combination spanner: drop forged steel vs. chrome vanadium

On 8/16/2016 11:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:41:07 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:23:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:07:49 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/15/2016 9:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/15/2016 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:38:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2016 7:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 08:23:56 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

Snipped

amazement, and says, "You don't know?" Thor
says it has been a problem among scholars for
some years and no one can figure it out and
the local guy says, "O.K., tomorrow we'll
show you". The next morning the local guys
show up and they not only move a head to an
auspicious location but they stand it up and
put the "hat" on it.

Ha ha, the local being the boastful and
intolerable "long-ear" mayor who pained
everyone with his tiresome brag, but whose wood
carvings by all means were by far superior to
anything else on the island

This is another book for the record, a book
even more (?) wonderful than the Kon-Tiki one,
in Swedish:

@book{aku-aku,
author = {Thor Heyerdahl},
publisher = {Bonniers},
title = {Aku-aku. Påsköns hemlighet},
year = 1957
}

I read that also - in English :-)

MORE SNIPPED


I think, perhaps, that all political systems,
and probably very large companies too, have
their moments. The Sputnik program, the AK-47
and perhaps the T-34 tank were all
superlative accomplishments.

Good examples, again for the record now we only
mention the superstar moves, obviously there
were countless of which we will never know.

The Collectivization, on the other hand was
a less successful scheme.

Perhaps less successful in terms of
agriculture but in terms of punishing the
entire population prior to the world war...?

I find it interesting that Russia freed their "slaves",
i,e., Serfs in
1861 by decree of the Emperor while the U.S. had to
fight a disastrous
war to free theirs in 1865.

Britain outlawed (most?) slavery in its empire only about
30 years
earlier than the U.S.

And around 1900, at least one famous British company was
still relying
on products produced by slaves, according to this book
https://www.amazon.com/Chocolate-Tri.../dp/082141626X


written by a good cycling friend of mine.

- Frank Krygowski

Oh My God! Horrifying!

But of course you Americans bought 1.054 thousand barrels
of oil a day
from Saudi Arabia in Jan 2016, and are still buying oil
from them
today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n_Saudi_Arabia


I'm not particularly happy about buying that oil. But
nobody in power ever bothers to ask about that.



it's a world market in a (nearly) fungible commodity so
consider also the other big slavers in Sudan, Nigeria etc.
Don't leave out the totalitarians in Venezuela, where
communism is slavery by another name.

But we're oh-so-moralizing that we inhibit our own
extraction industries, leading to unemployment, reduced
exports and de facto empowerment of some of the worst
regimes on earth. Try to comprehend the pernicious policies
which empower the Keeper of the Two Mosques while punishing
Canada. I can't.

U.S. policies have always been a bit of a mystery. Overthrowing
governments in aid of one of the world's larger copper companies or
providing support for radical Moslem movements who's stated aims are
world domination. Or paying people to have babies out of wedlock and
paying them not to work all seem a bit strange to the untutored eye.

Perhaps with an advanced degree in Swahili or basket weaving it would
be clearer?

Forget about copper. We were overthrowing governments for bananas and British oil interests. Many policy decisions seemed correct at the time but look stupid in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time and in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time but are now seen as good, including various bail-outs. Eisenhower was pretty good with the stupid at the time but now seen as good, like his views on the military industrial complex and the Federal Highway Act which was seen by conservatives as the new new deal. He backed a national health system. My gawd! As for SA, the reason we've been friends is obvious.

You should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Faith-F.../dp/0393330303 Our national history has been shaped by our relationship with the Middle East -- right down to our first battle ship and the Marine Hymn.

-- Jay Beattie.

To be pedantic it wasn't the first battle ship, which wasn't
commissioned until about 90 years after the Derna campaign :-)

But what I find rather ironic is that in the early 1800's the Barbery
Pirates were pirating ships and holding them for ransom. the U.S.
sailed in with two war ships, shelled the town, captured it with a
force of something like 500 men and disposed the Pasha, replacing him
with a "friend". Everybody involved was a hero, songs were written
about it.

About 200 years later the same thing happened in Somalia. They formed
a committee.



A lot has changed indeed. Captain Eaton was given general
orders and left to his own good sense. Which he had in spades.

There are now US servicemen in Leavenworth for breaking
wackjob rules of engagement while under fire. Judged by men
who were not there I might add.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 9:50:30 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:41:07 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:23:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:07:49 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/15/2016 9:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/15/2016 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:38:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2016 7:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 08:23:56 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

Snipped

amazement, and says, "You don't know?" Thor
says it has been a problem among scholars for
some years and no one can figure it out and
the local guy says, "O.K., tomorrow we'll
show you". The next morning the local guys
show up and they not only move a head to an
auspicious location but they stand it up and
put the "hat" on it.

Ha ha, the local being the boastful and
intolerable "long-ear" mayor who pained
everyone with his tiresome brag, but whose wood
carvings by all means were by far superior to
anything else on the island

This is another book for the record, a book
even more (?) wonderful than the Kon-Tiki one,
in Swedish:

@book{aku-aku,
author = {Thor Heyerdahl},
publisher = {Bonniers},
title = {Aku-aku. Påsköns hemlighet},
year = 1957
}

I read that also - in English :-)

MORE SNIPPED


I think, perhaps, that all political systems,
and probably very large companies too, have
their moments. The Sputnik program, the AK-47
and perhaps the T-34 tank were all
superlative accomplishments.

Good examples, again for the record now we only
mention the superstar moves, obviously there
were countless of which we will never know.

The Collectivization, on the other hand was
a less successful scheme.

Perhaps less successful in terms of
agriculture but in terms of punishing the
entire population prior to the world war...?

I find it interesting that Russia freed their "slaves",
i,e., Serfs in
1861 by decree of the Emperor while the U.S. had to
fight a disastrous
war to free theirs in 1865.

Britain outlawed (most?) slavery in its empire only about
30 years
earlier than the U.S.

And around 1900, at least one famous British company was
still relying
on products produced by slaves, according to this book
https://www.amazon.com/Chocolate-Tri.../dp/082141626X


written by a good cycling friend of mine.

- Frank Krygowski

Oh My God! Horrifying!

But of course you Americans bought 1.054 thousand barrels
of oil a day
from Saudi Arabia in Jan 2016, and are still buying oil
from them
today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n_Saudi_Arabia


I'm not particularly happy about buying that oil. But
nobody in power ever bothers to ask about that.



it's a world market in a (nearly) fungible commodity so
consider also the other big slavers in Sudan, Nigeria etc.
Don't leave out the totalitarians in Venezuela, where
communism is slavery by another name.

But we're oh-so-moralizing that we inhibit our own
extraction industries, leading to unemployment, reduced
exports and de facto empowerment of some of the worst
regimes on earth. Try to comprehend the pernicious policies
which empower the Keeper of the Two Mosques while punishing
Canada. I can't.

U.S. policies have always been a bit of a mystery. Overthrowing
governments in aid of one of the world's larger copper companies or
providing support for radical Moslem movements who's stated aims are
world domination. Or paying people to have babies out of wedlock and
paying them not to work all seem a bit strange to the untutored eye.

Perhaps with an advanced degree in Swahili or basket weaving it would
be clearer?

Forget about copper. We were overthrowing governments for bananas and British oil interests. Many policy decisions seemed correct at the time but look stupid in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time and in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time but are now seen as good, including various bail-outs. Eisenhower was pretty good with the stupid at the time but now seen as good, like his views on the military industrial complex and the Federal Highway Act which was seen by conservatives as the new new deal. He backed a national health system. My gawd! As for SA, the reason we've been friends is obvious.

You should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Faith-F.../dp/0393330303 Our national history has been shaped by our relationship with the Middle East -- right down to our first battle ship and the Marine Hymn.

-- Jay Beattie.

To be pedantic it wasn't the first battle ship, which wasn't
commissioned until about 90 years after the Derna campaign :-)

That's what I'm saying -- we built our first navy ships because our commercial vessels were being harassed by the Barbary pirates, among others. http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships...ed-States-1797
That was a big step as a new federal government, motivated in large part by our relationship with the Muslim world.


But what I find rather ironic is that in the early 1800's the Barbery
Pirates were pirating ships and holding them for ransom. the U.S.
sailed in with two war ships, shelled the town, captured it with a
force of something like 500 men and disposed the Pasha, replacing him
with a "friend". Everybody involved was a hero, songs were written
about it.

About 200 years later the same thing happened in Somalia. They formed
a committee.

Well, whose ass would you recommend kicking to end piracy in Somalia? It's not like you can depose some pasha and it ends. It's a bunch of down-and-outer fishermen turned thugs, AFAIK. If we moved in a bunch of war ships, they would just have to sit around, waiting for Akbar in a skiff to try to hijack a Maersk container ship. Not even worthy of a verse.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 8/17/2016 2:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 9:50:30 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:41:07 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:23:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:07:49 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/15/2016 9:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/15/2016 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:38:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2016 7:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 08:23:56 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

Snipped

amazement, and says, "You don't know?" Thor
says it has been a problem among scholars for
some years and no one can figure it out and
the local guy says, "O.K., tomorrow we'll
show you". The next morning the local guys
show up and they not only move a head to an
auspicious location but they stand it up and
put the "hat" on it.

Ha ha, the local being the boastful and
intolerable "long-ear" mayor who pained
everyone with his tiresome brag, but whose wood
carvings by all means were by far superior to
anything else on the island

This is another book for the record, a book
even more (?) wonderful than the Kon-Tiki one,
in Swedish:

@book{aku-aku,
author = {Thor Heyerdahl},
publisher = {Bonniers},
title = {Aku-aku. Påsköns hemlighet},
year = 1957
}

I read that also - in English :-)

MORE SNIPPED


I think, perhaps, that all political systems,
and probably very large companies too, have
their moments. The Sputnik program, the AK-47
and perhaps the T-34 tank were all
superlative accomplishments.

Good examples, again for the record now we only
mention the superstar moves, obviously there
were countless of which we will never know.

The Collectivization, on the other hand was
a less successful scheme.

Perhaps less successful in terms of
agriculture but in terms of punishing the
entire population prior to the world war...?

I find it interesting that Russia freed their "slaves",
i,e., Serfs in
1861 by decree of the Emperor while the U.S. had to
fight a disastrous
war to free theirs in 1865.

Britain outlawed (most?) slavery in its empire only about
30 years
earlier than the U.S.

And around 1900, at least one famous British company was
still relying
on products produced by slaves, according to this book
https://www.amazon.com/Chocolate-Tri.../dp/082141626X


written by a good cycling friend of mine.

- Frank Krygowski

Oh My God! Horrifying!

But of course you Americans bought 1.054 thousand barrels
of oil a day
from Saudi Arabia in Jan 2016, and are still buying oil
from them
today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n_Saudi_Arabia


I'm not particularly happy about buying that oil. But
nobody in power ever bothers to ask about that.



it's a world market in a (nearly) fungible commodity so
consider also the other big slavers in Sudan, Nigeria etc.
Don't leave out the totalitarians in Venezuela, where
communism is slavery by another name.

But we're oh-so-moralizing that we inhibit our own
extraction industries, leading to unemployment, reduced
exports and de facto empowerment of some of the worst
regimes on earth. Try to comprehend the pernicious policies
which empower the Keeper of the Two Mosques while punishing
Canada. I can't.

U.S. policies have always been a bit of a mystery. Overthrowing
governments in aid of one of the world's larger copper companies or
providing support for radical Moslem movements who's stated aims are
world domination. Or paying people to have babies out of wedlock and
paying them not to work all seem a bit strange to the untutored eye.

Perhaps with an advanced degree in Swahili or basket weaving it would
be clearer?

Forget about copper. We were overthrowing governments for bananas and British oil interests. Many policy decisions seemed correct at the time but look stupid in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time and in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time but are now seen as good, including various bail-outs. Eisenhower was pretty good with the stupid at the time but now seen as good, like his views on the military industrial complex and the Federal Highway Act which was seen by conservatives as the new new deal. He backed a national health system. My gawd! As for SA, the reason we've been friends is obvious.

You should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Faith-F.../dp/0393330303 Our national history has been shaped by our relationship with the Middle East -- right down to our first battle ship and the Marine Hymn.

-- Jay Beattie.

To be pedantic it wasn't the first battle ship, which wasn't
commissioned until about 90 years after the Derna campaign :-)

That's what I'm saying -- we built our first navy ships because our commercial vessels were being harassed by the Barbary pirates, among others. http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships...ed-States-1797
That was a big step as a new federal government, motivated in large part by our relationship with the Muslim world.


But what I find rather ironic is that in the early 1800's the Barbery
Pirates were pirating ships and holding them for ransom. the U.S.
sailed in with two war ships, shelled the town, captured it with a
force of something like 500 men and disposed the Pasha, replacing him
with a "friend". Everybody involved was a hero, songs were written
about it.

About 200 years later the same thing happened in Somalia. They formed
a committee.

Well, whose ass would you recommend kicking to end piracy in Somalia? It's not like you can depose some pasha and it ends. It's a bunch of down-and-outer fishermen turned thugs, AFAIK. If we moved in a bunch of war ships, they would just have to sit around, waiting for Akbar in a skiff to try to hijack a Maersk container ship. Not even worthy of a verse.

-- Jay Beattie.



No need for a flagged military vessel. There are a host of
private security firms doing very effective antipiracy work
for commercial shipping now. That includes I'm sure a few
Cat-5 type wannabees but also retired British SBS, US
Special Forces etc.

Any bets on Achmed & Kemal vs. ex-Spetsnaz Russians?

http://antipirates.org/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 07:10:57 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/16/2016 11:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:41:07 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:23:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:07:49 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/15/2016 9:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/15/2016 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:38:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2016 7:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 08:23:56 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

Snipped

amazement, and says, "You don't know?" Thor
says it has been a problem among scholars for
some years and no one can figure it out and
the local guy says, "O.K., tomorrow we'll
show you". The next morning the local guys
show up and they not only move a head to an
auspicious location but they stand it up and
put the "hat" on it.

Ha ha, the local being the boastful and
intolerable "long-ear" mayor who pained
everyone with his tiresome brag, but whose wood
carvings by all means were by far superior to
anything else on the island

This is another book for the record, a book
even more (?) wonderful than the Kon-Tiki one,
in Swedish:

@book{aku-aku,
author = {Thor Heyerdahl},
publisher = {Bonniers},
title = {Aku-aku. Påsköns hemlighet},
year = 1957
}

I read that also - in English :-)

MORE SNIPPED


I think, perhaps, that all political systems,
and probably very large companies too, have
their moments. The Sputnik program, the AK-47
and perhaps the T-34 tank were all
superlative accomplishments.

Good examples, again for the record now we only
mention the superstar moves, obviously there
were countless of which we will never know.

The Collectivization, on the other hand was
a less successful scheme.

Perhaps less successful in terms of
agriculture but in terms of punishing the
entire population prior to the world war...?

I find it interesting that Russia freed their "slaves",
i,e., Serfs in
1861 by decree of the Emperor while the U.S. had to
fight a disastrous
war to free theirs in 1865.

Britain outlawed (most?) slavery in its empire only about
30 years
earlier than the U.S.

And around 1900, at least one famous British company was
still relying
on products produced by slaves, according to this book
https://www.amazon.com/Chocolate-Tri.../dp/082141626X


written by a good cycling friend of mine.

- Frank Krygowski

Oh My God! Horrifying!

But of course you Americans bought 1.054 thousand barrels
of oil a day
from Saudi Arabia in Jan 2016, and are still buying oil
from them
today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n_Saudi_Arabia


I'm not particularly happy about buying that oil. But
nobody in power ever bothers to ask about that.



it's a world market in a (nearly) fungible commodity so
consider also the other big slavers in Sudan, Nigeria etc.
Don't leave out the totalitarians in Venezuela, where
communism is slavery by another name.

But we're oh-so-moralizing that we inhibit our own
extraction industries, leading to unemployment, reduced
exports and de facto empowerment of some of the worst
regimes on earth. Try to comprehend the pernicious policies
which empower the Keeper of the Two Mosques while punishing
Canada. I can't.

U.S. policies have always been a bit of a mystery. Overthrowing
governments in aid of one of the world's larger copper companies or
providing support for radical Moslem movements who's stated aims are
world domination. Or paying people to have babies out of wedlock and
paying them not to work all seem a bit strange to the untutored eye.

Perhaps with an advanced degree in Swahili or basket weaving it would
be clearer?

Forget about copper. We were overthrowing governments for bananas and British oil interests. Many policy decisions seemed correct at the time but look stupid in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time and in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time but are now seen as good, including various bail-outs. Eisenhower was pretty good with the stupid at the time but now seen as good, like his views on the military industrial complex and the Federal Highway Act which was seen by conservatives as the new new deal. He backed a national health system. My gawd! As for SA, the reason we've been friends is obvious.

You should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Faith-F.../dp/0393330303 Our national history has been shaped by our relationship with the Middle East -- right down to our first battle ship and the Marine Hymn.

-- Jay Beattie.

To be pedantic it wasn't the first battle ship, which wasn't
commissioned until about 90 years after the Derna campaign :-)

But what I find rather ironic is that in the early 1800's the Barbery
Pirates were pirating ships and holding them for ransom. the U.S.
sailed in with two war ships, shelled the town, captured it with a
force of something like 500 men and disposed the Pasha, replacing him
with a "friend". Everybody involved was a hero, songs were written
about it.

About 200 years later the same thing happened in Somalia. They formed
a committee.



A lot has changed indeed. Captain Eaton was given general
orders and left to his own good sense. Which he had in spades.

There are now US servicemen in Leavenworth for breaking
wackjob rules of engagement while under fire. Judged by men
who were not there I might add.

Actually, those making the rules, wackjob or not, are seldom, one
might even say never, in the front lines under fire.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:49:38 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 9:50:30 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:41:07 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:23:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:07:49 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/15/2016 9:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/15/2016 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:38:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2016 7:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 08:23:56 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

Snipped

amazement, and says, "You don't know?" Thor
says it has been a problem among scholars for
some years and no one can figure it out and
the local guy says, "O.K., tomorrow we'll
show you". The next morning the local guys
show up and they not only move a head to an
auspicious location but they stand it up and
put the "hat" on it.

Ha ha, the local being the boastful and
intolerable "long-ear" mayor who pained
everyone with his tiresome brag, but whose wood
carvings by all means were by far superior to
anything else on the island

This is another book for the record, a book
even more (?) wonderful than the Kon-Tiki one,
in Swedish:

@book{aku-aku,
author = {Thor Heyerdahl},
publisher = {Bonniers},
title = {Aku-aku. Påsköns hemlighet},
year = 1957
}

I read that also - in English :-)

MORE SNIPPED


I think, perhaps, that all political systems,
and probably very large companies too, have
their moments. The Sputnik program, the AK-47
and perhaps the T-34 tank were all
superlative accomplishments.

Good examples, again for the record now we only
mention the superstar moves, obviously there
were countless of which we will never know.

The Collectivization, on the other hand was
a less successful scheme.

Perhaps less successful in terms of
agriculture but in terms of punishing the
entire population prior to the world war...?

I find it interesting that Russia freed their "slaves",
i,e., Serfs in
1861 by decree of the Emperor while the U.S. had to
fight a disastrous
war to free theirs in 1865.

Britain outlawed (most?) slavery in its empire only about
30 years
earlier than the U.S.

And around 1900, at least one famous British company was
still relying
on products produced by slaves, according to this book
https://www.amazon.com/Chocolate-Tri.../dp/082141626X


written by a good cycling friend of mine.

- Frank Krygowski

Oh My God! Horrifying!

But of course you Americans bought 1.054 thousand barrels
of oil a day
from Saudi Arabia in Jan 2016, and are still buying oil
from them
today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n_Saudi_Arabia


I'm not particularly happy about buying that oil. But
nobody in power ever bothers to ask about that.



it's a world market in a (nearly) fungible commodity so
consider also the other big slavers in Sudan, Nigeria etc.
Don't leave out the totalitarians in Venezuela, where
communism is slavery by another name.

But we're oh-so-moralizing that we inhibit our own
extraction industries, leading to unemployment, reduced
exports and de facto empowerment of some of the worst
regimes on earth. Try to comprehend the pernicious policies
which empower the Keeper of the Two Mosques while punishing
Canada. I can't.

U.S. policies have always been a bit of a mystery. Overthrowing
governments in aid of one of the world's larger copper companies or
providing support for radical Moslem movements who's stated aims are
world domination. Or paying people to have babies out of wedlock and
paying them not to work all seem a bit strange to the untutored eye.

Perhaps with an advanced degree in Swahili or basket weaving it would
be clearer?

Forget about copper. We were overthrowing governments for bananas and British oil interests. Many policy decisions seemed correct at the time but look stupid in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time and in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time but are now seen as good, including various bail-outs. Eisenhower was pretty good with the stupid at the time but now seen as good, like his views on the military industrial complex and the Federal Highway Act which was seen by conservatives as the new new deal. He backed a national health system. My gawd! As for SA, the reason we've been friends is obvious.

You should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Faith-F.../dp/0393330303 Our national history has been shaped by our relationship with the Middle East -- right down to our first battle ship and the Marine Hymn.

-- Jay Beattie.

To be pedantic it wasn't the first battle ship, which wasn't
commissioned until about 90 years after the Derna campaign :-)

That's what I'm saying -- we built our first navy ships because our commercial vessels were being harassed by the Barbary pirates, among others. http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships...ed-States-1797
That was a big step as a new federal government, motivated in large part by our relationship with the Muslim world.


Nope again :-) The first U.S. purpose built war ships were a fleet of
some six Frigates, "a fleet of frigates powerful enough to engage any
frigates of the French or British navies" :-)


But what I find rather ironic is that in the early 1800's the Barbery
Pirates were pirating ships and holding them for ransom. the U.S.
sailed in with two war ships, shelled the town, captured it with a
force of something like 500 men and disposed the Pasha, replacing him
with a "friend". Everybody involved was a hero, songs were written
about it.

About 200 years later the same thing happened in Somalia. They formed
a committee.

Well, whose ass would you recommend kicking to end piracy in Somalia? It's not like you can depose some pasha and it ends. It's a bunch of down-and-outer fishermen turned thugs, AFAIK. If we moved in a bunch of war ships, they would just have to sit around, waiting for Akbar in a skiff to try to hijack a Maersk container ship. Not even worthy of a verse.

-- Jay Beattie.

It might have started as some poor impoverished fisherman but it is
now a very successful business complete with foreign investment and
estimated $6.6 to $6.9 billion a year income in 2011.

And just exactly as in "Tripoli" it isn't the Pasha crewing those
ships it is the whole mob. Far easier than fishing and the returns are
better too.

From the Wikki:

The funding of piracy operations is now structured in a stock
exchange, with investors buying and selling shares in upcoming attacks
in a bourse in Harardhere. Pirates say ransom money is paid in large
denomination US$ bills.

According to the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), a
veritable industry of profiteers has also risen around the piracy.
Insurance companies, in particular, have profited from the pirate
attacks, as insurance premiums have increased significantly. DIW
reports that, in order to keep premiums high, insurance firms have not
demanded that ship owners take security precautions that would make
hijackings more difficult. For their part, shipping companies often do
not comply with naval guidelines on how best to prevent pirate attacks
in order to cut down on costs. In addition, security contractors and
the German arms industry have profited from the phenomenon.[5]

--
cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 1:47:45 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/17/2016 2:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 9:50:30 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:41:07 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:23:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:07:49 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/15/2016 9:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/15/2016 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:38:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2016 7:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 08:23:56 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

Snipped

amazement, and says, "You don't know?" Thor
says it has been a problem among scholars for
some years and no one can figure it out and
the local guy says, "O.K., tomorrow we'll
show you". The next morning the local guys
show up and they not only move a head to an
auspicious location but they stand it up and
put the "hat" on it.

Ha ha, the local being the boastful and
intolerable "long-ear" mayor who pained
everyone with his tiresome brag, but whose wood
carvings by all means were by far superior to
anything else on the island

This is another book for the record, a book
even more (?) wonderful than the Kon-Tiki one,
in Swedish:

@book{aku-aku,
author = {Thor Heyerdahl},
publisher = {Bonniers},
title = {Aku-aku. Påsköns hemlighet},
year = 1957
}

I read that also - in English :-)

MORE SNIPPED


I think, perhaps, that all political systems,
and probably very large companies too, have
their moments. The Sputnik program, the AK-47
and perhaps the T-34 tank were all
superlative accomplishments.

Good examples, again for the record now we only
mention the superstar moves, obviously there
were countless of which we will never know.

The Collectivization, on the other hand was
a less successful scheme.

Perhaps less successful in terms of
agriculture but in terms of punishing the
entire population prior to the world war...?

I find it interesting that Russia freed their "slaves",
i,e., Serfs in
1861 by decree of the Emperor while the U.S. had to
fight a disastrous
war to free theirs in 1865.

Britain outlawed (most?) slavery in its empire only about
30 years
earlier than the U.S.

And around 1900, at least one famous British company was
still relying
on products produced by slaves, according to this book
https://www.amazon.com/Chocolate-Tri.../dp/082141626X


written by a good cycling friend of mine.

- Frank Krygowski

Oh My God! Horrifying!

But of course you Americans bought 1.054 thousand barrels
of oil a day
from Saudi Arabia in Jan 2016, and are still buying oil
from them
today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n_Saudi_Arabia


I'm not particularly happy about buying that oil. But
nobody in power ever bothers to ask about that.



it's a world market in a (nearly) fungible commodity so
consider also the other big slavers in Sudan, Nigeria etc.
Don't leave out the totalitarians in Venezuela, where
communism is slavery by another name.

But we're oh-so-moralizing that we inhibit our own
extraction industries, leading to unemployment, reduced
exports and de facto empowerment of some of the worst
regimes on earth. Try to comprehend the pernicious policies
which empower the Keeper of the Two Mosques while punishing
Canada. I can't.

U.S. policies have always been a bit of a mystery. Overthrowing
governments in aid of one of the world's larger copper companies or
providing support for radical Moslem movements who's stated aims are
world domination. Or paying people to have babies out of wedlock and
paying them not to work all seem a bit strange to the untutored eye.

Perhaps with an advanced degree in Swahili or basket weaving it would
be clearer?

Forget about copper. We were overthrowing governments for bananas and British oil interests. Many policy decisions seemed correct at the time but look stupid in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time and in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time but are now seen as good, including various bail-outs. Eisenhower was pretty good with the stupid at the time but now seen as good, like his views on the military industrial complex and the Federal Highway Act which was seen by conservatives as the new new deal. He backed a national health system. My gawd! As for SA, the reason we've been friends is obvious.

You should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Faith-F.../dp/0393330303 Our national history has been shaped by our relationship with the Middle East -- right down to our first battle ship and the Marine Hymn.

-- Jay Beattie.

To be pedantic it wasn't the first battle ship, which wasn't
commissioned until about 90 years after the Derna campaign :-)

That's what I'm saying -- we built our first navy ships because our commercial vessels were being harassed by the Barbary pirates, among others. http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships...ed-States-1797
That was a big step as a new federal government, motivated in large part by our relationship with the Muslim world.


But what I find rather ironic is that in the early 1800's the Barbery
Pirates were pirating ships and holding them for ransom. the U.S.
sailed in with two war ships, shelled the town, captured it with a
force of something like 500 men and disposed the Pasha, replacing him
with a "friend". Everybody involved was a hero, songs were written
about it.

About 200 years later the same thing happened in Somalia. They formed
a committee.

Well, whose ass would you recommend kicking to end piracy in Somalia? It's not like you can depose some pasha and it ends. It's a bunch of down-and-outer fishermen turned thugs, AFAIK. If we moved in a bunch of war ships, they would just have to sit around, waiting for Akbar in a skiff to try to hijack a Maersk container ship. Not even worthy of a verse.

-- Jay Beattie.



No need for a flagged military vessel. There are a host of
private security firms doing very effective antipiracy work
for commercial shipping now. That includes I'm sure a few
Cat-5 type wannabees but also retired British SBS, US
Special Forces etc.

Any bets on Achmed & Kemal vs. ex-Spetsnaz Russians?

http://antipirates.org/

The Russians just know how to have fun! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLj3aYPXEEo

Damn, was there any weapon they didn't fire? I bet they were running below decks to get toothpaste to squeeze on the pirates -- empty everything down to the AK47s and then throw some smelly socks at them. Woohoo!

The US is more from the "one and done" school -- not much fun to be had there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpROKYVtVB8

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:47:37 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/17/2016 2:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 9:50:30 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:41:07 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:23:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:07:49 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/15/2016 9:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/15/2016 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:38:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2016 7:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 08:23:56 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

Snipped

amazement, and says, "You don't know?" Thor
says it has been a problem among scholars for
some years and no one can figure it out and
the local guy says, "O.K., tomorrow we'll
show you". The next morning the local guys
show up and they not only move a head to an
auspicious location but they stand it up and
put the "hat" on it.

Ha ha, the local being the boastful and
intolerable "long-ear" mayor who pained
everyone with his tiresome brag, but whose wood
carvings by all means were by far superior to
anything else on the island

This is another book for the record, a book
even more (?) wonderful than the Kon-Tiki one,
in Swedish:

@book{aku-aku,
author = {Thor Heyerdahl},
publisher = {Bonniers},
title = {Aku-aku. Påsköns hemlighet},
year = 1957
}

I read that also - in English :-)

MORE SNIPPED


I think, perhaps, that all political systems,
and probably very large companies too, have
their moments. The Sputnik program, the AK-47
and perhaps the T-34 tank were all
superlative accomplishments.

Good examples, again for the record now we only
mention the superstar moves, obviously there
were countless of which we will never know.

The Collectivization, on the other hand was
a less successful scheme.

Perhaps less successful in terms of
agriculture but in terms of punishing the
entire population prior to the world war...?

I find it interesting that Russia freed their "slaves",
i,e., Serfs in
1861 by decree of the Emperor while the U.S. had to
fight a disastrous
war to free theirs in 1865.

Britain outlawed (most?) slavery in its empire only about
30 years
earlier than the U.S.

And around 1900, at least one famous British company was
still relying
on products produced by slaves, according to this book
https://www.amazon.com/Chocolate-Tri.../dp/082141626X


written by a good cycling friend of mine.

- Frank Krygowski

Oh My God! Horrifying!

But of course you Americans bought 1.054 thousand barrels
of oil a day
from Saudi Arabia in Jan 2016, and are still buying oil
from them
today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n_Saudi_Arabia


I'm not particularly happy about buying that oil. But
nobody in power ever bothers to ask about that.



it's a world market in a (nearly) fungible commodity so
consider also the other big slavers in Sudan, Nigeria etc.
Don't leave out the totalitarians in Venezuela, where
communism is slavery by another name.

But we're oh-so-moralizing that we inhibit our own
extraction industries, leading to unemployment, reduced
exports and de facto empowerment of some of the worst
regimes on earth. Try to comprehend the pernicious policies
which empower the Keeper of the Two Mosques while punishing
Canada. I can't.

U.S. policies have always been a bit of a mystery. Overthrowing
governments in aid of one of the world's larger copper companies or
providing support for radical Moslem movements who's stated aims are
world domination. Or paying people to have babies out of wedlock and
paying them not to work all seem a bit strange to the untutored eye.

Perhaps with an advanced degree in Swahili or basket weaving it would
be clearer?

Forget about copper. We were overthrowing governments for bananas and British oil interests. Many policy decisions seemed correct at the time but look stupid in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time and in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time but are now seen as good, including various bail-outs. Eisenhower was pretty good with the stupid at the time but now seen as good, like his views on the military industrial complex and the Federal Highway Act which was seen by conservatives as the new new deal. He backed a national health system. My gawd! As for SA, the reason we've been friends is obvious.

You should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Faith-F.../dp/0393330303 Our national history has been shaped by our relationship with the Middle East -- right down to our first battle ship and the Marine Hymn.

-- Jay Beattie.

To be pedantic it wasn't the first battle ship, which wasn't
commissioned until about 90 years after the Derna campaign :-)

That's what I'm saying -- we built our first navy ships because our commercial vessels were being harassed by the Barbary pirates, among others. http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships...ed-States-1797
That was a big step as a new federal government, motivated in large part by our relationship with the Muslim world.


But what I find rather ironic is that in the early 1800's the Barbery
Pirates were pirating ships and holding them for ransom. the U.S.
sailed in with two war ships, shelled the town, captured it with a
force of something like 500 men and disposed the Pasha, replacing him
with a "friend". Everybody involved was a hero, songs were written
about it.

About 200 years later the same thing happened in Somalia. They formed
a committee.

Well, whose ass would you recommend kicking to end piracy in Somalia? It's not like you can depose some pasha and it ends. It's a bunch of down-and-outer fishermen turned thugs, AFAIK. If we moved in a bunch of war ships, they would just have to sit around, waiting for Akbar in a skiff to try to hijack a Maersk container ship. Not even worthy of a verse.

-- Jay Beattie.



No need for a flagged military vessel. There are a host of
private security firms doing very effective antipiracy work
for commercial shipping now. That includes I'm sure a few
Cat-5 type wannabees but also retired British SBS, US
Special Forces etc.

Any bets on Achmed & Kemal vs. ex-Spetsnaz Russians?

http://antipirates.org/

Back in the Old Days when piracy was rife in the Malacca Straits there
was a couple of security companies in Singapore that used to provide
"security" for shipping in the Straits.

From a newspaper article in the Straits Times newspaper, these people
would board in Singapore with some boxes and packages, the ship would
sail and the extra people would disembark in Penang - after the ship
was though the straits.

Strangely, I don't remember reading about pirate attacks being beaten
off but apparently the frequency dropped as the practice of carrying
security company people died out in a couple of years.

Now, of course, it is a multi-national effort with the Indonesian,
Malaysian and Singapore navies involved.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 5:29:58 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:49:38 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 9:50:30 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:41:07 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:23:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:07:49 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/15/2016 9:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/15/2016 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:38:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2016 7:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 08:23:56 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

Snipped

amazement, and says, "You don't know?" Thor
says it has been a problem among scholars for
some years and no one can figure it out and
the local guy says, "O.K., tomorrow we'll
show you". The next morning the local guys
show up and they not only move a head to an
auspicious location but they stand it up and
put the "hat" on it.

Ha ha, the local being the boastful and
intolerable "long-ear" mayor who pained
everyone with his tiresome brag, but whose wood
carvings by all means were by far superior to
anything else on the island

This is another book for the record, a book
even more (?) wonderful than the Kon-Tiki one,
in Swedish:

@book{aku-aku,
author = {Thor Heyerdahl},
publisher = {Bonniers},
title = {Aku-aku. Påsköns hemlighet},
year = 1957
}

I read that also - in English :-)

MORE SNIPPED


I think, perhaps, that all political systems,
and probably very large companies too, have
their moments. The Sputnik program, the AK-47
and perhaps the T-34 tank were all
superlative accomplishments.

Good examples, again for the record now we only
mention the superstar moves, obviously there
were countless of which we will never know.

The Collectivization, on the other hand was
a less successful scheme.

Perhaps less successful in terms of
agriculture but in terms of punishing the
entire population prior to the world war...?

I find it interesting that Russia freed their "slaves",
i,e., Serfs in
1861 by decree of the Emperor while the U.S. had to
fight a disastrous
war to free theirs in 1865.

Britain outlawed (most?) slavery in its empire only about
30 years
earlier than the U.S.

And around 1900, at least one famous British company was
still relying
on products produced by slaves, according to this book
https://www.amazon.com/Chocolate-Tri.../dp/082141626X


written by a good cycling friend of mine.

- Frank Krygowski

Oh My God! Horrifying!

But of course you Americans bought 1.054 thousand barrels
of oil a day
from Saudi Arabia in Jan 2016, and are still buying oil
from them
today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n_Saudi_Arabia


I'm not particularly happy about buying that oil. But
nobody in power ever bothers to ask about that.



it's a world market in a (nearly) fungible commodity so
consider also the other big slavers in Sudan, Nigeria etc.
Don't leave out the totalitarians in Venezuela, where
communism is slavery by another name.

But we're oh-so-moralizing that we inhibit our own
extraction industries, leading to unemployment, reduced
exports and de facto empowerment of some of the worst
regimes on earth. Try to comprehend the pernicious policies
which empower the Keeper of the Two Mosques while punishing
Canada. I can't.

U.S. policies have always been a bit of a mystery. Overthrowing
governments in aid of one of the world's larger copper companies or
providing support for radical Moslem movements who's stated aims are
world domination. Or paying people to have babies out of wedlock and
paying them not to work all seem a bit strange to the untutored eye..

Perhaps with an advanced degree in Swahili or basket weaving it would
be clearer?

Forget about copper. We were overthrowing governments for bananas and British oil interests. Many policy decisions seemed correct at the time but look stupid in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time and in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time but are now seen as good, including various bail-outs. Eisenhower was pretty good with the stupid at the time but now seen as good, like his views on the military industrial complex and the Federal Highway Act which was seen by conservatives as the new new deal. He backed a national health system. My gawd! As for SA, the reason we've been friends is obvious.

You should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Faith-F.../dp/0393330303 Our national history has been shaped by our relationship with the Middle East -- right down to our first battle ship and the Marine Hymn.

-- Jay Beattie.

To be pedantic it wasn't the first battle ship, which wasn't
commissioned until about 90 years after the Derna campaign :-)

That's what I'm saying -- we built our first navy ships because our commercial vessels were being harassed by the Barbary pirates, among others. http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships...ed-States-1797
That was a big step as a new federal government, motivated in large part by our relationship with the Muslim world.


Nope again :-) The first U.S. purpose built war ships were a fleet of
some six Frigates, "a fleet of frigates powerful enough to engage any
frigates of the French or British navies" :-)

Go back to my link. Also read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Act_of_1794

Here is the text of the act:

Chap. XII. -- An Act to provide a Naval Armament


Whereas the depredations committed by the Algerine corsairs on the commerce of the United States render it necessary that a naval force should be provided for its protection:

Section 1. Be it therefore enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be authorized to provide, by purchase or otherwise, equip and employ four ships to carry forty-four guns each, and two ships to carry thirty-six guns each.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That there shall be employed on board each of the said ships of forty-four guns, one captain, four lieutenants, one lieutenant of marines, one chaplain, one surgeon, and two surgeon’s mates; and in each of the ships of thirty-six guns, one captain, three lieutenants, one lieutenant of marines, one surgeon, and one surgeon’s mate, who shall be appointed and commissioned in like manner as other officers of the United States are.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That there shall be employed, in each of the said ships, the following warrant officers, who shall be appointed by the President of the United States, to wit: One sailing-master, one purser, one boatswain, one gunner, one sail-maker, one carpenter, and eight midshipmen; and the following petty officers, who shall be appointed by the captains of the ships, respectively, in which they are to be employed, viz: two master’s mates, one captain’s clerk, two boatswain’s mates, one cockswain, one sail-maker’s mate, two gunner’s mates, one yeoman of the gun room, nine quarter-gunners, (and for the four larger ships two additional quarter-gunners,) two carpenter’s mates, one armourer, one steward, one cooper, one master-at-arms, and one cook.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the crews of each of the said ships of forty-four guns, shall consist of one hundred and fifty seamen, one hundred and three midshipmen and ordinary seamen, one sergeant, one corporal, one drum, one fife, and fifty marines; and that the crews of each of the said ships of thirty-six guns shall consist of one hundred and thirty able seamen and midshipmen, ninety ordinary seamen, one sergeant, two corporals, one drum, one fife, and forty marines, over and above the officers herein before mentioned.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby empowered, to provide, by purchase or may purchase a force not exceeding that directed by this act.otherwise, in lieu of the said six ships, a naval force not exceeding, in the whole, that by this act directed, so that no ship thus provided shall carry less than thirty-two guns; or he may so provide any proportion thereof, which, in his discretion, he may think proper.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the pay and subsistence of the respective commissioned and warrant officers be as follows:—A captain, seventy-five dollars per month, and six rations per day;—a lieutenant, forty dollars per month, and three rations per day;—a lieutenant of marines, twenty-six dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a chaplain, forty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a sailing-master, forty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a surgeon, fifty dollars per month, and two rations per day; a surgeon’s mate, thirty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a purser, forty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a boatswain, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a gunner, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a sailmaker, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a carpenter, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day.

Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That the pay to be allowed to the petty officers, midshipmen, seamen, ordinary seamen and marines, shall be fixed by the President of the United States: Provided, That the whole sum to be given for the whole pay aforesaid, shall not exceed twenty-seven thousand dollars per month, and that each of the said persons shall be entitled to one ration per day.

Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the ration shall consist of, as follows: Sunday, one pound of bread, one pound and a half of beef, and half a pint of rice:—Monday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, half a pint of peas or beans, and four ounces of cheese:—Tuesday, one pound of bread, one pound and a half of beef, and one pound of potatoes, or turnips, and pudding: Wednesday, one pound of bread, two ounces of butter, or in lieu thereof, six ounces of molasses, four ounces of cheese, and half a pint of rice:—Thursday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, and half a pint of peas or beans:—Friday, one pound of bread, one pound of salt fish, two ounces of butter or one gill of oil, and one pound of potatoes:—Saturday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, half a pint of peas or beans, and four ounces of cheese:—And there shall also be allowed one half pint of distilled spirits per day, or, in lieu thereof, one quart of beer per day, to each ration.

Sec. 9. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That if a peace shall take place between the United States and the Regency of Algiers, that no farther proceeding be had under this act.

Approved, March 27, 1794.


That's how our Navy got started.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:58:42 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 5:29:58 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:49:38 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 9:50:30 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:41:07 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:23:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:07:49 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/15/2016 9:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/15/2016 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:38:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2016 7:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 08:23:56 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

Snipped

amazement, and says, "You don't know?" Thor
says it has been a problem among scholars for
some years and no one can figure it out and
the local guy says, "O.K., tomorrow we'll
show you". The next morning the local guys
show up and they not only move a head to an
auspicious location but they stand it up and
put the "hat" on it.

Ha ha, the local being the boastful and
intolerable "long-ear" mayor who pained
everyone with his tiresome brag, but whose wood
carvings by all means were by far superior to
anything else on the island

This is another book for the record, a book
even more (?) wonderful than the Kon-Tiki one,
in Swedish:

@book{aku-aku,
author = {Thor Heyerdahl},
publisher = {Bonniers},
title = {Aku-aku. Påsköns hemlighet},
year = 1957
}

I read that also - in English :-)

MORE SNIPPED


I think, perhaps, that all political systems,
and probably very large companies too, have
their moments. The Sputnik program, the AK-47
and perhaps the T-34 tank were all
superlative accomplishments.

Good examples, again for the record now we only
mention the superstar moves, obviously there
were countless of which we will never know.

The Collectivization, on the other hand was
a less successful scheme.

Perhaps less successful in terms of
agriculture but in terms of punishing the
entire population prior to the world war...?

I find it interesting that Russia freed their "slaves",
i,e., Serfs in
1861 by decree of the Emperor while the U.S. had to
fight a disastrous
war to free theirs in 1865.

Britain outlawed (most?) slavery in its empire only about
30 years
earlier than the U.S.

And around 1900, at least one famous British company was
still relying
on products produced by slaves, according to this book
https://www.amazon.com/Chocolate-Tri.../dp/082141626X


written by a good cycling friend of mine.

- Frank Krygowski

Oh My God! Horrifying!

But of course you Americans bought 1.054 thousand barrels
of oil a day
from Saudi Arabia in Jan 2016, and are still buying oil
from them
today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n_Saudi_Arabia


I'm not particularly happy about buying that oil. But
nobody in power ever bothers to ask about that.



it's a world market in a (nearly) fungible commodity so
consider also the other big slavers in Sudan, Nigeria etc.
Don't leave out the totalitarians in Venezuela, where
communism is slavery by another name.

But we're oh-so-moralizing that we inhibit our own
extraction industries, leading to unemployment, reduced
exports and de facto empowerment of some of the worst
regimes on earth. Try to comprehend the pernicious policies
which empower the Keeper of the Two Mosques while punishing
Canada. I can't.

U.S. policies have always been a bit of a mystery. Overthrowing
governments in aid of one of the world's larger copper companies or
providing support for radical Moslem movements who's stated aims are
world domination. Or paying people to have babies out of wedlock and
paying them not to work all seem a bit strange to the untutored eye.

Perhaps with an advanced degree in Swahili or basket weaving it would
be clearer?

Forget about copper. We were overthrowing governments for bananas and British oil interests. Many policy decisions seemed correct at the time but look stupid in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time and in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time but are now seen as good, including various bail-outs. Eisenhower was pretty good with the stupid at the time but now seen as good, like his views on the military industrial complex and the Federal Highway Act which was seen by conservatives as the new new deal. He backed a national health system. My gawd! As for SA, the reason we've been friends is obvious.

You should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Faith-F.../dp/0393330303 Our national history has been shaped by our relationship with the Middle East -- right down to our first battle ship and the Marine Hymn.

-- Jay Beattie.

To be pedantic it wasn't the first battle ship, which wasn't
commissioned until about 90 years after the Derna campaign :-)

That's what I'm saying -- we built our first navy ships because our commercial vessels were being harassed by the Barbary pirates, among others. http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships...ed-States-1797
That was a big step as a new federal government, motivated in large part by our relationship with the Muslim world.


Nope again :-) The first U.S. purpose built war ships were a fleet of
some six Frigates, "a fleet of frigates powerful enough to engage any
frigates of the French or British navies" :-)

Go back to my link. Also read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Act_of_1794


Right, the Naval Act established a Navy.... and, as I said, the first
purpose build U.S. navy warships were contracted for in 1794 and the
first one was commissioned in 1797. :-) The 3rd of the six was
launched on October 21, 1797 and is still in commission today.


Here is the text of the act:

Chap. XII. -- An Act to provide a Naval Armament


Whereas the depredations committed by the Algerine corsairs on the commerce of the United States render it necessary that a naval force should be provided for its protection:

Section 1. Be it therefore enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be authorized to provide, by purchase or otherwise, equip and employ four ships to carry forty-four guns each, and two ships to carry thirty-six guns each.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That there shall be employed on board each of the said ships of forty-four guns, one captain, four lieutenants, one lieutenant of marines, one chaplain, one surgeon, and two surgeon’s mates; and in each of the ships of thirty-six guns, one captain, three lieutenants, one lieutenant of marines, one surgeon, and one surgeon’s mate, who shall be appointed and commissioned in like manner as other officers of the United States are.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That there shall be employed, in each of the said ships, the following warrant officers, who shall be appointed by the President of the United States, to wit: One sailing-master, one purser, one boatswain, one gunner, one sail-maker, one carpenter, and eight midshipmen; and the following petty officers, who shall be appointed by the captains of the ships, respectively, in which they are to be employed, viz: two master’s mates, one captain’s clerk, two boatswain’s mates, one cockswain, one sail-maker’s mate, two gunner’s mates, one yeoman of the gun room, nine quarter-gunners, (and for the four larger ships two additional quarter-gunners,) two carpenter’s mates, one armourer, one steward, one cooper, one master-at-arms, and one cook.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the crews of each of the said ships of forty-four guns, shall consist of one hundred and fifty seamen, one hundred and three midshipmen and ordinary seamen, one sergeant, one corporal, one drum, one fife, and fifty marines; and that the crews of each of the said ships of thirty-six guns shall consist of one hundred and thirty able seamen and midshipmen, ninety ordinary seamen, one sergeant, two corporals, one drum, one fife, and forty marines, over and above the officers herein before mentioned.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby empowered, to provide, by purchase or may purchase a force not exceeding that directed by this act.otherwise, in lieu of the said six ships, a naval force not exceeding, in the whole, that by this act directed, so that no ship thus provided shall carry less than thirty-two guns; or he may so provide any proportion thereof, which, in his discretion, he may think proper.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the pay and subsistence of the respective commissioned and warrant officers be as follows:—A captain, seventy-five dollars per month, and six rations per day;—a lieutenant, forty dollars per month, and three rations per day;—a lieutenant of marines, twenty-six dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a chaplain, forty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a sailing-master, forty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a surgeon, fifty dollars per month, and two rations per day; a surgeon’s mate, thirty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a purser, forty dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a boatswain, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a gunner, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a sailmaker, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day;—a carpenter, fourteen dollars per month, and two rations per day.

Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That the pay to be allowed to the petty officers, midshipmen, seamen, ordinary seamen and marines, shall be fixed by the President of the United States: Provided, That the whole sum to be given for the whole pay aforesaid, shall not exceed twenty-seven thousand dollars per month, and that each of the said persons shall be entitled to one ration per day.

Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the ration shall consist of, as follows: Sunday, one pound of bread, one pound and a half of beef, and half a pint of rice:—Monday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, half a pint of peas or beans, and four ounces of cheese:—Tuesday, one pound of bread, one pound and a half of beef, and one pound of potatoes, or turnips, and pudding: Wednesday, one pound of bread, two ounces of butter, or in lieu thereof, six ounces of molasses, four ounces of cheese, and half a pint of rice:—Thursday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, and half a pint of peas or beans:—Friday, one pound of bread, one pound of salt fish, two ounces of butter or one gill of oil, and one pound of potatoes:—Saturday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, half a pint of peas or beans, and four ounces of cheese:—And there shall also be allowed one half pint of distilled spirits per day, or, in lieu thereof, one quart of beer per day, to each ration.

Sec. 9. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That if a peace shall take place between the United States and the Regency of Algiers, that no farther proceeding be had under this act.

Approved, March 27, 1794.


That's how our Navy got started.

-- Jay Beattie.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 8/17/2016 7:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:47:37 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/17/2016 2:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 9:50:30 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:41:07 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:23:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:07:49 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/15/2016 9:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/15/2016 7:05 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:38:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/14/2016 7:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 08:23:56 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. wrote:

Snipped

amazement, and says, "You don't know?" Thor
says it has been a problem among scholars for
some years and no one can figure it out and
the local guy says, "O.K., tomorrow we'll
show you". The next morning the local guys
show up and they not only move a head to an
auspicious location but they stand it up and
put the "hat" on it.

Ha ha, the local being the boastful and
intolerable "long-ear" mayor who pained
everyone with his tiresome brag, but whose wood
carvings by all means were by far superior to
anything else on the island

This is another book for the record, a book
even more (?) wonderful than the Kon-Tiki one,
in Swedish:

@book{aku-aku,
author = {Thor Heyerdahl},
publisher = {Bonniers},
title = {Aku-aku. Påsköns hemlighet},
year = 1957
}

I read that also - in English :-)

MORE SNIPPED


I think, perhaps, that all political systems,
and probably very large companies too, have
their moments. The Sputnik program, the AK-47
and perhaps the T-34 tank were all
superlative accomplishments.

Good examples, again for the record now we only
mention the superstar moves, obviously there
were countless of which we will never know.

The Collectivization, on the other hand was
a less successful scheme.

Perhaps less successful in terms of
agriculture but in terms of punishing the
entire population prior to the world war...?

I find it interesting that Russia freed their "slaves",
i,e., Serfs in
1861 by decree of the Emperor while the U.S. had to
fight a disastrous
war to free theirs in 1865.

Britain outlawed (most?) slavery in its empire only about
30 years
earlier than the U.S.

And around 1900, at least one famous British company was
still relying
on products produced by slaves, according to this book
https://www.amazon.com/Chocolate-Tri.../dp/082141626X


written by a good cycling friend of mine.

- Frank Krygowski

Oh My God! Horrifying!

But of course you Americans bought 1.054 thousand barrels
of oil a day
from Saudi Arabia in Jan 2016, and are still buying oil
from them
today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n_Saudi_Arabia


I'm not particularly happy about buying that oil. But
nobody in power ever bothers to ask about that.



it's a world market in a (nearly) fungible commodity so
consider also the other big slavers in Sudan, Nigeria etc.
Don't leave out the totalitarians in Venezuela, where
communism is slavery by another name.

But we're oh-so-moralizing that we inhibit our own
extraction industries, leading to unemployment, reduced
exports and de facto empowerment of some of the worst
regimes on earth. Try to comprehend the pernicious policies
which empower the Keeper of the Two Mosques while punishing
Canada. I can't.

U.S. policies have always been a bit of a mystery. Overthrowing
governments in aid of one of the world's larger copper companies or
providing support for radical Moslem movements who's stated aims are
world domination. Or paying people to have babies out of wedlock and
paying them not to work all seem a bit strange to the untutored eye.

Perhaps with an advanced degree in Swahili or basket weaving it would
be clearer?

Forget about copper. We were overthrowing governments for bananas and British oil interests. Many policy decisions seemed correct at the time but look stupid in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time and in retrospect. Some were stupid at the time but are now seen as good, including various bail-outs. Eisenhower was pretty good with the stupid at the time but now seen as good, like his views on the military industrial complex and the Federal Highway Act which was seen by conservatives as the new new deal. He backed a national health system. My gawd! As for SA, the reason we've been friends is obvious.

You should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Faith-F.../dp/0393330303 Our national history has been shaped by our relationship with the Middle East -- right down to our first battle ship and the Marine Hymn.

-- Jay Beattie.

To be pedantic it wasn't the first battle ship, which wasn't
commissioned until about 90 years after the Derna campaign :-)

That's what I'm saying -- we built our first navy ships because our commercial vessels were being harassed by the Barbary pirates, among others. http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships...ed-States-1797
That was a big step as a new federal government, motivated in large part by our relationship with the Muslim world.


But what I find rather ironic is that in the early 1800's the Barbery
Pirates were pirating ships and holding them for ransom. the U.S.
sailed in with two war ships, shelled the town, captured it with a
force of something like 500 men and disposed the Pasha, replacing him
with a "friend". Everybody involved was a hero, songs were written
about it.

About 200 years later the same thing happened in Somalia. They formed
a committee.

Well, whose ass would you recommend kicking to end piracy in Somalia? It's not like you can depose some pasha and it ends. It's a bunch of down-and-outer fishermen turned thugs, AFAIK. If we moved in a bunch of war ships, they would just have to sit around, waiting for Akbar in a skiff to try to hijack a Maersk container ship. Not even worthy of a verse.

-- Jay Beattie.



No need for a flagged military vessel. There are a host of
private security firms doing very effective antipiracy work
for commercial shipping now. That includes I'm sure a few
Cat-5 type wannabees but also retired British SBS, US
Special Forces etc.

Any bets on Achmed & Kemal vs. ex-Spetsnaz Russians?

http://antipirates.org/

Back in the Old Days when piracy was rife in the Malacca Straits there
was a couple of security companies in Singapore that used to provide
"security" for shipping in the Straits.

From a newspaper article in the Straits Times newspaper, these people
would board in Singapore with some boxes and packages, the ship would
sail and the extra people would disembark in Penang - after the ship
was though the straits.

Strangely, I don't remember reading about pirate attacks being beaten
off but apparently the frequency dropped as the practice of carrying
security company people died out in a couple of years.

Now, of course, it is a multi-national effort with the Indonesian,
Malaysian and Singapore navies involved.


If I recall the rash of pirated oil transports there in the
1990s turned out to be (possibly renegade but who knows)
PLAN operations with their own docks and terminals. They
were eventually hanged, probably for not paying off the
right Party members I assume.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971