"With the creation of the maser in 1954, the promise of unlocking unlimited sources of fusion atomic energy from the heavy hydrogen in sea water and consequently the availability of unlimited social power was a possibility only decades away."

Energy resources and the ability to control those resources to control populations is the linchpin for those who would maintain power and empire-Since the 50's the planet has had the technological capacity to work to achieve this, yet we still float along using oil, coal, natural gas, and fucking fusion reactors (idiocy) etc., as the primary means of producing energy.
Why?? Did the world suddenly stop spinning in one direction and fall into a retrograde orbit? Do the agencies in control of releasing information to the general public continue to suppress not only this information while feeding us disinformation??-This practice does not suddenly disappear simply because wars are fought and won, they are maintained because they work to keep empires alive and viable.

Compile a list of names of anyone who has introduced theories who have been methodically and systematically repressed or lambasted, and you will find a pattern. Nikola Tesla, Wilhelm Reich, Viktor Schauberger, Thomas Townsend Brown, Eugene Mallove, Stanley Meyer, most of whom were killed or forced into seclusion, are just a short and rather famous list of mavericks in the quest for energy alternatives in use since the onset of the industrial era. What about the average joes who have managed to create from parts in their sheds, devices which increase the efficiency of fuel engines? Most are bought out or disappear shortly after the public manages t oget wind of their successes. Accident?? Coincidence?? TO BELIEVE THIS IS FOLLY, THE WORST KIND....DENIAL-is only there because the information needed to make proper conclusions is repressed, altered, or driven out as insanity or hogwash.

Control energy, control mankind, it's simple. We have had free or incredibly cheap and renewable energy for some time now, but assholes who think they know what is best for the planet hold all the keys, and have put all the locks in place. It is the task of everyone to become locksmiths.

>> ^Drax:
>> ^osama1234:
This reminds me of Ann Coulter's "Canada sent troop to vietnam" type thing, where the canadian reporter said, " no we didn't sent throops". She then replied, "No, I'm sure, they did".

...and they did.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Canada_send_troops_to_Vietnam
Quite a few in fact, it sounds.
Canada awarded medals to 1,550 of these troops for their service between August 7, 1954 and January 28, 1973.


Did you even read past the title?

The "wikianswer" you've linked to says the Canadian "troops" (sic) were "part of the International Control Commission for Vietnam, a neutral body meant to oversee and report on the peace deal that ended the first indochina war (French vs. Vietminh" (sic) So, if we are to take this grammatically-challenged anonymous article at it's word, there are 2 major problems with it.

1) The International Control Commission is an international body, not Canadian.
2) They were sent as peacekeepers, not military "troops".

Be more critical of what you read.

>> ^osama1234:
This reminds me of Ann Coulter's "Canada sent troop to vietnam" type thing, where the canadian reporter said, " no we didn't sent throops". She then replied, "No, I'm sure, they did".


...and they did.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Canada_send_troops_to_Vietnam

Quite a few in fact, it sounds.
Canada awarded medals to 1,550 of these troops for their service between August 7, 1954 and January 28, 1973.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
*promote

Don't talk about how "spot on" something is if you have no idea about it. If you really want to know something about the church's history regarding blacks, study this web site: http://www.blacklds.org/history

The government of the United States also has a history of racism and discrimination toward black people, but current members of government aren't accused of being racist just because their organization has a history of racist members. Members of U.S. government are welcome to cite examples from the Civil Rights movement in discussions of civil liberties, although they are part of the very entity that opposed that movement in the past. I don't see this as hypocrisy. I see this as progression.

I do not seek to justify the racist statements made by leaders of the church, but to explain that neither Joseph Smith nor the doctrines of the church were racist in any way, and that the church has long since left behind those policies. There is here an important distinction between policy and doctrine.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was one of the first religions to baptize and ordain black people. Joseph Smith himself ordained Elijah Abel, a black man, who later became a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, a leadership position holding the High Priesthood, in 1936. Joseph Smith opposed slavery, but is often misunderstood on this subject. Like many religionists of his day, in 1936 he believed that slavery was a curse upon the seed of Canaan, but he did not use this as a justification for slavery. He stated that God would abolish slavery in his own time. In 1944, he ran for president on an anti-slavery platform. http://www.blacklds.org/Aprilma

In March 1842, Joseph Smith wrote the following in a letter on the subject of slavery, "I have just been perusing your correspondence with Doctor Dyer, on the subject of American slavery, and the students of the Quincy Mission Institute, and it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule? I fear for my beloved country mob violence, injustice and cruelty appear to be the darling attributes of Missouri, and no man taketh it to heart! O tempora! O mores! What think you should be done?"

In January 1843, on the "situation of the negro," Joseph Smith said:

"They came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on." http://www.blacklds.org/quotes#boil

While Joseph Smith was acting as mayor, "a colored man named Anthony was arrested for selling liquor on Sunday, contrary to law. He pleased that the reason he had done so was that he might raise the money to purchase the liberty of a dear child held as a slave in a Southern State. He had been able to purchase the liberty of himself and his wife and now wished to bring his little child to their new home. Joseph said, ‘I am sorry, Anthony, but the law must be observed and we will have to impose a fine.’ The next day Brother Joseph presented Anthony with a fine horse, directing him to sell it, and use the money obtained for the purchase of the child."

"The horse was Joseph’s prized white stallion, and was worth about $500; a huge sum at the time. With the money from the sale, Anthony was able to purchase his child out of slavery."

Concerning the ban on blacks from the priesthood, it would appear that following Joseph Smith's martyrdom, certain members claimed that Smith believed that blacks were not entitled to the priesthood, although the overwhelming flood of evidence suggests that Joseph Smith was not racist, that he was anti-slavery, and that he believed that blacks were entitled to all of the same blessings of the church as other members.

An account of how the priesthood ban on blacks falsely came into being:

1879, Abraham Smoot (the owner of 2 slaves) and Zebedee Coltrin claim Joseph Smith instituted the Priesthood ban in the 1830s (L. John Nuttal diary, May 31, 1879, pg. 170, Special Collections, BYU). The Smoot affidavit, attested to by L. John Nuttall, appears to refer only to a policy concerning slaves, rather than to all Blacks, since it deals with the question of baptism and ordination of Blacks who had "masters". This affidavit says that Smoot, "W.W. Patten, Warren Parish and Tomas B. Marsh were laboring in the Southern States in 1835 and 1836. There were Negroes who made application for baptism. And the question arose with them whether Negroes were entitled to hold the Priesthood. And…it was decided they would not confer the Priesthood until they had consulted with the Prophet Joseph; and subsequently they communicated with him. His decision was they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their Masters. In after years when I became acquainted with Joseph myself in Far West, about the year 1838, I received from Brother Joseph substantially the same instructions. It was on my application to him, what should be done with the Negro in the South, as I was preaching to them. He said I could baptize them by consent of their masters, but not to confer the Priesthood upon them" (quoted in Wm. E. Berret, Historian, BYU VP of CES, The Church and the Negroid People).

But Coltrin says the ban was to be universally applied to all blacks. In L. John Nuttal’s Journal (pages 290-293) we find, "Saturday, May 31st, 1879, at the house of President Abraham O. Smoot, Provo City, Utah, Utah County, at 5 O’Clock p.m. President John Taylor, Elders Brigham Young, Abraham O. Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin and L. John Nuttall met. Coltrin: I have heard him [Joseph Smith] say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood." According to Coltrin, "…Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, ‘Brother Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.’… Brother Coltrin further said: ‘Brother (Elijah) Abel was ordained a Seventy because he had labored on the Temple…and when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum, and another was put in his place. I was one of the 1st Seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy at the time he was dropped.’" Coltrin claims that Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy sometime before or during 1837 when Joseph Smith Jr. learned that Abel was Black. Apostle Joseph F. Smith successfully argues against this point on the grounds of Abel’s two additional certificates of ordination to the office of Seventy, one dated 1841 and the other from some time in the 1850s after Abel arrived in Salt Lake City. Coltrin’s memory is shown to be unreliable in at least two specifics: His claimed date (1834) for Joseph Smith’s announcing the alleged ban is impossible, since Coltrin himself ordained Abel a Seventy in 1836. Also, he incorrectly identifies which of the quorums of Seventy Abel was ordained to. Abel, on the other hand, claims that "the prophet Joseph told him he was entitled to the priesthood." President John Taylor, on the other hand, said that Abel’s ordination as a Seventy "was allowed to remain". The other element that makes Coltrin’s story suspect is the claim that Joseph didn’t know Abel was black. Anyone who has looked at a picture of Abel has easily identified him as a black man.

From the Council meeting minutes of 4 June 1879 (Bennion papers as quoted in Neither White nor Black, Bush and Maas, Signature Books, pg. 101, note 29.)

Five days after Coltrin related his account: "Brother Joseph F. Smith said he thought brother Coltrin’s memory was incorrect as to Brother Abel being dropped from the quorum of the Seventies, to which he belonged, as brother Abel had in his possession, (which also he had shown brother J. F. S.) his certificate as a Seventy, given to him in 1841, and signed by Elder Joseph Young,Sen., and A.P. Rockwood, and a still a later one given in this city. Brother Abel’s account of the persons who washed and anointed him in the Kirtland Temple also disagreed with the statement of Brother Coltrin, whilst he stated that brother Coltrin ordained him a Seventy. Brother Abel also states that the Prophet Joseph told him that he was entitled to the priesthood."

Because this policy was never explained, many members of the church sought to explain the ban, and they turned out to be very misguided.

President David O. Mckay said in 1954 that “There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the Negro...it is a practice, not a doctrine, and the doctrine some day will be changed."

In 1988, Elder Dallin Oaks, the man originally quoted in this rant, said "It is not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons...some people put reasons to [the ban], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and elaborated on by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to be uneccessary risk-taking...The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent."

In 1981, Elder Bruce R Mckonkie said, "Forget everything I have said, or what … Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said … that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

I admire anyone who got through all of that. The same kind of misunderstandings occur on the topic of Native Americans.

I think that the church's past of racism is shameful and sad, but I feel strongly that it has no bearing on the current state of affairs. Many individual members of the church may be racist, but it is not a racist church.

Thanks buddy, though it looks like it didn´t help much.
Classical music clips are a bitch to sift.
Thanks for the effort though!

In reply to this comment by siftbot:
Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by kronosposeidon.

Remember, Schiff was the only person to effectively predict the economic hardship.

I beg to differ.

And if Schiff did so well to predict what was going to happen to the economy, why is it that his portfolio underperformed? Recall Schiff predicted $2000/oz to happen this year, in effect betting on inflation but what ultimately happened was that deflation became the greater danger -- this sent the dollar to unrealistic heights against most major currencies, and even against gold while US treasury yields went negative -- all signs of a deflationary market. This year, gold returned to mid $900 but has gone sideways ever since -- just 4 months left for gold to double in price for Schiff to be proven right.

When judging prognosticators one must be aware of one's tendency to only remember the hits and forgetting the misses.

Timeline of successful transplants

1905: First successful cornea transplant by Eduard Zirm[9]
1954: First successful kidney transplant by Joseph Murray (Boston, U.S.A.)
1966: First successful pancreas transplant by Richard Lillehei and William Kelly (Minnesota, U.S.A.)
1967: First successful liver transplant by Thomas Starzl (Denver, U.S.A.)
1967: First successful heart transplant by Christiaan Barnard (Cape Town, South Africa)
1981: First successful heart/lung transplant by Bruce Reitz (Stanford, U.S.A.)
1983: First successful lung lobe transplant by Joel Cooper (Toronto, Canada)
1986: First successful double-lung transplant (Ann Harrison) by Joel Cooper (Toronto, Canada)
1987: First successful whole lung transplant by Joel Cooper (St. Louis, U.S.A.)
1995: First successful laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy by Lloyd Ratner and Louis Kavoussi (Baltimore, U.S.A.)
1998: First successful live-donor partial pancreas transplant by David Sutherland (Minnesota, U.S.A.)
1998: First successful hand transplant (France)
2005: First successful partial face transplant (France)
2006: First jaw transplant to combine donor jaw with bone marrow from the patient, by Eric M. Genden (Mount Sinai Hospital, New York)
2008: First successful complete full double arm transplant by Edgar Biemer, Christoph Höhnke and Manfred Stangl (Technical University of Munich, Germany)[citation needed]
2008: First baby born from transplanted ovary.
2008: First transplant of a human windpipe using a patient’s own stem cells.

The footage from this video is from the Movie of the same name
Thunder Road (1954) Directed by Arthur Ripley

"How strange that a film which fetishises the car and is on the surface about speed and movement is, for the most part, so still. The cars used in Thunder Road were sourced from bootleggers, and Mitchum, “was fascinated by the cars. He was very proud of what the car he was driving could do, how it could outrun the police. Mitchum was really into it, like he'd become one of these whiskey runners.” (6) Other than the car chases there is very little action. It is the tension between the calm of the tableaux and the fast cutting of these car chase scenes that give the film its dynamism." - by Simon McLean
http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/02/20/thunder.html

This ignorant fox reporter doesn't know that "under god" was added to the pledge in 1954 as part of McCarthyism.

Conflation of the prohbition against government endorsement with restriction on individuals' free speech is probably either a deliberate ploy to decieve and rile up conservatives, or sheer stupidity.

Well.. if you consider Iraq has the "Coalition" and certain countries sent troops, some for administrative... Then technically the Canadian effort is similar.

Canada did play a minor role with troops there for legislative, media, and administrative duties.

Canada accepts an invitation in July 1954 to join the International Control Commission (ICC), a peacekeeping body designed to oversee the transition. CBC News covers the announcement made by Minister of External Affairs Lester Pearson, who cautions that the task will be difficult and complicated.

Broadcast Date: Feb. 20, 1966
Despite a law making it illegal, many individual Canadians choose to sign up with the U.S. armed forces to fight in Vietnam. While most go south of the border to sign up, one man has asked the Canadian government for permission to put together a 1200-man Canadian unit to train and fight with the Americans.

^Doc_M
Well my friend. I've looked at the evidence and I believe. Cook that in your oven. I'm an inch away from Ph.D. and Dawkins is so plainly a D-bag, it almost makes him the definition of such.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Biography

Richard Dawkins has a Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford (the wiki is very badly worded), and a Masters in Zoology.

"Dawkins attended Oundle School from 1954 to 1959. He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen, graduating in 1962. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision at the University of Oxford, receiving his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966, while staying as a research assistant for another year.[13] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly the questions of instinct, learning and choice.[17] Dawkins' research in this period concerned models of animal decision making.[18]"

a myth isn't a lie. You could say that every movie is a lie, every story in a book is a lie. Do you do that? No. If it is a lie it a special kind of lie - the lies we HAVE to tell our selves in order to live.

The person who thinks he doesn't tell himself any liss is the one bonkers.
Society must have it's illusions. The relationship of illusion to our mind is like air to our bodies, utterly necessary yet so obvious people forget it's there.



The Cultivation of Christmas Trees

There are several attitudes towards Christmas,
Some of which we may disregard:
The social, the torpid, the patently commercial,
The rowdy (the pubs being open till midnight),
And the childish - which is not that of the child
For whom the candle is a star, and the gilded angel
Spreading its wings at the summit of the tree
Is not only a decoration, but an angel.
...


-T.S.Eliot, 1954

If the CIA hadn't deposed Mossadeq for oil in 1954, we could have had a modern secular liberal ally in Iran today. The entire Iranian Revolution was a reaction against the butal dictatorship set up by the USA as a replacement for Mossadeq the liberal democrat, and old time religion was a convenient thing for that revolution to rally around. There are tons of Iranian exile diaspora, whose necessary flight during that revolution has made Iran a much less liberal, less secular, and less democratic place. If only Mossadeq had been left in place, the reasonable Iranians would have had a popular democratic incumbancy to rally around and the bloody theocratic revolution probably never would have happened.

End the Cuban embargo for fuck's sake. If there's enough trade between two countries, economic necessity prevents them from warring. No country that size would ever in their right mind attack the USA besides. If politicians really wanted Cuba to assimilate into capitalist orthodoxy, they would drop the trade embargo to promote cultural diffusion. But they keep the old hatreds alive so that they can have a useful boogeyman to point to when they want to scare the people into supporting some demagoguery. I suspect that's also why the Pentagon ordered the elite unit that nearly had Bin Laden in their crosshairs to hold the attack plans (as was reported on 60 minutes recently).

The USA's involvement with Pinochet was also inexcusable.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Giant-Radioactive-Ants-will-be-the-End-of-Man-THEM-1954