http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=finally Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:08:31 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=finally Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:16:50 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=850_1371668789 Game Changer Neil decides to partake in some form of herbal supplement, stops party gate crashers and finally finds another herbal supplement is a bit too much for him... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=850_1371668789 Game Changer The Young Ones - Hits from the Bong! Comedy, Entertainment, Young Ones, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:42:15 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e05_1371659875 socialism-rocks Who was the first president of the United States? Ask any school child and they will readily tell you "George Washington." And of course, they would be wrong-at least technically. Washington was not inaugurated until April 30, 1789. And yet, the United States continually had functioning governments from as early as September 5, 1774 and operated as a confederated nation from as early as July 4, 1776. During that nearly fifteen year interval, Congress-first the Continental Congress and then later the Confederation Congress-was always moderated by a duly elected president. As the chief executive officer of the government of the United States, the president was recognized as the head of state. Washington was thus the fifteenth in a long line of distinguished presidents-and he led the seventeenth administration-he just happened to be the first under the current constitution. So who were the luminaries who preceded him? The following brief biographies profile these "forgotten presidents." Peyton Randolph of Virginia (1723-1775) When delegates gathered in Philadelphia for the first Continental Congress, they promptly elected the former King's Attorney of Virginia as the moderator and president of their convocation. He was a propitious choice. He was a legal prodigy-having studied at the Inner Temple in London, served as his native colony's Attorney General, and tutored many of the most able men of the South at William and Mary College-including the young Patrick Henry. His home in Williamsburg was the gathering place for Virginia's legal and political gentry-and it remains a popular attraction in the restored colonial capital. He had served as a delegate in the Virginia House of Burgesses, and had been a commander under William Byrd in the colonial militia. He was a scholar of some renown-having begun a self-guided reading of the classics when he was thirteen. Despite suffering poor health served the Continental Congress as president twice, in 1774 from September 5 to October 21, and then again for a few days in 1775 from May 10 to May 23. He never lived to see independence, yet was numbered among the nation's most revered founders. Henry Middleton (1717-1784) America's second elected president was one of the wealthiest planters in the South, the patriarch of the most powerful families anywhere in the nation. His public spirit was evident from an early age. He was a member of his state's Common House from 1744-1747. During the last two years he served as the Speaker. During 1755 he was the King's Commissioner of Indian Affairs. He was a member of the South Carolina Council from 1755-1770. His valor in the War with the Cherokees during 1760-1761 earned him wide recognition throughout the colonies-and demonstrated his cool leadership abilities while under pressure. He was elected as a delegate to the first session of the Continental Congress and when Peyton Randolph was forced to resign the presidency, his peers immediately turned to Middleton to complete the term. He served as the fledgling coalition's president from October 22, 1774 until Randolph was able to resume his duties briefly beginning on May 10, 1775. Afterward, he was a member of the Congressional Council of Safety and helped to establish the young nation's policy toward the encouragement and support of education. In February 1776 he resigned his political involvements in order to prepare his family and lands for what he believed was inevitable war-but he was replaced by his son Arthur who eventually became a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, served time as an English prisoner of war, and was twice elected Governor of his state. John Hancock (1737-1793) The third president was a patriot, rebel leader, merchant who signed his name into immortality in giant strokes on the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The boldness of his signature has made it live in American minds as a perfect expression of the strength and freedom-and defiance-of the individual in the face of British tyranny. As President of the Continental Congress during two widely spaced terms-the first from May 24 1775 to October 30 1777 and the second from November 23 1885 to June 5, 1786-Hancock was the presiding officer when the members approved the Declaration of Independence. Because of his position, it was his official duty to sign the document first-but not necessarily as dramatically as he did. Hancock figured prominently in another historic event-the battle at Lexington: British troops who fought there April 10, 1775, had known Hancock and Samuel Adams were in Lexington and had come there to capture these rebel leaders. And the two would have been captured, if they had not been warned by Paul Revere. As early as 1768, Hancock defied the British by refusing to pay customs charges on the cargo of one of his ships. One of Boston's wealthiest merchants, he was recognized by the citizens, as well as by the British, as a rebel leader-and was elected President of the first Massachusetts Provincial Congress. After he was chosen President of the Continental Congress in 1775, Hancock became known beyond the borders of Massachusetts, and, having served as colonel of the Massachusetts Governor's Guards he hoped to be named commander of the American forces-until John Adams nominated George Washington. In 1778 Hancock was commissioned Major General and took part in an unsuccessful campaign in Rhode Island. But it was as a political leader that his real distinction was earned-as the first Governor of Massachusetts, as President of Congress, and as President of the Massachusetts constitutional ratification convention. He helped win ratification in Massachusetts, gaining enough popular recognition to make him a contender for the newly created Presidency of the United States, but again he saw Washington gain the prize. Like his rival, George Washington, Hancock was a wealthy man who risked much for the cause of independence. He was the wealthiest New Englander supporting the patriotic cause, and, although he lacked the brilliance of John Adams or the capacity to inspire of Samuel Adams, he became one of the foremost leaders of the new nation-perhaps, in part, because he was willing to commit so much at such risk to the cause of freedom. Henry Laurens (1724-1792) The only American president ever to be held as a prisoner of war by a foreign power, Laurens was heralded after he was released as "the father of our country," by no less a personage than George Washington. He was of Huguenot extraction, his ancestors having come to America from France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes made the Reformed faith illegal. Raised and educated for a life of mercantilism at his home in Charleston, he also had the opportunity to spend more than a year in continental travel. It was while in Europe that he began to write revolutionary pamphlets-gaining him renown as a patriot. He served as vice-president of South Carolina in1776. He was then elected to the Continental Congress. He succeeded John Hancock as President of the newly independent but war beleaguered United States on November 1, 1777. He served until December 9, 1778 at which time he was appointed Ambassador to the Netherlands. Unfortunately for the cause of the young nation, he was captured by an English warship during his cross-Atlantic voyage and was confined to the Tower of London until the end of the war. After the Battle of Yorktown, the American government regained his freedom in a dramatic prisoner exchange-President Laurens for Lord Cornwallis. Ever the patriot, Laurens continued to serve his nation as one of the three representatives selected to negotiate terms at the Paris Peace Conference in 1782. John Jay (1745-1829) America's first Secretary of State, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, one of its first ambassadors, and author of some of the celebrated Federalist Papers, Jay was a Founding Father who, by a quirk of fate, missed signing the Declaration of Independence-at the time of the vote for independence and the signing, he had temporarily left the Continental Congress to serve in New York's revolutionary legislature. Nevertheless, he was chosen by his peers to succeed Henry Laurens as President of the United States-serving a term from December 10, 1778 to September 27, 1779. A conservative New York lawyer who was at first against the idea of independence for the colonies, the aristocratic Jay in 1776 turned into a patriot who was willing to give the next twenty-five years of his life to help establish the new nation. During those years, he won the regard of his peers as a dedicated and accomplished statesman and a man of unwavering principle. In the Continental Congress Jay prepared addresses to the people of Canada and Great Britain. In New York he drafted the State constitution and served as Chief Justice during the war. He was President of the Continental Congress before he undertook the difficult assignment, as ambassador, of trying to gain support and funds from Spain. After helping Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and Laurens complete peace negotiations in Paris in 1783, Jay returned to become the first Secretary of State, called "Secretary of Foreign Affairs" under the Articles of Confederation. He negotiated valuable commercial treaties with Russia and Morocco, and dealt with the continuing controversy with Britain and Spain over the southern and western boundaries of the United States. He proposed that America and Britain establish a joint commission to arbitrate disputes that remained after the war-a proposal which, though not adopted, influenced the government's use of arbitration and diplomacy in settling later international problems. In this post Jay felt keenly the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and was one of the first to advocate a new governmental compact. He wrote five Federalist Papers supporting the Constitution, and he was a leader in the New York ratification convention. As first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jay made the historic decision that a State could be sued by a citizen from another State, which led to the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. On a special mission to London he concluded the "Jay Treaty," which helped avert a renewal of hostilities with Britain but won little popular favor at home-and it is probably for this treaty that this Founding Father is best remembered. Samuel Huntington (1732-1796) An industrious youth who mastered his studies of the law without the advantage of a school, a tutor, or a master-borrowing books and snatching opportunities to read and research between odd jobs-he was one of the greatest self-made men among the Founders. He was also one of the greatest legal minds of the age-all the more remarkable for his lack of advantage as a youth. In 1764, in recognition of his obvious abilities and initiative, he was elected to the General Assembly of Connecticut. The next year he was chosen to serve on the Executive Council. In 1774 he was appointed Associate Judge of the Superior Court and, as a delegate to the Continental Congress, was acknowledged to be a legal scholar of some respect. He served in Congress for five consecutive terms, during the last of which he was elected President. He served in that off ice from September 28, 1779 until ill health forced him to resign on July 9, 1781. He returned to his home in Connecticut-and as he recuperated, he accepted more Counciliar and Bench duties. He again took his seat in Congress in 1783, but left it to become Chief Justice of his state's Superior Court. He was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1785 and Governor in 1786. According to John Jay, he was "the most precisely trained Christian jurists ever to serve his country." Thomas McKean (1734-1817) During his astonishingly varied fifty-year career in public life he held almost every possible position-from deputy county attorney to President of the United States under the Confederation. Besides signing the Declaration of Independence, he contributed significantly to the development and establishment of constitutional government in both his home state of Delaware and the nation. At the Stamp Act Congress he proposed the voting procedure that Congress adopted: that each colony, regardless of size or population, have one vote-the practice adopted by the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation, and the principle of state equality manifest in the composition of the Senate. And as county judge in 1765, he defied the British by ordering his court to work only with documents that did not bear the hated stamps. In June 1776, at the Continental Congress, McKean joined with Caesar Rodney to register Delaware's approval of the Declaration of Independence, over the negative vote of the third Delaware delegate, George Read-permitting it to be "The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States." And at a special Delaware convention, he drafted the constitution for that State. McKean also helped draft-and signed-the Articles of Confederation. It was during his tenure of service as President-from July 10, 1781 to November 4, 1782-when news arrived from General Washington in October 1781 that the British had surrendered following the Battle of Yorktown. As Chief Justice of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, he contributed to the establishment of the legal system in that State, and, in 1787, he strongly supported the Constitution at the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention, declaring it "the best the world has yet seen." At sixty-five, after over forty years of public service, McKean resigned from his post as Chief Justice. A candidate on the Democratic-Republican ticket in 1799, McKean was elected Governor of Pennsylvania. As Governor, he followed such a strict policy of appointing only fellow Republicans to office that he became the father of the spoils system in America. He served three tempestuous terms as Governor, completing one of the longest continuous careers of public service of any of the Founding Fathers. John Hanson (1715-1783) He was the heir of one of the greatest family traditions in the colonies and became the patriarch of a long line of American patriots-his great grandfather died at Lutzen beside the great King Gustavus Aldophus of Sweden; his grandfather was one of the founders of New Sweden along the Delaware River in Maryland; one of his nephews was the military secretary to George Washington; another was a signer of the Declaration; still another was a signer of the Constitution; yet another was Governor of Maryland during the Revolution; and still another was a member of the first Congress; two sons were killed in action with the Continental Army; a grandson served as a member of Congress under the new Constitution; and another grandson was a Maryland Senator. Thus, even if Hanson had not served as President himself, he would have greatly contributed to the life of the nation through his ancestry and progeny. As a youngster he began a self-guided reading of classics and rather quickly became an acknowledged expert in the juridicalism of Anselm and the practical philosophy of Seneca-both of which were influential in the development of the political philosophy of the great leaders of the Reformation. It was based upon these legal and theological studies that the young planter-his farm, Mulberry Grove was just across the Potomac from Mount Vernon-began to espouse the cause of the patriots. In 1775 he was elected to the Provincial Legislature of Maryland. Then in 1777, he became a member of Congress where he distinguished himself as a brilliant administrator. Thus, he was elected President in 1781. He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation-and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was strongly opposed to the Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death. Elias Boudinot (1741-1802) He did not sign the Declaration, the Articles, or the Constitution. He did not serve in the Continental Army with distinction. He was not renowned for his legal mind or his political skills. He was instead a man who spent his entire career in foreign diplomacy. He earned the respect of his fellow patriots during the dangerous days following the traitorous action of Benedict Arnold. His deft handling of relations with Canada also earned him great praise. After being elected to the Congress from his home state of New Jersey, he served as the new nation's Secretary for Foreign Affairs-managing the influx of aid from France, Spain, and Holland. The in 1783 he was elected to the Presidency. He served in that office from November 4, 1782 until November 2, 1783. Like so many of the other early presidents, he was a classically trained scholar, of the Reformed faith, and an anti-federalist in political matters. He was the father and grandfather of frontiersmen-and one of his grandchildren and namesakes eventually became a leader of the Cherokee nation in its bid for independence from the sprawling expansion of the United States. Thomas Mifflin (1744-1800) By an ironic sort of providence, Thomas Mifflin served as George Washington's first aide-de-camp at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, and, when the war was over, he was the man, as President of the United States, who accepted Washington's resignation of his commission. In the years between, Mifflin greatly served the cause of freedom-and, apparently, his own cause-while serving as the first Quartermaster General of the Continental Army. He obtained desperately needed supplies for the new army-and was suspected of making excessive profit himself. Although experienced in business and successful in obtaining supplies for the war, Mifflin preferred the front lines, and he distinguished himself in military actions on Long Island and near Philadelphia. Born and reared a Quaker, he was excluded from their meetings for his military activities. A controversial figure, Mifflin lost favor with Washington and was part of the Conway Cabal-a rather notorious plan to replace Washington with General Horatio Gates. And Mifflin narrowly missed court-martial action over his handling of funds by resigning his commission in 1778. In spite of these problems-and of repeated charges that he was a drunkard-Mifflin continued to be elected to positions of responsibility-as President and Governor of Pennsylvania, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, as well as the highest office in the land-where he served from November 3, 1783 to November 29, 1784. Most of Mifflin's significant contributions occurred in his earlier years-in the First and Second Continental Congresses he was firm in his stand for independence and for fighting for it, and he helped obtain both men and supplies for Washington's army in the early critical period. In 1784, as President, he signed the treaty with Great Britain which ended the war. Although a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he did not make a significant contribution-beyond signing the document. As Governor of Pennsylvania, although he was accused of negligence, he supported improvements of roads, and reformed the State penal and judicial systems. He had gradually become sympathetic to Jefferson's principles regarding State's rights, even so, he directed the Pennsylvania militia to support the Federal tax collectors in the Whiskey Rebellion. In spite of charges of corruption, the affable Mifflin remained a popular figure. A magnetic personality and an effective speaker, he managed to hold a variety of elective offices for almost thirty years of the critical Revolutionary period. Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794) His resolution "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States," approved by the Continental Congress July 2, 1776, was the first official act of the United Colonies that set them irrevocably on the road to independence. It was not surprising that it came from Lee's pen-as early as 1768 he proposed the idea of committees of correspondence among the colonies, and in 1774 he proposed that the colonies meet in what became the Continental Congress. From the first, his eye was on independence. A wealthy Virginia planter whose ancestors had been granted extensive lands by King Charles II, Lee disdained the traditional aristocratic role and the aristocratic view. In the House of Burgesses he flatly denounced the practice of slavery. He saw independent America as "an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repose." In 1764, when news of the proposed Stamp Act reached Virginia, Lee was a member of the committee of the House of Burgesses that drew up an address to the King, an official protest against such a tax. After the tax was established, Lee organized the citizens of his county into the Westmoreland Association, a group pledged to buy no British goods until the Stamp Act was repealed. At the First Continental Congress, Lee persuaded representatives from all the colonies to adopt this non-importation idea, leading to the formation of the Continental Association, which was one of the first steps toward union of the colonies. Lee also proposed to the First Continental Congress that a militia be organized and armed-the year before the first shots were fired at Lexington; but this and other proposals of his were considered too radical-at the time. Three days after Lee introduced his resolution, in June of 1776, he was appointed by Congress to the committee responsible for drafting a declaration of independence, but he was called home when his wife fell ill, and his place was taken by his young prot'eg'e, Thomas Jefferson. Thus Lee missed the chance to draft the document-though his influence greatly shaped it and he was able to return in time to sign it. He was elected President-serving from November 30, 1784 to November 22, 1785 when he was succeeded by the second administration of John Hancock. Elected to the Constitutional Convention, Lee refused to attend, but as a member of the Congress of the Confederation, he contributed to another great document, the Northwest Ordinance, which provided for the formation of new States from the Northwest Territory. When the completed Constitution was sent to the States for ratification, Lee opposed it as anti-democratic and anti-Christian. However, as one of Virginia's first Senators, he helped assure passage of the amendments that, he felt, corrected many of the document's gravest faults-the Bill of Rights. He was the great uncle of Robert E. Lee and the scion of a great family tradition. Nathaniel Gorham (1738-1796) Another self-made man, Gorham was one of the many successful Boston merchants who risked all he had for the cause of freedom. He was first elected to the Massachusetts General Court in 1771. His honesty and integrity won his acclaim and was thus among the first delegates chose to serve in the Continental Congress. He remained in public service throughout the war and into the Constitutional period, though his greatest contribution was his call for a stronger central government. But even though he was an avid federalist, he did not believe that the union could-or even should-be maintained peaceably for more than a hundred years. He was convinced that eventually, in order to avoid civil or cultural war, smaller regional interests should pursue an independent course. His support of a new constitution was rooted more in pragmatism than ideology. When John Hancock was unable to complete his second term as President, Gorham was elected to succeed him-serving from June 6, 1786 to February 1, 1787. It was during this time that the Congress actually entertained the idea of asking Prince Henry-the brother of Frederick II of Prussia-and Bonnie Prince Charlie-the leader of the ill-fated Scottish Jacobite Rising and heir of the Stuart royal line-to consider the possibility of establishing a constitutional monarch in America. It was a plan that had much to recommend it but eventually the advocates of republicanism held the day. During the final years of his life, Gorham was concerned with several speculative land deals which nearly cost him his entire fortune. Arthur St. Clair (1734-1818) Born and educated in Edinburgh, Scotland during the tumultuous days of the final Jacobite Rising and the Tartan Suppression, St. Clair was the only president of the United States born and bred on foreign soil. Though most of his family and friends abandoned their devastated homeland in the years following the Battle of Culloden-after which nearly a third of the land was depopulated through emigration to America-he stayed behind to learn the ways of the hated Hanoverian English in the Royal Navy. His plan was to learn of the enemy's military might in order to fight another day. During the global conflict of the Seven Years War-generally known as the French and Indian War-he was stationed in the American theater. Afterward, he decided to settle in Pennsylvania where many of his kin had established themselves. His civic-mindedness quickly became apparent: he helped to organize both the New Jersey and the Pennsylvania militias, led the Continental Army's Canadian expedition, and was elected Congress. His long years of training in the enemy camp was finally paying off. He was elected President in 1787-and he served from February 2 of that year until January 21 of the next. Following his term of duty in the highest office in the land, he became the first Governor of the Northwest Territory and the founder of Cincinnati. Though he briefly supported the idea of creating a constitutional monarchy under the Stuart's Bonnie Prince Charlie, he was a strident Anti-Federalist-believing that the proposed federal constitution would eventually allow for the intrusion of government into virtually every sphere and aspect of life. He even predicted that under the vastly expanded centralized power of the state the taxing powers of bureaucrats and other unelected officials would eventually confiscate as much as a quarter of the income of the citizens-a notion that seemed laughable at the time but that has proven to be ominously modest in light of our current governmental leviathan. St. Clair lived to see the hated English tyrants who destroyed his homeland defeated. But he despaired that his adopted home might actually create similar tyrannies and impose them upon themselves. Cyrus Griffin (1736-1796) Like Peyton Randolph, he was trained in London's Inner Temple to be a lawyer-and thus was counted among his nation's legal elite. Like so many other Virginians, he was an anti-federalist, though he eventually accepted the new Constitution with the promise of the Bill of Rights as a hedge against the establishment of an American monarchy-which still had a good deal of currency. The Articles of Confederation afforded such freedoms that he had become convinced that even with the incumbent loss of liberty, some new form of government would be required. A prot'eg'e of George Washington-having worked with him on several speculative land deals in the West-he was a reluctant supporter of the Constitutional ratifying process. It was during his term in the office of the Presidency-the last before the new national compact went into effect-that ratification was formalized and finalized. He served as the nation's chief executive from January 22, 1788 until George Washington's inauguration on April 30, 1789. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e05_1371659875 socialism-rocks The Forgotten Presidents (The presidents before George Washington) history Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:12:16 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fa0_1371625343 socialism-rocks Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is. Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has -- as is well known -- been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior. But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. Second, socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and -- if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous -- are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half-unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society. For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society. Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supranational organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?" I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out? It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas. Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society." It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part. Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate. If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time -- which, looking back, seems so idyllic -- is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption. I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society. The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor -- not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production -- that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods -- may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production -- although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product. Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism. Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before. This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fa0_1371625343 socialism-rocks Why Socialism? By Albert Einstein socialism einstien Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:46:22 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=834_1371620110 Corehaven Finally a black American senator has woken up to what the Democratic party is all about. Particularly in regards to African Americans in the US. What he says here is historically accurate, as well as logical in regards to how the party operates today, and he should know. He was a Democratic senator. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=834_1371620110 Corehaven Black Democratic Senator switches to Republican Party Politics, African American, black, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Democrat, Republican Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:06:34 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d06_1371603712 Detroit Iron By Alexander Abad-Santos The Atlantic Wire North Korea, land of gulags , government-enforced information blackouts , and humans so hungry they eat other humans , has finally weighed in on the NSA-spying controversy and has become ... an advocate for American civil liberties. Wait, what? Why is a country that doesn't believe in civil liberties for its own people and is the subject of U.N. investigations on human rights abuses suddenly the American people's privacy knight in shining armor? RELATED: UN: North Korea's Human Rights Abuses Have 'No Parallel' "This clearly proves once again the U.S. is a kingpin of human rights abuses as it puts the world under its watch network and has conducted espionage against mankind," reads a commentary from the state-run Minju Joson newspaper, picked up by Reuters on Tuesday. The commentary goes on to say: "Each individual is entitled to live and develop with dignity as a social being. But in American society, where the jungle law prevails, only the strong men's rights over the weak men are recognized." RELATED: Satellites Show North Korea's Prison Camps Expanding Under Kim Jong-Un Those are fighting words. And North Korea could very well be talking about itself considering the numerous reports where "weak men," like the thousands in labor camps never get a chance at life or the country's extensive surveillance plans aimed at making sure North Koreans never escape . But you also have to remember who North Korean propaganda is targeted at -hint: it's not for Americans. RELATED: World Cup: Should You Root for North Korea? The impetus behind this amusing defense of American civil liberties to make the U.S., which North Korean propaganda has consistently portrayed as the enemy, instigator and stifling presence on the country, look pretty terrible. And at the same time, the worse the U.S. is portrayed, the more Kim Jong-Un look more heroic and reasonable for constantly being at odds with it. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d06_1371603712 Detroit Iron North Korea Says NSA Spying Makes the U.S. a 'Kingpin of Human Rights Abuses' gulags, government-enforced information blackouts, NSA Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:59:37 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8a1_1371603400 Detroit Iron By JOHN FLESHER FAIRPORT, Mich.- A wooden beam embedded at the bottom of northern Lake Michigan appears to have been there for centuries,underwater archaeologists announced Tuesday, a crucial finding as crews dig toward what they hope is the carcass of a French ship that disappeared while exploring the Great Lakes in the 17th century. Expedition leaders still weren't ready to declare they had found a shipwreck or the long-lost Griffin. The ship, commanded by the French explorer Rene Robert Cavelier de la Salle, was never seen again after setting sail in September 1679 from an island near the entrance of Green Bay, in what is now northern Wisconsin, with a crew of a six and a cargo of furs. But Michel L'Hour, director of France's Department of Underwater Archaeological Research and a shipwreck expert, said the timber appears to be a bowsprit, which is a spur or pole that extends from a vessel's stem. It also seems to be attached to another structure below the lake bed, he said. "All the details could be interpreted as part of a bowsprit and there's no details which contract this hypothesis," said L'Hour, who dove to inspect the beam with two French colleagues Monday and Tuesday. "It's why it's the main hypothesis now. A bowsprit which has been buried in the sediment of the lake for many centuries." Commercial divers overseen by scientists last week began excavating at the base of the wooden beam, hoping to determine whether it is part of the Griffin. Steve Libert, a diver and shipwreck enthusiast who has searched three decades for the Griffin, discovered the timber in 2001 and recently obtained state and federal permits to probe beneath the surface. The beam extends 10.5 feet above the lake bed, and underwater excavators were opening a pit at the base of the post to determine whether it's affixed to anything beneath. In another key development Tuesday, they reported that a probing device had detected a hard surface 18 to 20 feet below the lake bed. It could be a ship's hull or deck. "In essence, we have found a floor under that exposed wooden timber," said Ken Vrana, the project manager. "We have more excavation to do before verifying what that surface is." L'Hour said the French archaeologists drew their conclusion about the beam's age after observing differences between the section above the lake floor and the portion below the surface that the pit has exposed. The aboveground section is narrower because of erosion that must have happened over hundreds of years, he said. Libert said he was excited by the reports and had "no doubt" the beam was part of a ship. But it remained uncertain when the team might be able to positively identify the presumed vessel. "I think that maybe Steve found the Griffin," L'Hour said at a briefing for reporters. "I can't be sure, which is why I'm waiting and waiting and waiting for the proof." Although visibly optimistic, the searchers cautioned against expecting quick resolution of a mystery that has thrown numerous hurdles in Libert's path. After years of research led him to an area near Poverty Island a few miles off Michigan's Upper Peninsula, he literally bumped into the timber during a dive. That touched off years of legal battles between his Great Lakes Exploration Group and the state over access to the presumed shipwreck. When the excavation finally got underway last Friday, divers expected to find an object similar to the Griffin's reputed size a couple of feet below the surface, based on sonar readings. It's now believed to be perhaps 10 times farther down. Libert, who says he has spent more than $1 million on his long quest and put the excavation's price tag at "six figures," scrambled to obtain equipment that can dig deeper and is better able to break through the hard-packed mud. It probably will take another day or two to widen the hole and reach the hard surface, Vrana said. The excavation permits expire Friday, although the group could seek extensions. But with the French team scheduled to leave by then, the divers were working faster in hopes of confirming at least the presence of a shipwreck. State officials and Libert's group agree if the Griffin is found, it will belong to France because it was operating under authority of King Louis XIV. Graham Paul, a French consul general based in Chicago, visited the team over the weekend and said his government would favor attempting to recover the vessel. "It would be a major excavation and very costly," Vrana said. But the wreckage could be in surprisingly good condition after being encased in cold mud for 334 years because it wouldn't have been exposed to oxygen, which causes wood and metals to deteriorate, said Dave Miller, an archaeologist with Great Lakes Exploration Group. "That's the best way of conservation for all the artifacts and for the hull," L'Hour said. "One can't imagine something better than this kind of clay and mud." http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-timber-lake-michigan-centuries-old-150750034.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8a1_1371603400 Detroit Iron Scientists: Timber in Lake Michigan centuries old Griffin, Rene Robert Cavelier de la Salle, Green Bay Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:49:55 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b99_1371182232 mrgod2u First Official Introductory YourSay By mrgod2u! What Can I Say Except... I Do Things My Way. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b99_1371182232 mrgod2u I <span class="highlight">Finally</span> Bite The Bullet And Do My First Introductory YourSay Your Say, First, mrgod2u Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:22:55 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=302_1371136568 Admiral Tolwin Germany is now islamic. A small islamic community gained status &quot;K"orperschaft des "offentlichen Rechts&quot;, which means, the community can now order german officials, to collect the monthly payments of its members. They now even have the same rights, as the katholic church. They are now treated by law, AS THE SAME. I guess that is some kind of news, you didnt get on MSM. Merkel was right, Germany HAS become islamic. &quot;Platz f"ur Moscheen in Neubaugebieten&quot; in case you dont understand german, that means, if there is an area to be build, the officials have now to make sure, that there is place for a mosque. So if you are a young german family, building your house in a new area, you are sure you will have a mosque in your neighbouhood..What a wonderfull world of ...shit. &quot;Dieser verleiht den Ahmadiyyas nun einige Vorteile. Wenn k"unftig in Hessen ein neues Wohngebiet entsteht, muss die jeweilige Gemeinde nun auch einen Platz f"ur eine Moschee ber"ucksichtigen, sofern es in der Anwohnerschaft Mitglieder gibt.&quot; Gentlemen...lets take a last prost to our freedom....if germany falls, the EU falls, the gates have been opened up for the muslim flood. Dont laugh at me, i really gonna cry. The greatest changes dont come with a loud Boom....they come one sneaky shoes..... WE GERMANS ARE OFFICIALLY DONE. There is no Lack of Professionals in Germany, that is a lie,.....we got enough highly trained workers and we surley dont need analphabetic islamist that dont know anything about working. But that is, how you loose your country........we are &quot;BUNT&quot; meaning....we hate our roots....and embrace islamic foregein people litarilly shitting on our constitution. Germany has become crazy....and believe me....I AM REALLY SORROW http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article117076904/Der-Islam-gehoert-nun-offiziell-zu-Deutschland.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=302_1371136568 Admiral Tolwin It <span class="highlight">finally</span> happend....Germany is islamic. Officially. Islam Germany Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:21:02 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=93e_1371593395 funkdelux121 Eva Mendes is one of the hottest actress's in Hollywood and she finally made my dream come true. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=93e_1371593395 funkdelux121 ** EVA MENDES** SEX tape hits the web Eva Mendes, sex trape, hot, Hollywood, actress Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:41:37 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9cd_1371591452 104JebackaBrigada Bank of America's mortgage servicing unit systematically lied to homeowners, fraudulently denied loan modifications, and paid their staff bonuses for deliberately pushing people into foreclosure: Yes, these allegations were suspected by any homeowner who ever had to deal with the bank to try to get a loan modification - but now they come from six former employees and one contractor, whose sworn statements were added last week to a civil lawsuit filed in federal court in Massachusetts."Bank of America's practice is to string homeowners along with no apparent intention of providing the permanent loan modifications it promises," said Erika Brown, one of the former employees. The damning evidence would spur a series of criminal investigations of BofA executives, if we still had a rule of law in this country for Wall Street banks.The government's Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which gave banks cash incentives to modify loans under certain standards, was supposed to streamline the process and help up to 4 million struggling homeowners (to date, active permanent modifications number about 870,000). In reality, Bank of America used it as a tool, say these former employees, to squeeze as much money as possible out of struggling borrowers before eventually foreclosing on them. Borrowers were supposed to make three trial payments before the loan modification became permanent; in actuality, many borrowers would make payments for a year or more, only to find themselves rejected for a permanent modification, and then owing the difference between the trial modification and their original payment. Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner famously described HAMP as a means to "foam the runway" for the banks, spreading out foreclosures so banks could more readily absorb them. These Bank of America employees offer the first glimpse into how they pulled it off. Employees, many of whom allege they were given no basic training on how to even use HAMP, were instructed to tell borrowers that documents were incomplete or missing when they were not, or that the file was "under review" when it hadn't been accessed in months. Former loan-level representative Simone Gordon says flat-out in her affidavit that "we were told to lie to customers" about the receipt of documents and trial payments. She added that the bank would hold financial documents borrowers submitted for review for at least 30 days. "Once thirty days passed, Bank of America would consider many of these documents to be 'stale' and the homeowner would have to re-apply for a modification," Gordon writes. Theresa Terrelonge, another ex-employee, said that the company would consistently tell homeowners to resubmit information, restarting the clock on the HAMP process.Worse than this, Bank of America would simply throw out documents on a consistent basis. Former case management supervisor William Wilson alleged that, during bimonthly sessions called the "blitz," case managers and underwriters would simply deny any file with financial documents that were more than 60 days old. "During a blitz, a single team would decline between 600 and 1,500 modification files at a time," Wilson wrote. "I personally reviewed hundreds of files in which the computer systems showed that the homeowner had fulfilled a Trial Period Plan and was entitled to a permanent loan modification, but was nevertheless declined for a permanent modification during a blitz." Employees were then instructed to make up a reason for the denial to submit to the Treasury Department, which monitored the program. Others say that bank employees falsified records in the computer system and removed documents from homeowner files to make it look like the borrower did not qualify for a permanent modification.Senior managers provided carrots and sticks for employees to lie to customers and push them into foreclosure. Simone Gordon described meetings where managers created quotas for lower-level employees, and a bonus system for reaching those quotas. Employees "who placed ten or more accounts into foreclosure in a given month received a $500 bonus," Gordon wrote. "Bank of America also gave employees gift cards to retail stores like Target or Bed Bath and Beyond as rewards for placing accounts into foreclosure." Employees were closely monitored, and those who didn't meet quotas, or who dared to give borrowers accurate information, were fired, as was anyone who "questioned the ethics ... of declining loan modifications for false and fraudulent reasons," according to William Wilson.Bank of America characterized the affidavits as "rife with factual inaccuracies." But they match complaints from borrowers having to resubmit documents multiple times, and getting denied for permanent modifications despite making all trial payments. And these statements come from all over the country from ex-employees without a relationship to one another. It did not result from one "rogue" bank branch.Simply put, Bank of America didn't want to hire enough staff to handle the crush of loan modification requests, and used these delaying tactics as a shortcut. They also pushed people into foreclosure to collect additional fees from them. And after rejecting borrowers for HAMP modifications, they would offer an in-house modification with a higher interest rate. This was all about profit maximization. "We were regularly drilled that it was our job to maximize fees for the Bank by fostering and extending delay of the HAMP modification process by any means we could," wrote Simone Gordon in her affidavit.It is a testament to the corruption of the federal regulatory and law enforcement apparatus that we're only hearing evidence from inside Bank of America now, in a civil class-action lawsuit from wronged homeowners, when the behavior was so rampant for years. For example, the Treasury Department, charged with specific oversight for HAMP, didn't sanction a single bank for failing to follow program guidelines for three years, and certainly did not uncover any of this criminal conduct. Steven Cupples, a former underwriter at Bank of America, explained in his statement how the bank falsified records to Treasury to make it look like they granted more modifications. But Treasury never investigated. Meanwhile, the Justice Department joined with state Attorneys General and other federal regulators to essentially bless this conduct in a series of weak settlements that incorporated other bank crimes as well, like "robo-signing" and submitting false documents to courts.These affidavits, however, should return law enforcement to the case. William Wilson, the case management supervisor, alleges in his statement that this "ridiculous and immoral" conduct continued through August of 2012, when he was eventually fired for speaking up. That means Bank of America persisted with these activities for at least six months AFTER the main, $25 billion settlement to which they were a party. So state and federal regulators could sue Bank of America over this new criminal conduct, which post-dates the actions for which they released liability under the main settlement. Attorneys general in New York andFlorida have accused Bank of America of violating the terms of the settlement, but they could simply open new cases about these new deceptive practices.They would have no shortage of evidence, in addition to the sworn affidavits. According to Theresa Terrelonge, most loan-level representatives conducted their business through email; in fact, various email communications have already been submitted under seal in the Massachusetts civil case. State Attorneys General or US Attorneys would have subpoena power to gather many more emails.And they would have very specific targets: the ex-employees listed specific executives by name who authorized and directed the fraudulent process. "The delay and rejection programs were methodically carried out under the overall direction of Patrick Kerry, a Vice President who oversaw the entire eastern region's loan modification process," wrote William Wilson. Other executives mentioned by name include John Berens, Patricia Feltch and Rebecca Mairone (now at JPMorgan Chase, and already named in a separate financial fraud case). These are senior executives who, if this alleged conduct is true, should face criminal liability.Bank accountability activists have already seized on the revelations. "This is not surprising, but absolutely sickening," said Peggy Mears, organizer for the Home Defenders League. "Maybe finally our courts and elected officials will stand with communities over Wall Street and prosecute, and then lock up, these criminals."Sadly, it's hard to raise hopes of that happening. Past experience shows that our top regulatory and law enforcement officials are primarily interested in covering for Wall Street's crimes. These well-sourced allegations amount to an accusation of Bank of America stealing thousands of homes, and lying to the government about it. Homeowners who did everything asked of them were nevertheless pushed into foreclosure, all to fortify profits on Wall Street. There's a clear path to punish Bank of America for this conduct. If it doesn't result in prosecutions, it will once again confirm the sorry excuse for justice we have in America. http://www.minds.com/blog/view/117900/bank-of-america-whistle-blower-bombshell-%E2%80%9Cwe-were-told-to-lie%E2%80%9D-to-rip-off-borrowers http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9cd_1371591452 104JebackaBrigada Bank of America Whistle-blower Bombshell: "We Were Told to Lie" to Rip Off Borrowers lie, usa ,money Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:46:45 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c64_1371578794 euronymus I've edited the video and removed some non-essential parts. I also made a video in parts so it would be easier to watch later/other time. Info: Novermber, 1939. The British fleet, formerly the largest in the world, is being decimated by an increasingly dense carpet of mines being laid by U-boat and parachuted in by bombers. These are not the familiar "contact mines" of WWI, but a type of "influence mine" using an unknown technology to sense the presence of nearby shipping. After many disastrous detonations, finally the British demining team stationed at HMS Vernon get the breakthough they are looking for - an unexploded mine lands on the mudflats at Shoeburyness. An expert team is dispatched to dismantle it and uncover its secrets. Introduction , short, is for weather you will be interested in content. Part I is the main part consisting of broad information about mines and specific about HMS Vernon. Part II is additional content on HMS Vernon and Normandy landings. Part III is about mine warfare in the Pacific Theater followed by short conclusion about all parts. Introduction: Part I: Part II: Part III: Hope you liked it. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c64_1371578794 euronymus World War II The Minehunters World, war, two, mine, warfare, minehunters, hms, vernon, influence, magnetic, sound, mines Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:17:49 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da4_1371564540 euronymus The final telecommand - shutting down ESA's hugely successful Herschel mission - was sent at 14:25 CEST, 17 June 2013, by Martin Kessler, the Herschel mission manager. The Helium cooling fluid had already run out on 29 April. The liquid helium coolant that enabled instruments on board the Herschel space observatory to collect extraordinary images and spectra has finally run out. Launched in 2009, the ESA mission collected unprecedented data of the cool as well as of the distant Universe. Herschel's observations have exceeded expectations, enabling scientists to learn more about how stars form, about the rates of star formation in galaxies across the cosmos, and about the origin and presence of water in different celestial bodies. While observations have come to an end and the spacecraft is to be propelled to a stable parking orbit around the Sun, where it will remain indefinitely, the science mission will continue for several years with many discoveries still to be made in the treasure trove of images and spectra collected by the observatory. Observations on ESA's Herschel space observatory ceased on 29 April 2013, as the supply of liquid helium coolant on board the spacecraft had completely evaporated. The most powerful infrared telescope ever flown in space, Herschel operated at far-infrared and sub-millimetre wavelengths, being sensitive to a wide range of low temperatures from a few hundred to less than ten degrees above absolute zero. "To observe very cold regions with high sensitivity, Herschel's instruments needed to be at even lower temperatures - only a few degrees above absolute zero," explains Thomas Passvogel, Head of the Projects Department in ESA's Directorate of Science and Robotic Exploration, and former Herschel and Planck Programme Manager. "This was achieved through the use of 2300 litres of superfluid helium, which granted us over three and a half years of observations of the cool and distant Universe," he adds. "Herschel's observations have revealed the cosmos in unprecedented detail at these wavelengths," comments G"oran Pilbratt, Herschel Project Scientist at ESA. "We have very exciting results from the observatory's first few years and we are looking forward to many more exciting discoveries," he adds. More about Herschel: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=51550 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da4_1371564540 euronymus Last Telecommand Sent to Herschel Herschel, space, observatory, esa, telescope, shut, down