Savant,I have been waiting for you to offer your insight into the financial situation in Ireland-what gives???
What a tragedy.Just think what the TSA is missing.
Let's start a rumor that the purpose of the scanners is to sterilize blacks.
AHH YES A 53 CHEVY, I SHOULD OF GOT A ACADEMY AWARD FOR SOME OF THE PERFORMANCES I GAVE IN BOTH THE FRONT AND BACK SEATS OF SAME. GREAT CAR/
Me too! A bench seat at the back of that Chevy. Supported some of my best performances!!!
Savant - same here as anon at top: what's your take on the the EU (including the UK) mega-bucks bail-out package for Ireland?You clearly seem to have some knowledge and informed views on these matters - be good to hear them.Re the picture: illegals might have to go to these lengths entering the USA but, entering the EU, they can comfortably discard the old chassis and simply walk quite brazenly in...
Hi guys, several ask me about the economy, or what's left of it in Ireland. Well, I've already written about recently here http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2010/11/heres-to-our-loss-of-sovereignty.htmland also forecast the whole shambles as far back as march 2007. I dont call myself Savant for nothing!
Yes, they don't need to do that in Europe. Just stroll in and shout 'racists discrimination' and all he wants is his.
Kulak, it's unfortunatly the opposite. Fair skin people will take the shit.There is an article on Time, that I accessed through CNN wen site. It's called:"Strip search: how safe are airports' new X-ray scanners" by Alice Parks. Oct. 09, 2010.Three quotes:"...scientists wondered how the radiation exposure could be so low. The answer, they concluded, lay in how the manufacturer and government officials measured the dose...""Sedat and his colleagues maintain that if the dose were based only on skin exposure, the result would be 10 to 20 times the manufacturer's calculations"And worst of all:"Widespread use of the technology is especially worrisome to critics given the number of children who fly. Their skin is more vulnerable to the damage that radiation is capable of causing to DNA, which can transform a normal cell into a cancerous one. Similar concerns apply to those with genetic mutations that predispose them to breast cancer..."This article originally appeared in the October 4, 2010 issue of Time magazine.Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2021072,00.html#ixzz16IuzzNZTTo make matter worse, skin cells from children divide more actively than adult cells. A mutation in the skin cell of a 50 years adult might not have the time to developp into a cancer (it can take more than 30 years) but it will certainly have the time in a child. The result, it is inevitable that these scanners will cause a certain number of cancers in the most sensitive populations (fair skin). Adults and especially kids with moles and spots in their skin are epecially at risk. This is my case and my 7 years old daughter. I will ask her to be patted rather than irradiated.You have to understand the scientific language. When scientists say they are 'confident' that the scanners are not a 'significant' health hazard, it means that they 'think' 1)there will be so few cancers and death related that the health risk will not seem much of a big deal in the 2050 TV news.2)victims won't be able to prove that the cause of their cancer was these so-called 'safe' scanners, while travelling 30 years earlyer. Therefore victims won't sue anybody.I think scientists make a mistake in both cases. It is very likely that the technology will allow to 'date' more or less precisely how old are the mutations in the cancerous cells of a patient. I think that a patient who could prove that a mutation occured in his cells at about the same time that he was traveling and scanned 20 years earlyer, could have ground to sue whoever was in charge, especially if the patient was a child at this time and the scanning was done with 'peer pressure'. Also, notice that many of those who label the scanner as safe, travel in private jets, were no scanning is probably required. And finally, it will be hard to explain to a cancerous patient of the future why these scanners were cosidered so safe while at the same time pilots made such a big deal to avoid them and were effectively allowed to skip them.My final remarks are about the ridiculous of the situation and the danger of education for the system.Ridiculous, because the so called hunt for terrorism will cause many more cancers in white children that it will save them from terrorism. Savan't picture is funny with the black legs sticking out of the car, but somehow, people of the future will make as much fun with us with our kids being irradiated for our own good.And danger of education because I expected what the article in Time said. Simply based on my education in biology I could predict that pregant women are not at risk because the radiation can not penetrate deep and touch the foetus, but that children with colored and raised moles are at very great risk and should not pass the scanner.
Dear Savant!To think of Ireland's financial difficulties saddens me. The thought that you personally could be affacted by said difficulties is unbearable. I therefore present to you: "Hitler's plan to save Ireland". Yes - I know that whole Barbarossa thingie didn't work so good, but doesn't everybody deserve a second chance? Check out what he has to say. After all, what have you left to lose at this point?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryqaGPMWFMM&feature=player_embedded
I wonder how many are in the trunk.
Lioux IX. Seems we get it no matter what happens!!!
Speaking of the economy, does anyone know if the bailout conditions include the turning away of all asylum seekers who haven't come from the country they claim to be fleeing? Even the insane conditions of the refugee treaties don't require the admission of anyone who has come through a third country. If Ireland had adhered to that, not a single Nigerian could have entered this country in the last ten years. Merely restricting entry to people who haven't passed through a third country would have saved us several billion in the past ten or twelve years. In any properly-run state, the politicians and administrators responsible for this not being done would be serving lengthy prison terms. But there's an even bigger nightmare in store for us in the near future.If the planned children's rights amendment to the Constitution goes ahead, it will be impossible to deport anyone who has spent any time in this country with a child, whether born here or brought in. The amendment is to give priority to the interests of any child involved in a legal case. The child's interests will trump any immigration law anyone can think of. The immigrant's lawyer will only have to argue that the child will be better off here than in, say, Nigeria or Somalia, and it wouldn't take a brilliant advocate to argue that.I can also see this amendment strengthening the case against direct provision for asylum seekers, the system whereby they're held in special centres with minimal allowances while their cases are pending, instead of being launched straight into the welfare system with a house and full benefits. This has undoubtedly been a deterrent to asylum fraudsters. This amendment is supposed to conform to some UN rule or other, which should be enough to warn anyone that it's pure poison.
Dear anon - thanks for your helpful link concerning Hitler's plan to save Ireland. As you mention, Barbarossa wasn't exactly seen as an unqualified sucess by its intended beneficiaries but I'll nonetheless carefully study the suggested material.
Rob - yes, there would never have been a refugee problem in Ireland had we enforced the Dublin II Convention, and especially after we eliminated, by overwhelming majority, the Irish born child racket.You're right again about the new childrens' rights legislation. This would have the effect of almost overturning the referendum results.And with our madcap judges administering it, you can be sure the worst possible outcome would arise.
Puts a whole new light on "put the pedal to the metal..."
What do you think of Jim Corr's latest video.
"What do you think of Jim Corr's latest video." What about it?
The US government currently has several times the number of personnel working in the TSA as screeners at airports than it has in the Border Patrol guarding the frontiers. The TSA's main job seems to be viewing x-ray erotica and feeling up grandmothers and little children. They have yet to catch a single terrorist. Meantime, the US southern border has been overrun by the mass migration of third worlders, so you can really see where the government's priorities are set.How do European travelers view the security arrangements at US airports? To a lot of us here in the "homeland" they look quite Orwellian.
Yeah, what aboutJim Corr's latest video.?
Post a Comment