the so-called stakeholders. These procedures are helped by the modest role of the stock exchange and the importance of banks in financing enterprises. Reality, however, does not stand still. Since his book was published in 1991, the differences between the two forms have narrowed, as M. Albert has had the grace to emphasise himself. By 1997 he was asking whether the Rhenish model was suitable to a new age of technological innovation and increased international competition, which made job security more difficult to provide. He quoted the decision by the Daimler Benz group to alter its strategy so that it could be quoted on the New York Stock Exchange. He went on to question whether the internationalisation of capital in German and French enterprises was compatible with the notion of stakeholder value. He suggested that social benefits might have to be segmented rather than universal, by which he meant, I believe related more to workers' income and the particular circumstances of each enterprise. He feared that the transition would be difficult because the "social partners" were attached to the principles of equality (Max Planck Inst. Working Paper, January 1997). The move to Anglo-American modes has since gone still further. Continental European companies have been seeking stock exchange quotations, engaging in takeover bids and state industry has been privatised. Much of this was done quietly and without ideology to raise funds either for governments or for corporations. It has been said that the greatest privatisation in post-war Europe occurred while the socialist and critic of American capitalism, Francois Mitterand, was president of France or when Jospin was prime minister. The process has been caused "stealth capitalism" by the French writer, Alain Minc. Unfortunately, although business practices have converged, the rhetoric of the political classes has not. While hostility to the USA has its roots in differences over global politics and perceived cultural differences, this generalised hostility to American ways slows down the pace of economic reform inside the European Union. There are of course still genuine differences in economic structure between the USA and Europe. The typical core EU country has a public spending ration of 50 per cent of GNP. The US ratio is more like 30 per cent. Where does the UK fit in? Where you would expect: fluctuating around a halfway position of about 40 per cent. But the USA itself is not nearly as uninhibitedly free market as such comparisons might suggest. Broad generalisations about the USA overlook the great differences between one state of the union and another. There is a burden of regulation which emanates very often from the individual state governments. Moreover some of the obstacles to business activity which are imposed in Europe by governments, are experienced in the US in the form of a litigation culture. It seems that almost any harm experienced by any person or group can be blamed on some corporation, and there is no shortage of well-paid lawyers to take up the cause. This American blame culture has been spreading to other countries, to the benefit of neither prosperity nor individual freedom. The geographical interpretation of differences in institutions and ideas is often highly misleading. If we are embarking on a long historical quest, such as to explain why economic development started in certain parts of the world long before others, then indeed a lot of emphasis needs to be put on climate and therefore geography. But within the broad region known as the West, the most important modern differences now cut across national or continental boundaries. Indeed you can find as many ways of slicing the cake as you like. The supposed Anglo-American culture (which includes Australia and to some extent New Zealand) has been contrasted with the Rhineland model. But where then does Mediterranean Europe fit into the picture? You can regard Spanish and Portuguese cultures as a sub-section of the European variety; or you can talk of a Latin culture in which Spain, Portugal, Brazil and the Argentine are nearer to each other than to the central European land mass. But then where does Italy fit in? Or Scandinavia? Or the Slav world, part of which is soon to enter the European Union? Performance It is time to come back from these abstract international polemics to examine comparative performance. Some years after World War Two, "league tables" began to circulate comparing American and British growth rates to the six original members of the European Union - France, Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries. The absurdity of this was to concentrate on rates of change rather than levels. The USA was starting the postwar period with such a high level of productivity and income per head that a long catch-up period was inevitable. (My own country, the UK, despite cultural similarities with the US, was a more genuine case of a laggard.) This was a period when even hard-boiled American business executives studied French economic planning. The most that the sceptics could say that the German social market economy was doing just as well. Soon after it became the turn of Sweden to act as a role model, especially in left of centre circles. But then the comparison game began to change and it became fashionable to idolise the Japanese economy as well as some of the more authoritarian east Asian states. Such comparisons figured in the early Clinton campaigns, and it was not until well into the 1990's that American commentators began to realise that Japan had entered a decade or more of economic stagnation. As for Europe itself: according to the latest conventional wisdom Europe has been growing more slowly than the US as a result of structural "rigidities". The OECD has a rule of thumb for recent growth differentials: 3 per cent for the US, 2 per cent for Europe, and 1 per cent for Japan. Some of the differential is due to population growth, but not all of it. EU countries have themselves have signed up to reform declarations at one EU summit after another, starting with Lisbon in 2000. Doubt is cast on this conventional diagnosis by a recent paper, What's Wrong with Europe's Economy? by the former director of the Confederation of British Industries, Adair Turner in a paper given earlier this year (Adair-turner@ml.com). To start with, the facts are more complex than they are often made to appear. Turner puts under the microscope the difference between US and French GDP per capita, which put the US some 40 per cent ahead in 1999. Yet - and mark this fact - there was virtually no difference between output per hour in the two countries. The differences were due to two factors. American workers put in nearly 20 per cent more hours than French ones and the employment ratio per 1000 of the population was 15 per cent higher in the US. Turner rightly argues that if French people are happier with a shorter working week and a shorter working life than Americans - and are prepared to pay for it in lower take-home pay - then "no liberal economist should criticise them for that choice". Indeed it is American behaviour which is then more difficult to explain - "a society getting steadily richer, but totally focused on more income not more leisure". I do not entirely accept the Turner thesis. As he concedes, shorter French working lifetimes may not be freely chosen. Some of the difference results from involuntary unemployment or involuntary early retirement, reflecting labour market distortions. The Scottish economist Adam Smith remarked: "There is an awful lot of ruin in a nation." Translated into modern English this means that a country can survive a lot of misconceived economic policies. The main reason why the continental model of early retirement, modest working hours and high social security payments cannot last is the impending demographic explosion in the number of elderly people. A shrinking labour force will have to pay heavy bills for unemployment and early retirement as well as for growing army of genuine pensioners. It is for this reason rather than any worship of GDP for its own sake that what US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld called "Old Europe" - Germany and France - would be well advised to take a new direction. Adair Turner, the sceptic from whom I was just quoting, does however score heavily when he belittles the so-called "Barcelona reform agenda". This consists of five main items: strengthening European transport networks; liberalising energy markets; further financial market liberalisation; promoting education and research; and reforming labour markets. The first four of these items are undoubtedly desirable. But their potential contribution either to promoting growth or improving employment prospects is slight. The all important item is of course labour market reform. There are political reasons why governments put this at the bottom of a list of underneath the four other items. An attack on union privileges or union-backed legislation is particularly sensitive, especially, but not only, for left of centre governments. Governments hope that they can get away with some freeing of labour markets if they bury the project under a great many worthy declarations on other subjects. Even when it comes to labour markets, we hear a lot of fashionable nonsense. An example is the importance attached to social security contributions on their own. If labour markets are reasonably flexible, "workers receive a lower wage rate than they would if payroll taxes were lower." (Turner) What are so obviously too high in some EU countries are total labour costs: wages plus payroll contributions. It would be just as valid to advocate cutting wages in some EU countries as cutting payroll contributions. The truly liberal answer would be to give the choice to the workers themselves. Economic Disputes A good way of putting European and American differences into perspective is to look back at the failed WTO meeting in Cancun this September. In fact both areas exhibited a common narrow minded selfish defence of local interest groups. The US was unwilling - to take a blatant example - to curb cotton subsidies which strike very heavily at poor country producers. The European Union remain attached to its own farm subsidies. Japan behaved like a truly western country in its defence of its own heavily subsidised rice farmers. The Group of 22 developing countries did not distinguish themselves either. They deliberately brought the talks to an end, despite much evidence that they had more to gain from lowering their trade barriers against each other even than from persuading the Western world to lower its barriers. In any case there was little material for those who wanted to differentiate between American and European economic philosophies. My own suggestion is that trade policy should be taken out of the hands of foreign ministries and trade negotiators - who regard every tariff cut or reduced barrier of any kind as a concession requiring compensation - to finance ministries, central banks and mainstream government economic advisers who can see that citizens in their own countries are among the biggest gainers from facing down the producer interest groups. Above all it would help if trade policy were no longer treated just as an arcane area for specialists. Instead the case for slashing barriers, unilaterally if necessary, should be treated as a part of the general liberalisation or free market agenda. Up to now this suggestion would have been rejected on the grounds that it would antagonise politicians of a more dirigiste bent, but after Cancun there is nothing to lose from a radically different approach. The Dollar Another cause of transatlantic tension has been what I call the crossover in macroeconomic policy between the USA and the European Union. Originally European countries were inclined to promote growth and full employment by monetary stimulation and budget deficits - a policy which rightly or wrongly was given the name "Keynesian" . American leaders long resisted such policies in favour of what was called the 'old time religion', meaning a devotion to balanced budgets and a cautious monetary policy. The latter was symbolised by the long term president of the Federal Reserve, William McChesney Martin, who clashed with President Kennedy. But around the time of the arrival of the Reagan administration in the early 1980s a crossover took place. US administrations, especially Republican ones, embarked on tax cuts to stimulate growth; and the Fed started to give the benefit of the doubt to policies of monetary expansion based on a highly optimistic view of productivity improvements. Originally in the Reagan era the tax cuts were justified on what were called supply side grounds - and which George Bush Snr once called "voodoo economics"; but his son George W Bush has embarked on unashamed demand stimulation and is impatient with a single quarter of growth below some imagined trend. By contrast, the EU has adopted the old time religion very firmly in the shape of the Growth and Stability Pact, even though some European countries look - perhaps fortunately - unable or unwilling to fulfil their fiscal undertakings. An American economist and a British historian have combined to argue that recent increases in spending commitments by the Bush administration, together with long term tax cuts, will result in a budgetary shortfall in future years amounting to a present value of $45 trillion ($45,000 billion). This is way beyond anything that can be justified in the name of useful stimulation; and the authors raise the possibility of outright default on US debt - if not of legal obligations under social security and Medicare. Even the discussion of such possibilities could rock the bond market leading to higher longterm interest rates, and thus have the reverse effect of the stimulation intended by the administration. (Going Critical, Neil Ferguson and Laurence Jay Kotlikof, The National Interest, Fall 2003) Japan and Germany, the world's second and third largest world economies, face even bigger medium term fiscal crises. But neither of these countries aspires to be either a political super power or a dominant financial one. You do not have to look to these far horizons to see looming currency disputes between the two sides of the Atlantic. These go back to well before this crossover, indeed to the closing years of the Bretton Woods system in the 1960s. But they have been given a new edge by the ultra-Keynesian fervour of the Bush Administration. By far the most successful US policy towards its own currency has been to let it float freely - sometimes called "benign neglect". But there are occasions when the American Administration gets worked up either about the dollar being too high or too low. In the mid 1980s - around the time of the Plaza and Louvre agreements (1985-86) - the Reagan Administration expressed both worries in rapid succession. There is now a danger that the George W Bush Administration will follow in its footsteps and not be content to let the dollar find its own level, but try to push it down further in the interests of domestic exporters. As we have seen in the case of trade policy, the Bush administration is much more a pro-business government than it is a genuine supporter of competitive free markets. The immediate casus belli is the policy of China and other East Asian countries in trying to peg their own exchange rates to the dollar. The net result of their behaviour is to put more pressure on the dollar/euro exchange rate as the best way of securing an effective devaluation. If that happens my advice to European finance ministers and central bankers - which has no danger of being taken - is to lie back and enjoy the opportunity to improve their terms of trade and acquire dollar goods more cheaply. Many people worry that if the Americans fail to get the Chinese to revalue that US drift to protection will go much further. But I am also afraid of an aggressive and sabre rattling reaction from the Europeans - I mean governments much more than the European Central Bank. Having failed to secure sustainable non-inflationary growth domestically they will feel challenged by a weakening of external demand. To give into these feelings would be mercantilist folly. If demand is growing too slowly for non-inflationary growth, then the remedy is a more expansionary monetary and fiscal policy. If it is not growing too slowly then there is nothing to be done apart from the boring but necessary work of improving European labour markets. Evaluation Let me finish by going back to the big picture, which is the debate on global capitalism. Anti-capitalist critics can of course make a good case against the corruptions of politicised capitalism. What they do not grasp is that international free trade and a competitive regime at home are the best defence against the political power of corporations. Such power can only exist if business interests can persuade governments to exclude competition, whether it is George W Bush trying to protect farmers or the steel industry or Gerhard Schroder, combining his pseudo-pacifist anti-Americanism with subsidies for German industry and labour. Moreover the most materialistic societies are those former Communist parts of Europe where economic performance is still so poor and poverty so great that it is natural for people to want to seize all they can. The two biggest delusions of the 20th century, which the 21st century has inherited, are first to assume that all human problems are the fault of, or can be remedied, by government, and secondly for governments themselves to seek an external scapegoat. This is the route to beggar-my-neighbour policies which as we saw in the 1930s did not do anyone any good. I am not a prophet and cannot say how likely this danger is but it is one we should seek to avert. Stumble It!

Expat Sex Box

Healthy Refined Sex Videos and Play Things First up .... *Rubberella Video Clip Second up .... *Love Chess Free Demo third up .... *Free Sex Mp3 Downloads 4th up .... *42 Minute Uncensored Color Sex Video 5th up .... *German Fetish Ball Video 6th up .... *Free Lust,Love,Latex Movie more to come ... Stumble It!

April First Special Post

This being the first day in April, let me first thank all of my 13,500 or so visitors, and thankyou for your 50 comments over the last three months. This response was totally unexpected. Few threats, and few attempts to crash my computer. Being an American Alien in Europe, I was expecting much more heat, because I usually get it from both sides being over here. Off Topic but Who Cares *Courtesy John McCrarey Korea I also noticed 75% of my visitors are American, followed by Brits, Canadians, Germans, and Singapore. These last four 15% of my fans. The other 10% comprise the other 2000 or so countries on the planet. This accomplishment was totally unexpected, and I wish to thank each of you for making this Blog success possible.

UPDATE: US Aerial Attack on Iran Planned for June

UPDATE Latest From Iran .... *Iran shows off nuclear centrepiece *Iran opens nuclear plant to media *Iran leader takes reporters to nuke plant The Coming War in Iran, continued ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme. The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert. Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities. The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed.... Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, said he believed that diplomacy was the only way to deal with the issue. But he warned: “The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but for the whole world.” Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, emphasised on Friday that Iran would face “stronger action” if it failed to respond. But yesterday Iran rejected the initiative, which provides for entry to the World Trade Organisation and a supply of spare parts for airliners if it co-operates. “No pressure, bribe or threat can make Iran give up its legitimate right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes,” said an Iranian spokesman. US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations. *The Coming War in Iran, cont SCENARIO Let us suppose, as certainly is quite possible (perhaps probable), that the Bush people are re-elected, legally or otherwise (legally, not legitimately!). Here is one scenario that may be in store, and that is certainly being discussed outside the mainstream media in the U.S., though not in sources for which I can find URLs. It is a scenario that may not even require a Bush victory, but is surely more probable to unfold in the form imagined under Bush. In any case, I offer it here for your horror. Iran is already increasingly defiant in the face of international pressure about its nuclear capabilities. Being a founding member of the "Axis of Evil," the Iranians have no doubt drawn the correct conclusion that their best protection against the American juggernaut is to acquire nuclear weapons. This story, in any event, is so far on the back burners in the mass media. At some point (probably after November 2), Israel will strike the Iranian nuclear facilities, as it did with Iraq more than two decades ago. Since Iran, unlike Iraq, is not a decimated country with a third-rate army, the Iranians will retaliate against "the Zionists." Assuming Israel does not, then, annihilate the Iranians with nuclear weapons, it will respond militarily in some other form, and the U.S. will come to Israel's "defense." With the pretext of an assault on a valued ally, the Bush war mongers will call for a new millitary draft, a proposal that will win the warm support of principled Democrats like Senator John Kerry, who also voted for the "Patriot [sic] Act" and the war in Iraq. With a concerted "Zionist" assault upon an Islamic nation, there will, of course, be upheaval throughout the Islamic world, including the toppling of Bush's man in Pakistan, who will be ousted by Islamic radicals in his own military. Assuming India does not then launch a preventive nuclear war against Pakistan, the Pakistanis will, no doubt, transfer some of their own nuclear capabilities to the beleagured Iranians. You can fill in the rest. It goes without saying that there will also be all kinds of terrorist incidents in the United States as "retaliation." Let us hope my powers of prognosis are poor. But who would have dreamed in the summer of 2001 that it would be a matter of national urgency within a year to invade Iraq? Once burned, twice shy.... Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant Uzi Mahnaimi ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme. The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert. Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities. The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed. Tehran claims that its programme is designed for peaceful purposes but Israeli and American intelligence officials — who have met to share information in recent weeks — are convinced that it is intended to produce nuclear weapons. The Israeli government responded cautiously yesterday to an announcement by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, that America would support Britain, France and Germany in offering economic incentives for Tehran to abandon its programme. In return, the European countries promised to back Washington in referring Iran to the United Nations security council if the latest round of talks fails to secure agreement. Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, said he believed that diplomacy was the only way to deal with the issue. But he warned: “The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but for the whole world.” Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, emphasised on Friday that Iran would face “stronger action” if it failed to respond. But yesterday Iran rejected the initiative, which provides for entry to the World Trade Organisation and a supply of spare parts for airliners if it co-operates. “No pressure, bribe or threat can make Iran give up its legitimate right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes,” said an Iranian spokesman. US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations. Additional reporting: Tony Allen-Mills, Washington *Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant By Mark Jensen Saturday, 19 February 2005 United for Peace of Pierce County (WA) Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has signed off on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq. The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq. On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism. The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%. Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh. On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, The next strategic target is Iran. Hersh also reported that The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer. According to Hersh, Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act. Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration. Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians. Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the truth about the devastation and death it is causing. *Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches News From Inside Iraq One Western military specialist based in Tehran said on condition of anonymity that over the last year, Iran was sharpening its abilities to wage a guerrilla war, the Boston Globe adds. But most analysts agree that the biggest trump card Iranians could play is to unleash havoc in neighboring Iraq, where Iraqis who spent years in Iran as exiles are about to assume a dominant role in the government. In other words, the U.S. will be confronted with a large number of resistance fighters in Iraq, conceivably upward to a million or more, and not the paltry 200,000 or so it currently faces and finds overwhelming. On the day after the Pentagon stupidly bombs Irans illusory nuclear facilities there will be hell to pay in Iraq. For over a week rumors have circulated in the Arab press that both napalm and other chemical weapons were used mainly in the Jolan district of Falluja, a major area of the fighting. Now, despite a US media blackout, more evidence is leaking out and causing a furor in the British Parliament. As Gilfeather reports: Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh. Blair is being pressed by furious MPs to clarify whether or not he knew that the banned weapon was being used. He is also being asked to withdraw British troops if the US continues its use of napalm. As of this writing, Blairs response remains unknown. The US has already admitted that it used napalm during the siege of Baghdad. The truth was reluctantly confirmed by the Pentagon after news reports corroborated the evidence. The military has tried to conceal the truth by saying that there is a distinction between its new weapon and traditional napalm. The improved product carries the Pentagon moniker Mark 77 firebombs and uses jet fuel to decrease environmental damage. The fact that military planners even considered environmental damage while developing the tools for incinerating human beings, gives us some insight into the deep vein of cynicism that permeates their ranks. The Pentagons hair-splitting has done little to obfuscate the facts. Marines returning from Iraq call the bombs napalm and napalm it is. Journalist Simon Jenkins of the British Sunday Times describes the incidents in Falluja like this: Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns. It is an excruciatingly painful way to die. Independent journalists have been reporting for some time now that the US has been using banned weapons in Falluja. Iraqi doctors have noted that many of the bodies they have examined have been swollen, yellowish and have no smell. Asia Times online has reported that Americans used chemical weapons in the bombing of Jolan, ash-Shuhada and al-Jubayl neighborhoods. They also say the neighborhoods were showered with cluster bombs; an allegation that refutes the Pentagons claim of precision bombing. Theres no doubt that the US embedded media is being prevented from seeing the vast devastation and carnage of Falluja so they wont be exposed to the suspicious looking corpses that still litter the city. So far, their collusive wall of silence has provided fairly good cover for American war crimes. Fortunately, the truth is slowly leeching out due to the efforts of the foreign press and independent media. Soon, the world will get a better rendering of Washingtons moral values by a full vetting of transgressions in Falluja. *Reference: US Aerial Attack on Iran Planned for June *Reference: Iran prepares for "Asymmetrical Warfare"

IRAN: Online Music, Movies, Art, Photos,Culture (Link)

Major Religions Of the World

(see above link for large version religion populations map) Bahai appeared 140 years ago The Bahai Faith arose from Islam in the 1800s based on the teachings of Baha'u'llah and is now a distinct worldwide faith. The faith's followers believe that God has sent nine great prophets to mankind through whom the Holy Spirit has revealed the "Word of God." This has given rise to the major world religions. Although these religions arose from the teachings of the prophets of one God, Bahai's do not believe they are all the same. The differences in the teachings of each prophet are due to the needs of the society they came to help and what mankind was ready to have revealed to it. Bahai beliefs promote gender and race equality, freedom of expression and assembly, world peace and world government. They believe that a single world government led by Bahai's will be established at some point in the future. The faith does not attempt to preserve the past but does embrace the findings of science. Bahai's believe that every person has an immortal soul which can not die but is freed to travel through the spirit world after death. Sikhism appeared 500 years ago The Sikh faith was founded by Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji in the Punjab area, now Pakistan. He began preaching the way to enlightenment and God after receiving a vision. After his death a series of nine Gurus (regarded as reincarnations of Guru Nanak) led the movement until 1708. At this time these functions passed to the Panth and the holy text. This text, the Shri Guru Granth Sahib, was compiled by the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh. It consists of hymns and writings of the first 10 Gurus, along with texts from different Muslim and Hindu saints. The holy text is considered the 11th and final Guru. Sikhs believe in a single formless God with many names, who can be known through meditation. Sikhs pray many times each day and are prohibited from worshipping idols or icons. They believe in samsara, karma, and reincarnation as Hindus do but reject the caste system. They believe that everyone has equal status in the eyes of God. During the 18th century, there were a number of attempts to prepare an accurate portrayal of Sikh customs. Sikh scholars and theologians started in 1931 to prepare the Reht Maryada -- the Sikh code of conduct and conventions. This has successfully achieved a high level of uniformity in the religious and social practices of Sikhism throughout the world. It contains 27 articles. Article 1 defines who is a Sikh: "Any human being who faithfully believes in: One Immortal Being, Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh, The Guru Granth Sahib, The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus and the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion, is a Sikh." Zoroastrianism appeared 1000 years ago Zoroastrianism was founded by Zarathushtra (Zoroaster) in Persia which followed an aboriginal polytheistic religion at the time. He preached what may have been the first monotheism with a single supreme god, Ahura Mazda. Zoroastrians belief in the dualism of good and evil as either a cosmic one between Ahura Mazda and an evil spirit of violence and death, Angra Mainyu, or as an ethical dualism within the human consciousness. The Zoroastrian holy book is called the Avesta which includes the teachings of Zarathushtra written in a series of five hymns called the Gathas. They are abstract sacred poetry directed towards the worship of the One God, understanding of righteousness and cosmic order, promotion of social justice, and individual choice between good and evil. The rest of the Avesta was written at a later date and deals with rituals, practice of worship, and other traditions of the faith. Zoroastrians worship through prayers and symbolic ceremonies that are conducted before a sacred fire which symbolizes their God. They dedicate their lives to a three-fold path represented by their motto: "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds." The faith does not generally accept converts but this is disputed by some members. Islam appeared 1400 years ago Islam was founded in 622 CE by Mohammed the Prophet, in Medina. Though it is the youngest of the world's great religions, Muslims do not view it as a new religion. They belief that it is the same faith taught by the prophets, Abraham, David, Moses and Jesus. The role of Mohammed as the last prophet was to formalize and clarify the faith and purify it by removing ideas which were added in error. The two sacred texts of Islam are the Qu'ran, which are the words of Allah "the One True God" as given to Mohammed, and the Hadith, which is a collection of Mohammed's sayings. The duties of all Muslims are known as the Five Pillars of Islam and are: 1. Recite the shahadah at least once. 2. Perform the salat (prayer) 5 times a day while facing Mecca. 3. Donate regularly to charity via the zakat, a 2.5% charity tax, and through additional donations to the needy. 4. Fast during the month of Ramadan, the month that Mohammed received the Qu'ran from Allah. 5. Make at least one pilgrimage to Mecca if economically and physically possible. Muslims follow a strict monotheism with one creator who is just, omnipotent and merciful. They also believe in Satan who drives people to sin, and that all unbelievers and sinners will spend eternity in Hell. Muslims who sincerely repent and submit to God will return to a state of sinlessness and go to Paradise after death. Alcohol, drugs, and gambling should be avoided and they reject racism. They respect the earlier prophets, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, but regard the concept of the divinity of Jesus as blasphemous and do not believe that he was executed on the cross. Christianity appeared 2005 years ago Christianity started out as a breakaway sect of Judaism nearly 2000 years ago. Jesus, the son of the Virgin Mary and her husband Joseph, but conceived through the Holy Spirit, was bothered by some of the practices within his native Jewish faith and began preaching a different message of God and religion. During his travels he was joined by twelve disciples who followed him in his journeys and learned from him. He performed many miracles during this time and related many of his teachings in the form of parables. Among his best known sayings are to "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek." At one point he revealed that he was the Son of God sent to Earth to save humanity from our sins. This he did by being crucified on the cross for his teachings. He then rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples and told them to go forth and spread his message. Since Christianity and Judaism share the same history up to the time of Jesus Christ, they are very similar in many of their core beliefs. There are two primary differences. One is that Christians believe in original sin and that Jesus died in our place to save us from that sin. The other is that Jesus was fully human and fully God and as the Son of God is part of the Holy Trinity: God the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. All Christians believe in heaven and that those who sincerely repent their sins before God will be saved and join Him in heaven. Belief in hell and satan varies among groups and individuals. There are a multitude of forms of Christianity which have developed either because of disagreements on dogma, adaptation to different cultures, or simply personal taste. For this reason there can be a great difference between the various forms of Christianity they may seem like different religions to some people. Judaism appeared 2005 years ago Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i faith all originated with a divine covenant between the God of the ancient Israelites and Abraham around 2000 BCE. The next leader of the the Israelites, Moses, led his people out of captivity in Egypt and received the Law from God. Joshua later led them into the promised land where Samuel established the Israelite kingdom with Saul as its first king. King David established Jerusalem and King Solomon built the first temple there. In 70 CE the temple was destroyed and the Jews were scattered throughout the world until 1948 when the state of Israel was formed. Jews believe in one creator who alone is to be worshipped as absolute ruler of the universe. He monitors peoples activities and rewards good deeds and punishes evil. The Torah was revealed to Moses by God and can not be changed though God does communicate with the Jewish people through prophets. Jews believe in the inherent goodness of the world and its inhabitants as creations of God and do not require a savior to save them from original sin. They believe they are God's chosen people and that the Messiah will arrive in the future, gather them into Israel, there will be a general resurrection of the dead, and the Jerusalem Temple destroyed in 70 CE will be rebuilt. Jainism appeared 2400 years ago The founder of the Jain community was Vardhamana, the last Jina in a series of 24 who lived in East India. He attained enlightenment after 13 years of deprivation and committed the act of salekhana, fasting to death, in 420 BCE. Jainism has many similarities to Hinduism and Buddhism which developed in the same part of the world. They believe in karma and reincarnation as do Hindus but they believe that enlightenment and liberation from this cycle can only be achieved through asceticism. Jains follow fruititarianism. This is the practice of only eating that which will not kill the plant or animal from which it is taken. They also practice ahimsa, non-violence, because any act of violence against a living thing creates negative karma which will adversely affect one's next life. Taoism appeared 2460 years ago Taoism was founded by Lao-Tse, a contemporary of Confucius in China. Taoism began as a combination of psychology and philosophy which Lao-Tse hoped would help end the constant feudal warfare and other conflicts of his time. His writings, the Tao-te-Ching, describe the nature of life, the way to peace and how a ruler should lead his life. Taoism became a religion in 440 CE when it was adopted as a state religion. Tao, roughly translated as path, is a force which flows through all life and is the first cause of everything. The goal of everyone is to become one with the Tao. Tai Chi, a technique of exercise using slow deliberate movements, is used to balance the flow of energy or "chi" within the body. People should develop virtue and seek compassion, moderation and humility. One should plan any action in advance and achieve it through minimal action. Yin (dark side) and Yang (light side) symbolize pairs of opposites which are seen through the universe, such as good and evil, light and dark, male and female. The impact of human civilization upsets the balance of Yin and Yang. Taoists believe that people are by nature, good, and that one should be kind to others simply because such treatment will probably be reciprocated. Shinto appeared 2500 years ago Shinto is an ancient Japanese religion, closely tied to nature, which recognizes the existence of various "Kami", nature dieties. The first two deities, Izanagi and Izanami, gave birth to the Japanese islands and their children became the deities of the various Japanese clans. One of their daughters, Amaterasu (Sun Goddess), is the ancestress of the Imperial Family and is regarded as the chief deity. All the Kami are benign and serve only to sustain and protect. They are not seen as separate from humanity due to sin because humanity is "Kami's Child." Followers of Shinto desire peace and believe all human life is sacred. They revere "musuhi", the Kami's creative and harmonizing powers, and aspire to have "makoto", sincerity or true heart. Morality is based upon that which is of benefit to the group. There are "Four Affirmations" in Shinto: 1. Tradition and family: the family is the main mechanism by which traditions are preserved. 2. Love of nature: nature is sacred and natural objects are to be worshipped as sacred spirits. 3. Physical cleanliness: they must take baths, wash their hands, and rinse their mouth often. 4. "Matsuri": festival which honors the spirits. Confucianism appeared 2500 years ago K'ung Fu Tzu (Confucius) was born in 551 BCE in the state of Lu in China. He traveled throughout China giving advice to its rulers and teaching. His teachings and writings dealt with individual morality and ethics, and the proper exercise of political power. He stressed the following values: Li: ritual, propriety, etiquette, etc. Hsiao: love among family members Yi: righteousness Xin: honesty and trustworthiness Jen: benevolence towards others; the highest Confucian virtue Chung: loyalty to the state, etc. Unlike most religions, Confucianism is primarily an ethical system with rituals at important times during one's lifetime. The most important periods recognized in the Confucian tradition are birth, reaching maturity, marriage, and death. Buddhism appeared 2600 years ago Buddhism developed out of the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama who, in 535 BCE, reached enlightenment and assumed the title Buddha. He promoted 'The Middle Way' as the path to enlightenment rather than the extremes of mortification of the flesh or hedonism. Long after his death the Buddha's teachings were written down. This collection is called the Tripitaka. Buddhists believe in reincarnation and that one must go through cycles of birth, life, and death. After many such cycles, if a person releases their attachment to desire and the self, they can attain Nirvana. In general, Buddhists do not believe in any type of God, the need for a savior, prayer, or eternal life after death. However, since the time of the Buddha, Buddhism has integrated many regional religious rituals, beliefs and customs into it as it has spread throughout Asia, so that this generalization is no longer true for all Buddhists. This has occurred with little conflict due to the philosophical nature of Buddhism. Hinduism appeared 4000 years ago The origins of Hinduism can be traced to the Indus Valley civilization sometime between 4000 and 2500 BCE. Though believed by many to be a polytheistic religion, the basis of Hinduism is the belief in the unity of everything. This totality is called Brahman. The purpose of life is to realize that we are part of God and by doing so we can leave this plane of existance and rejoin with God. This enlightenment can only be achieved by going through cycles of birth, life and death known as samsara. One's progress towards enlightenment is measured by his karma. This is the accumulation of all one's good and bad deeds and this determines the person's next reincarnation. Selfless acts and thoughts as well as devotion to God help one to be reborn at a higher level. Bad acts and thoughts will cause one to be born at a lower level, as a person or even an animal. Hindus follow a strict caste system which determines the standing of each person. The caste one is born into is the result of the karma from their previous life. Only members of the highest caste, the brahmins, may perform the Hindu religious rituals and hold positions of authority within the temples. *Major Branches of Religions Ranked by Number of Believers

Expats True Aliens That Don't Exist

Conspiracy Against Americans Or Just European Bureacracy My Own Situation here in Luxembourg is strangely repeated by another American in Rome ... I've been quite busy lately with things winding down for work as the whole entire country shuts down for about a week due to "Easter". Anyway, tomorrow I am going to apply for "residency". The fact that I work here, have an Italian Foreigners' Permit of Stay, pay taxes here, legally inhabit a home here, am enrolled in the Italian national healthcare, doesn't mean that I, well, live here. It should leave me ferociously angry enough to write a good blog brutally trashing Italian fascist bureaucracy in ways never known before so please stay tuned... *American In Rome In my case after five years of trying, it seems I must marry my girlfriend; an accepted German resident of Luxembourg. She has been living in this country for 25 years. This way I may get an official response and acknowledgement that I am alive and exist, from the Luxembourg Bureacracy. I wonder how many other expats have the same experience, which I found by chance on the Net.

Comparing Europe To the USA

Research Notes American/Euro Culture Clash (Commonly Held Views) Why does the fact that Germans don't have to work so hard to have a good life make you so angry? Have you even been to Germany? Do you even have a passport? A good life? 12.6% unemployment rate, 40% of the population not working fulltime, working an average of 13% of their lifetime, and a per capita GDP that is two-thirds of the US? Yes, some inherit wealth, but most work hard for it. I work hard to provied myself with the lifestle that I have. My parents are both alive, and I probably won't get anything from them until I am old. The life expectancy on my Mom's side of the family is the late 80s. I am sorry that you don't own a home, but don't take it out on me. There are few things that irritate me more than people who say, "you own your own business? Wow! Must be nice to work 20-30 hours a week and rake in all that dough." I busted my ass (and still do so) to get where I am and took a financial risk to do so. That is why I resent some of these govt workers who work 37.5 hours a week, get tons of benefits (from my tax dollars), and didn't have to put up a nickel to do so. I know 2 ladies that work at the Liquor Board store (govt-controlled) who get $25 per hour to stock the shelves and run the till. Wow. How many years of university did they take for that? I know a lady who works for the Canadian govt who brags about taking 30-40 minute coffee breaks (with her supervisor) and takes a hour and a half for lunch (instead of an hour). That is about 70 minutes per day of production per day that she wastes and I am not even counting everyone else in her dept. Does that sound efficient to you? It is MY tax dollars that are paying for that inefficiency. Although I make more money than her...On a per hour basis, she probably does better than me...and I am helping to pay for that waste. Also, I am a dual citizen. I was proud to vote for The Mighty Dubya last year. You just don't get it. Germany's economy is in the toilet; their govt is trying to implement changes and yet you insist that a country with a 233% more unemployment rate is better than the US. Look at the GDP growth between the two countries. Germany has glaical, if any, economic growth. 3 cars/100 people in the UK; 57 cars/100 people in the USA It's quite possible to achieve a good life without constantly working. Maybe in Germany a single-income family can still get by. Were we worse off when a woman could stay home and take care of kids? Your figure about 40% of the population in Germany not working full time may merely represent people making different choices. I've been to Germany, and I live in the USA, and I know where I see more people living in the streets. And it sure isn't Germany. And I think that's a fine measure of poverty. It's quite possible to achieve a good life without constantly working. Maybe in Germany a single-income family can still get by. Were we worse off when a woman could stay home and take care of kids? Your figure about 40% of the population in Germany not working full time may merely represent people making different choices. *Schroeders Economic Debacle: Over 5 Million Unemployed The high Euro means that if a European wants to buy an American product it costs 20% less than it a couple of years ago. How exactly is that bad for the Europeans? Because continental Western Europe's Big 3 (Germany, France, and Italy) all export more than they import, ergo their product costs more to buy on the world market. Germany - which is Europe's largest economy - exports $112 billion more than they import. *German Facts (Click on Economy or scroll down to it) Also, France is the most visited country in the world. Tourism is a large part of their economy. A high euro makes it more expensive to visit there. The few Europeans who have jobs? Are you actually asserting that most Europeans don't have jobs? That's absurd. Continental Western Europe's Big 3 all have unemployment rates over 10% (Germany is now at 12.6%) *More Euro Facts German Workers:"For Us A One Way Trip On the TITANIC." "This, after all, is a country where, contrary to the picture of hard-working Germans, 40 per cent of the population is not in full-time work and people spend only 13 per cent of their lives in employment." Hope that helps explains things a bit better. The Europeans are doing just fine. We should be looking to them for advice on how to build an economy that actually benefits the working class, not just those who benefit from the labor of the working class. I'm going to be nice and just say "Good Grief!" Assume the average American worker enters the work force at 20 (college, you know), works until age 65, lives to the age of 75, that means that pesron spends 14.24% of his life working. Oh, fuck, I forgot to factor in vacations, holidays, time between jobs, etc. Probably lowers the number to, what, about 13%? "40% of the population is not in full-time work..." Yeah, kids don't work. Damn them do-gooder socialists and their child labor laws! "The US economy is 20 years ahead of that of the EU and it will take decades for Europe to catch up." 1978. 20 years to catch up (actually 26 years). But go on and claim that socialism is all good. Ok just to clear something else up, whenever you mention the economies of Europe you say the big three are Germany France and Italy, when of course they are not. The Big three are Germany France and Britain. As for comparing unemployment rates, you would need to investigate how these are calculated, would someone be able to say how US unemployment figures are calculated? For instance do you stop getting unemployment after 3 months even if you still don't have ajob and do you vanish from the figures? It's 6 months til you don't count anymore and that's only if you qualify for unemplyment in the first place. If you don't then you are never part of the figures. 'Only 10% of Americans have passports, and they say that as though its a bad thing' Jimmy Carr *American/Euro Culture Clash Education Many overseas students including executives from North America come to Europe for their management education. Many US business schools establish partnerships with European counterparts because of Europe's plurality, its many languages, its distinct business practices, ethics and a culture that values "the human element in the deal". Felix Mueller, the director of marketing, explains the attraction of a base in Europe. "We have all the advantages in research terms of a US business school but we need to combine it with a global view, which is why we're here. Many people complain that US schools are too US focused." *Comparing American and European business schools is academic The USA and Europe: Two, three or more economic cultures? Samuel Brittan: Gulbenkian Foundation Conference, Lisbon 21/10/03 Stylised Differences I have felt for a number of years that speakers on the economic front at this type of conference have had a difficult task. For if there is a growing divergence between the US and Europe it relates more to foreign policy and defence than to economics. There are of course some differences of economic philosophy, but they are often exaggerated. A characteristically forthright statement of the perceived differences has recently been given by the pro-free market Czech president Vaclav Klaus: "The USA has a much more liberal economy and a less heavy social system than Europe. The country is consistently more anti-statist, individualistic, laissez faire (and because of its dynamics actually more egalitarian) than other democracies. This is what produces its wealth and strength." He then goes on to praise American "life styles and cultural patterns, attitudes to work, courage and decisiveness. The currently fashionable European anti-Americanism and the caricaturing of American life and culture are frustrating." (CESinfo Forum, Munich, 2003) An American legal advocate, James Heckman, has gone further: "The world economy is more variable and less predictable today than it was 30 years ago when the modern European welfare state with its high level of taxation and regulation was established. This variability is associated with the entry of many countries into world trade, with the creation of new financial markets, with the explosion in technology and biotechnology." He cites the Italian case where applying national wage setting norms to the Mezzogiono are a cause of low employment in that region. By contrast he praises the reform of British unionism during the government of Margaret Thatcher when the locus of bargaining was shifted from the national and industry level to the firm level." (CESInfo, op.cit) A remarkably similar picture was given, but from an opposite point of view, by a paper from the EU Commission presented at a conference I attended in 2000 at the EU University Institute in Florence. The authors examined several scenarios for the future; and the one they viewed with most horror was called "triumphant markets", which they identified with the American model and with materialism and consumerism. Such hostile attitudes are not confined to one part of the political spectrum. On the right they are seen in an extreme devotion to the nation state and a hostility to the European Union. On the left they often embody worship of an ill defined "community". My own impression is rather different. There are of course different attitudes to capitalism throughout the West, but they cut across continental divisions. If global capitalism is characterised by American values it is mainly because the US is certainly the largest and probably the most successful world economy. Some of the most strident attacks on capitalism, globalisation and international corporations which come across my desk come are the work of American authors. The differences are partly a matter of temperament. The English writer Dr Samuel Johnson once said that "a man is never more innocently employed than when making money." Even Lord Keynes, regarded as a hero by some of the critics of the American model, remarked that it was better that a rich man should tyrannise over his bank balance than over his fellow men. But there will always be those who instinctively recoil from the world of moneymaking, especially when the money is made by those whom they dislike. What is perhaps different is that the anti-capitalist critique is given more house room in some European official circles, especially in "old Europe" (that is France, Germany and Belgium,) than it is in the USA. But even this needs to be qualified. New American administrations often come to power spouting protectionist rhetoric about the threat to American jobs from overseas competition, previously Japan and now China. President Clinton's favourite reading about the time he was first elected in 1992 consisted of attacks on unfair competition and a call for an interventionist US industrial policy; and after a less interventionist interregnum President George W.Bush is tending in the same direction. The Rhenish Model It is helpful to recall a little piece of recent history. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 it was no longer feasible to praise the virtues of state socialism. A different way had to be found of criticising capitalism. This took the form of identifying two forms of capitalism, the so-called Anglo-American or Anglo-Saxon one, to be avoided at all costs, and a "Rhenish" (Rhineland) model to be emulated by all progressives. The thesis was most elegantly enshrined in a book by Michel Albert entitled Capitalism against Capitalism (Whurr, 1991). His model refers to the countries around the Rhine valley and would have to be modified if applied to the rest of Europe. It is characterised by an extensive system of social protection leading to high social insurance contributions superimposed on the wage bill. The model is "institutional, collectivist and based on consensus." Employers and unions are regarded as "social partners" who work together to determine remuneration and working conditions. This is done formally and by law in Germany, but is emulated elsewhere. The aim of enterprises is not to maximise shareholder value, but to "reconcile the interests of clients, employees, shareholders and the social environment in general" - the so-called stakeholders. These procedures are helped by the modest role of the stock exchange and the importance of banks in financing enterprises. Reality, however, does not stand still. Since his book was published in 1991, the differences between the two forms have narrowed, as M. Albert has had the grace to emphasise himself. By 1997 he was asking whether the Rhenish model was suitable to a new age of technological innovation and increased international competition, which made job security more difficult to provide. He quoted the decision by the Daimler Benz group to alter its strategy so that it could be quoted on the New York Stock Exchange. He went on to question whether the internationalisation of capital in German and French enterprises was compatible with the notion of stakeholder value. He suggested that social benefits might have to be segmented rather than universal, by which he meant, I believe related more to workers' income and the particular circumstances of each enterprise. He feared that the transition would be difficult because the "social partners" were attached to the principles of equality (Max Planck Inst. Working Paper, January 1997). The move to Anglo-American modes has since gone still further. Continental European companies have been seeking stock exchange quotations, engaging in takeover bids and state industry has been privatised. Much of this was done quietly and without ideology to raise funds either for governments or for corporations. It has been said that the greatest privatisation in post-war Europe occurred while the socialist and critic of American capitalism, Francois Mitterand, was president of France or when Jospin was prime minister. The process has been caused "stealth capitalism" by the French writer, Alain Minc. Unfortunately, although business practices have converged, the rhetoric of the political classes has not. While hostility to the USA has its roots in differences over global politics and perceived cultural differences, this generalised hostility to American ways slows down the pace of economic reform inside the European Union. There are of course still genuine differences in economic structure between the USA and Europe. The typical core EU country has a public spending ration of 50 per cent of GNP. The US ratio is more like 30 per cent. Where does the UK fit in? Where you would expect: fluctuating around a halfway position of about 40 per cent. But the USA itself is not nearly as uninhibitedly free market as such comparisons might suggest. Broad generalisations about the USA overlook the great differences between one state of the union and another. There is a burden of regulation which emanates very often from the individual state governments. Moreover some of the obstacles to business activity which are imposed in Europe by governments, are experienced in the US in the form of a litigation culture. It seems that almost any harm experienced by any person or group can be blamed on some corporation, and there is no shortage of well-paid lawyers to take up the cause. This American blame culture has been spreading to other countries, to the benefit of neither prosperity nor individual freedom. The geographical interpretation of differences in institutions and ideas is often highly misleading. If we are embarking on a long historical quest, such as to explain why economic development started in certain parts of the world long before others, then indeed a lot of emphasis needs to be put on climate and therefore geography. But within the broad region known as the West, the most important modern differences now cut across national or continental boundaries. Indeed you can find as many ways of slicing the cake as you like. The supposed Anglo-American culture (which includes Australia and to some extent New Zealand) has been contrasted with the Rhineland model. But where then does Mediterranean Europe fit into the picture? You can regard Spanish and Portuguese cultures as a sub-section of the European variety; or you can talk of a Latin culture in which Spain, Portugal, Brazil and the Argentine are nearer to each other than to the central European land mass. But then where does Italy fit in? Or Scandinavia? Or the Slav world, part of which is soon to enter the European Union? Performance It is time to come back from these abstract international polemics to examine comparative performance. Some years after World War Two, "league tables" began to circulate comparing American and British growth rates to the six original members of the European Union - France, Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries. The absurdity of this was to concentrate on rates of change rather than levels. The USA was starting the postwar period with such a high level of productivity and income per head that a long catch-up period was inevitable. (My own country, the UK, despite cultural similarities with the US, was a more genuine case of a laggard.) This was a period when even hard-boiled American business executives studied French economic planning. The most that the sceptics could say that the German social market economy was doing just as well. Soon after it became the turn of Sweden to act as a role model, especially in left of centre circles. But then the comparison game began to change and it became fashionable to idolise the Japanese economy as well as some of the more authoritarian east Asian states. Such comparisons figured in the early Clinton campaigns, and it was not until well into the 1990's that American commentators began to realise that Japan had entered a decade or more of economic stagnation. As for Europe itself: according to the latest conventional wisdom Europe has been growing more slowly than the US as a result of structural "rigidities". The OECD has a rule of thumb for recent growth differentials: 3 per cent for the US, 2 per cent for Europe, and 1 per cent for Japan. Some of the differential is due to population growth, but not all of it. EU countries have themselves have signed up to reform declarations at one EU summit after another, starting with Lisbon in 2000. Doubt is cast on this conventional diagnosis by a recent paper, What's Wrong with Europe's Economy? by the former director of the Confederation of British Industries, Adair Turner in a paper given earlier this year (Adair-turner@ml.com). To start with, the facts are more complex than they are often made to appear. Turner puts under the microscope the difference between US and French GDP per capita, which put the US some 40 per cent ahead in 1999. Yet - and mark this fact - there was virtually no difference between output per hour in the two countries. The differences were due to two factors. American workers put in nearly 20 per cent more hours than French ones and the employment ratio per 1000 of the population was 15 per cent higher in the US. Turner rightly argues that if French people are happier with a shorter working week and a shorter working life than Americans - and are prepared to pay for it in lower take-home pay - then "no liberal economist should criticise them for that choice". Indeed it is American behaviour which is then more difficult to explain - "a society getting steadily richer, but totally focused on more income not more leisure". I do not entirely accept the Turner thesis. As he concedes, shorter French working lifetimes may not be freely chosen. Some of the difference results from involuntary unemployment or involuntary early retirement, reflecting labour market distortions. The Scottish economist Adam Smith remarked: "There is an awful lot of ruin in a nation." Translated into modern English this means that a country can survive a lot of misconceived economic policies. The main reason why the continental model of early retirement, modest working hours and high social security payments cannot last is the impending demographic explosion in the number of elderly people. A shrinking labour force will have to pay heavy bills for unemployment and early retirement as well as for growing army of genuine pensioners. It is for this reason rather than any worship of GDP for its own sake that what US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld called "Old Europe" - Germany and France - would be well advised to take a new direction. Adair Turner, the sceptic from whom I was just quoting, does however score heavily when he belittles the so-called "Barcelona reform agenda". This consists of five main items: strengthening European transport networks; liberalising energy markets; further financial market liberalisation; promoting education and research; and reforming labour markets. The first four of these items are undoubtedly desirable. But their potential contribution either to promoting growth or improving employment prospects is slight. The all important item is of course labour market reform. There are political reasons why governments put this at the bottom of a list of underneath the four other items. An attack on union privileges or union-backed legislation is particularly sensitive, especially, but not only, for left of centre governments. Governments hope that they can get away with some freeing of labour markets if they bury the project under a great many worthy declarations on other subjects. Even when it comes to labour markets, we hear a lot of fashionable nonsense. An example is the importance attached to social security contributions on their own. If labour markets are reasonably flexible, "workers receive a lower wage rate than they would if payroll taxes were lower." (Turner) What are so obviously too high in some EU countries are total labour costs: wages plus payroll contributions. It would be just as valid to advocate cutting wages in some EU countries as cutting payroll contributions. The truly liberal answer would be to give the choice to the workers themselves. Economic Disputes A good way of putting European and American differences into perspective is to look back at the failed WTO meeting in Cancun this September. In fact both areas exhibited a common narrow minded selfish defence of local interest groups. The US was unwilling - to take a blatant example - to curb cotton subsidies which strike very heavily at poor country producers. The European Union remain attached to its own farm subsidies. Japan behaved like a truly western country in its defence of its own heavily subsidised rice farmers. The Group of 22 developing countries did not distinguish themselves either. They deliberately brought the talks to an end, despite much evidence that they had more to gain from lowering their trade barriers against each other even than from persuading the Western world to lower its barriers. In any case there was little material for those who wanted to differentiate between American and European economic philosophies. My own suggestion is that trade policy should be taken out of the hands of foreign ministries and trade negotiators - who regard every tariff cut or reduced barrier of any kind as a concession requiring compensation - to finance ministries, central banks and mainstream government economic advisers who can see that citizens in their own countries are among the biggest gainers from facing down the producer interest groups. Above all it would help if trade policy were no longer treated just as an arcane area for specialists. Instead the case for slashing barriers, unilaterally if necessary, should be treated as a part of the general liberalisation or free market agenda. Up to now this suggestion would have been rejected on the grounds that it would antagonise politicians of a more dirigiste bent, but after Cancun there is nothing to lose from a radically different approach. The Dollar Another cause of transatlantic tension has been what I call the crossover in macroeconomic policy between the USA and the European Union. Originally European countries were inclined to promote growth and full employment by monetary stimulation and budget deficits - a policy which rightly or wrongly was given the name "Keynesian" . American leaders long resisted such policies in favour of what was called the 'old time religion', meaning a devotion to balanced budgets and a cautious monetary policy. The latter was symbolised by the long term president of the Federal Reserve, William McChesney Martin, who clashed with President Kennedy. But around the time of the arrival of the Reagan administration in the early 1980s a crossover took place. US administrations, especially Republican ones, embarked on tax cuts to stimulate growth; and the Fed started to give the benefit of the doubt to policies of monetary expansion based on a highly optimistic view of productivity improvements. Originally in the Reagan era the tax cuts were justified on what were called supply side grounds - and which George Bush Snr once called "voodoo economics"; but his son George W Bush has embarked on unashamed demand stimulation and is impatient with a single quarter of growth below some imagined trend. By contrast, the EU has adopted the old time religion very firmly in the shape of the Growth and Stability Pact, even though some European countries look - perhaps fortunately - unable or unwilling to fulfil their fiscal undertakings. An American economist and a British historian have combined to argue that recent increases in spending commitments by the Bush administration, together with long term tax cuts, will result in a budgetary shortfall in future years amounting to a present value of $45 trillion ($45,000 billion). This is way beyond anything that can be justified in the name of useful stimulation; and the authors raise the possibility of outright default on US debt - if not of legal obligations under social security and Medicare. Even the discussion of such possibilities could rock the bond market leading to higher longterm interest rates, and thus have the reverse effect of the stimulation intended by the administration. (Going Critical, Neil Ferguson and Laurence Jay Kotlikof, The National Interest, Fall 2003) Japan and Germany, the world's second and third largest world economies, face even bigger medium term fiscal crises. But neither of these countries aspires to be either a political super power or a dominant financial one. You do not have to look to these far horizons to see looming currency disputes between the two sides of the Atlantic. These go back to well before this crossover, indeed to the closing years of the Bretton Woods system in the 1960s. But they have been given a new edge by the ultra-Keynesian fervour of the Bush Administration. By far the most successful US policy towards its own currency has been to let it float freely - sometimes called "benign neglect". But there are occasions when the American Administration gets worked up either about the dollar being too high or too low. In the mid 1980s - around the time of the Plaza and Louvre agreements (1985-86) - the Reagan Administration expressed both worries in rapid succession. There is now a danger that the George W Bush Administration will follow in its footsteps and not be content to let the dollar find its own level, but try to push it down further in the interests of domestic exporters. As we have seen in the case of trade policy, the Bush administration is much more a pro-business government than it is a genuine supporter of competitive free markets. The immediate casus belli is the policy of China and other East Asian countries in trying to peg their own exchange rates to the dollar. The net result of their behaviour is to put more pressure on the dollar/euro exchange rate as the best way of securing an effective devaluation. If that happens my advice to European finance ministers and central bankers - which has no danger of being taken - is to lie back and enjoy the opportunity to improve their terms of trade and acquire dollar goods more cheaply. Many people worry that if the Americans fail to get the Chinese to revalue that US drift to protection will go much further. But I am also afraid of an aggressive and sabre rattling reaction from the Europeans - I mean governments much more than the European Central Bank. Having failed to secure sustainable non-inflationary growth domestically they will feel challenged by a weakening of external demand. To give into these feelings would be mercantilist folly. If demand is growing too slowly for non-inflationary growth, then the remedy is a more expansionary monetary and fiscal policy. If it is not growing too slowly then there is nothing to be done apart from the boring but necessary work of improving European labour markets. Evaluation Let me finish by going back to the big picture, which is the debate on global capitalism. Anti-capitalist critics can of course make a good case against the corruptions of politicised capitalism. What they do not grasp is that international free trade and a competitive regime at home are the best defence against the political power of corporations. Such power can only exist if business interests can persuade governments to exclude competition, whether it is George W Bush trying to protect farmers or the steel industry or Gerhard Schroder, combining his pseudo-pacifist anti-Americanism with subsidies for German industry and labour. Moreover the most materialistic societies are those former Communist parts of Europe where economic performance is still so poor and poverty so great that it is natural for people to want to seize all they can. The two biggest delusions of the 20th century, which the 21st century has inherited, are first to assume that all human problems are the fault of, or can be remedied, by government, and secondly for governments themselves to seek an external scapegoat. This is the route to beggar-my-neighbour policies which as we saw in the 1930s did not do anyone any good. I am not a prophet and cannot say how likely this danger is but it is one we should seek to avert.

Expat Sex Box

Healthy Refined Sex Videos and Play Things First up .... *Rubberella Video Clip Second up .... *Love Chess Free Demo third up .... *Free Sex Mp3 Downloads 4th up .... *42 Minute Uncensored Color Sex Video 5th up .... *German Fetish Ball Video 6th up .... *Free Lust,Love,Latex Movie more to come ...