Hey,

Merry crate day to all who celebrate this spiritual occasion through the utilisation of food, drink and socialisation. Of coarse Crate Day is the day were we all pack up the boxes we used on Boxing Day to store presents from Christmas Day into crates, thus we have Crate Day. Tomorrow as I’m sure you know, is shipping container day.

I only just realized that there’s only 362 days until Christmas! Better get up the Christmas Tree!

I have spend the majority of my morning playing Left for Dead #1 (Yes, I live in Australia) and taking pictures with my edible camera (not for eating.) Then I got a chocolate headache and went back to bed. Yes, yes my life is this interesting. Fact.

-adophonehome

_________________________________________________________

http://twitter.com/pseudoado

“One man with courage makes a majority. One man with different skin color makes a minority.” Andrew Jackson

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091216/ap_on_go_ot/us_white_minority

The great browser wars have been raging for many years now. Netscape used to be a player. Now the majority players are Internet Explorer 7 and Firefox 2.0.

Read the original:
Internet Browsers – There is Now One That Pays You to Use it

Art lover at heart? Santa Fe has been voted one of America’s top three art cities, thanks to the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum, Museum of New Mexico, and Museum of Fine Arts, among others.

Skiing and hiking enthusiast? Sangre de Cristo, a mountain region popular for skiing, hiking near Santa Fe is the place for you.
Religiously inclined? The Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi, the Loretto Chapel and the Cross of the Martyrs are there, just for you.

Shopping buff? Santa Fe has it all.

Santa Fe is the capital of the state of New Mexico, USA. Nestled in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains at 7,000 feet, Santa Fe has been voted as one of the most popular travel destination in the US and in the top twenty most popular in the world.
Santa Fe called “City Different,” is steeped in Spanish history and on the cutting edge of modern technology.

Here’s a little more about the Loretto Chapel which was completed in 1882. The Miraculous staircase is the high light of this Chapel. The Miraculous Staircase has 33 steps and makes two complete turns of 360°. The staircase, unlike every other spiral staircase in the world, has no center support and no one can really explain how the thing stands up and bears the weight.

Who actually built the Miraculous Staircase? Some people think it was St. Joseph himself.
One other site that is to be visited is the 18,000 white grave markers, creating a moving sight against verdant hills. At sunset the site is unforgettable when nature’s beauty and history’s tragedies create a moving image. The rows of white crosses climbing the perfectly manicured lawns are truly a sight to behold.

And finally let’s not forget the state Capitol located on Old Santa Fe Trail between East de Vergas and Paseo de Peralta. The building resembles the Zia sun symbol on the state flag. The Capitol houses a large regional art and sculpture collection.

A bustling plaza sits in the center of the city where visitors can enjoy a number of fine restaurants, trendy shops, and art galleries.

Let Santa Fe be your next holiday destination!!!!

I obviously can’t predict the future, but from most accounts people from or of Latin American descent will make the majority or largest slice of the demographic pie of America’s population. I believe this will have major unforeseeable cultural and political consequences. I personally am excited to be alive to see a very big shift in American society with my own eyes. If this shift will be positive or negative is up in the air for me, but I believe there is potential for this to be made into a positive shift, but of course with anything, this won’t come without a fight.
If history is any guide, we don’t have too much to look forward to per se. Previous mass waves of immigrants from Europe, such as Italy, Germany, Ireland and others had initially promising outlooks from a radical leftist perspective in that many came with socialist and anarchist ideals already and their activism did not stop when they migrated. The importance of immigrants to radical politics in the late 19th and early 20th century can be best shown by the emergence of language federations in the various socialist parties of America. But despite this promise, what do have we today? Assimilation and inclusion of these descendents of immigrants into white privilege has stripped them of their radical history. Irish immigrants that were victims of police brutality back in the day would find it incredibly odd that now police culture in many places reflect Irish influences. I guess to state it simply the victim has become the victimizer in many cases.
For me the question is, will this happen to the descendents of Latin American immigrants? I’m leaning towards yes. But things are complicated with regards to race. Latin America has a wide range of races and cultures, how can they all be included into the privileges that come with assimilation and white privilege. I think they can’t, and the old strategy of divide and conquer will come into play. I think what I’m about to describe is already playing out. Many Latin American countries have large indigenous or mestizo populations but when you look at the politicians, the wealthy, the models, and the people on TV you’d think otherwise. If you turn on a Mexican television channel, you’d think most Mexicans are light skinned with “European” features. Same thing with the president and so on. But we don’t have large amounts of this racial Mexican elite coming into the U.S. we have the mestizo and indigenous rural Mexicans coming in droves. But as the further you go south, in regard to immigration populations go the wealthier and sometimes “whiter” you get. Like previously noted many Mexicans that come to the U.S. are from rural areas, small towns and the like. Despite not being easy it is cheap (not cheap really but cheaper then say for some one who has to buy a plane ticket) for a Mexican to come into U.S. Poor people in nations that don’t share a border with the U.S. don’t have this opportunity, but the people that can afford to migrate to the U.S. though not always super rich, I would say are of a higher social class than these rural Mexicans. When I went to Colombia for the first time, I never knew Colombians could be so dark and could have “indigenous” features. From my exposure to Colombians in the U.S. they were mostly lighter skinned. My guess is that the tiny middle class of Colombia is the only social class in Colombia who’d want to leave Colombia due to economic hardship but also have the money to afford to. I’ve seen this in that many Colombian immigrants that I know used to be professionals in Colombia. This is not too saying all Colombians are not working classes, I’ve met many working class Colombian immigrants as well, but the trend still stands. I’d say for most if not all Latin American countries south of Central America, this is the general trend. Despite their relative poverty to Americans, these Latin Americans that are part of this tiny middle class of Latin America, are perfect candidates for inclusion of white privilege and assimilation. Educated, light skinned, they would be perfect uncle toms to use to scoff at their darker skinned, less educated Latin American brothers and sisters in America. This isn’t a theory for me as much as a reality. In my youth I was attracted to radical politics by ethnic nationalism, but this all came crashing down when I saw my Latin American peers, who were not Mexican, talk of Mexicans as if they were animals. Many Latin Americans who are not Mexican are insulted if you suggest they might be. This could be due to a perceived ignorance of Americans that there are no other Latin American countries other than Mexico, but also, as has been the case that I’ve seen, it’s because they don’t want to be compared to those revolting indigenous looking Mexicans.
Another important piece of the puzzle are Cuban Americans. Cuban Americans aren’t a majority of Latin American immigrants but they are the most successful. I would say this is because of the initial wave of upper class Cuban immigration following the Cuban revolution, setting up a Cuban American community that was not without resources, and also happened to be very white. Another reason for success of Cubans in America is because of Cuba itself. Cuba in comparison to other Latin American countries has a solid education system, the average Cuban immigrant, if not professionally trained is still more educated than the average Mexican immigrant. Also Cubans are 65% white, I think the psychological acceptance of immigrants that are more like the dominant culture visually is easier on an otherwise exclusive club. Most people know that Cuban Americans are aligned with the right, the reason for this, I would say partly due to the revulsion of left due to Cuba’s “Communism” but mostly due to it’s initial upper class immigrant base.
Most mainstream Latin American advocacy groups seem to be vying for just another piece of the pie. In many instances I’ve already noticed many Latin Americans replicating the dominants culture, asking the tired old question “If me a Latin American immigrant can make it here in America, why can’t blacks?” The Republican Party, who must realize that soon a majority of voters will be of Latin American descent, is appealing to Latin American’s supposed cultural conservatism. I suspect that many children of the “whiter” more educated Latin American population will move into the middle class or even higher changing their preference for workers rights to property rights. This could be in the rights favor, for obvious reasons. I think the battle for Latin American’s souls has already begun and the left is losing this fight, I could be wrong though.
After all that, what is to be done? Well I obviously propose that radical leftists in America should strategically make in roads with the Latin American immigrant population, being their allies when no one else will be. I think this should be a top priority for radical leftists in America not because I am a son of Latin American immigrants, but because of the fact that descendents of Latin American immigrants in the future will be the majority and will make or break elections.

WASHINGTON – The estimated time when whites will no longer make up the majority of Americans has been pushed back eight years — to 2050 — because the recession and stricter immigration policies have slowed the flow of foreigners into the U.S.

Census Bureau figures released Wednesday update last year’s prediction that white children would become a minority in 2023 and the overall white population would follow in 2042. The earlier estimate did not take into account a drop in the number of people moving into the U.S. because of the economic crisis and the immigration policies imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The 2050 estimate is one of four projections released that is based on rates for births and deaths and a scenario in which immigration continues its more recent, slower pace of adding nearly 1 million new foreigners each year. Demographers said that scenario offers the best look for now at the future demographic makeup based on current conditions, rather than other models which assume higher rates of immigration.

The United States has 308 million people today; two-thirds are non-Hispanic whites.

The total population should climb to 399 million by 2050, under the new projection, with whites making up 49.9 percent of the population. Blacks will make up 12.2 percent, virtually unchanged from today. Hispanics, currently 15 percent of the population, will rise to 28 percent in 2050.

Asians are expected to increase from 4.4 percent of the population to 6 percent.

The point when minority children become the majority is expected to have a similar delay of roughly eight years, moving from 2023 to 2031.

The population 85 and older is projected to more than triple by 2050, to 18.6 million.

The actual shift in demographics will be influenced by a host of factors that can’t be accurately forecast — the pace of the economic recovery, cultural changes, natural or manmade disasters, as well as an overhaul of immigration law, which may be debated in Congress as early as next year.

As a result, the Census Bureau said the projections should be used mostly as a guide.

The agency also released numbers showing projections based on “high” rates of immigration — more likely if more-flexible government policies and a booming U.S. economy attract large numbers of foreigners — as well as “low” immigration, a possible scenario if U.S. policies don’t change much while the economy substantially improves.

_With high immigration, the minority “tipping point” is moved up to 2040, two years earlier than the previous estimate. At that time, Asians would have a much larger share, at 8 percent, since their population growth is more dependent on immigration than birth rates.

_With low immigration, the “tipping point” arrives by 2045.

Under a purely theoretical “zero immigration” scenario in which the U.S. effectively does not take in any immigrants, whites would remain the majority in 2050, making up a solid 58 percent of the U.S. population. In such a case, the share of Hispanics would increase to 21 percent because of high fertility rates and a younger population.

Under a “zero immigration” model, the 65 and older population also grows substantially faster, comprising nearly 1 in 4 Americans.

“These projections show that immigration will serve to replenish our labor force as baby boomers age into retirement and make our population younger without overburdening our schools and other community resources,” said William H. Frey, a demographer at Brookings Institution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091216/ap_on_go_ot/us_white_minority

“THE UNSIGHTED MAJORITY” Photographic print – Courtesy of the FANTOM FACTION

From the mouths of babes: a sobering look at why one Arkansas 10-year-old refused to pledge allegiance to the flag.

I continue to ask: had we seen “democracy at work” during segregation, much like it is seen now (with defeat after referendum defeat), would the voters at large then have given “liberty and justice” to Blacks? Given the state of racist legacy in this country, it’s a question with an obvious answer.

Denying the LGBT minority social class its fundamental Constitutional right to marry is the new American Segregation. Welcome to progress.

Via CNN: Boy Won’t Pledge Allegiance (video)

: : : : : : : : : : :

This first year of a majority in Congress as immune as one party could hope to be together with the great fanfare which greeted their elected President could have ended on a bit better note.

When one party owns the Capitol and the White House it runs amok with its own agenda. The ability of dissent from debate to impact legislation, whether it come from the minority or from fringe members, is severely restricted. In fact, the debate itself can be as vehemently principled and superbly argued as any and yet lead to no effect on outcome. This is one of the problems that arise at the intersection of democratic mechanics and political persuasion. Ideas and initiatives borne of variety, the creativity borne  of negotiation, itself required only when minorities (non-majority parties and minorities within majorities) have any real perceived countering influence.

So it is that with one appreciable concession made this year on any of the big bills passed this year was the unsettled Stupak amendment to the House’s health care reform measure. Seriously—this is the one notable compromise we’ve seen in a House of Representatives which in 2009 passed all of its constitutionally mandated appropriations bills on closed rules—no amendments have gone anywhere.

The Stupak amendment repeats the substance of the Hyde amendment, which bans federal abortion funding except in cases of rape or mortal risk to the mother. These are quite rational terms which have been affirmed by the Congress in every instance over the thirty years since the amendment was proposed. Pro-life Democrats are the largest minority within the Democratic majority; pro-choice Republicans are a small minority of the Republican minority, so long as we acknowledge any nuance within the spectrum of positions taken towards life and death at the beginning of our lives.

Either way, the Stupak amendment was passed over the angry objections of liberals in the House, the bipartisan product of overlapping sets of members with concurring views, effected together to the point that liberals were put off and voted against it. The minority with the majority-minority compromised, or rather insisted, followed by another uniform rejection (minus one) of another big bill by the minority and a permissive ‘yea’ vote by the majority-minority. This dynamic will be at play much more so in the Senate, where so far the 60-vote majority successfully tabled the Nelson amendment, which was similarly bipartisan and similarly offensive to Senate liberals.

Last week, the Minnick amendment to the House’s most comprehensive legislative response to the financial meltdown of last year was defeat by the same number of votes as the Frank bill won. This was a similar case. Minnick, the freshman Idaho conservative Democrat and constant source of mischief to his leadership, offered an amendment to open bipartisan support and opposition which would have taken the institutional and budgetary edge off of the so-called consumer protection act. That it failed the way it did says as much about the House, its approach to reforming Wall St, its approach to reforming the failed regulatory structure which enabled and exacerbated last year’s collapse, and its approach to dissension, within its majority-minority.

When the Congress was taken by the Republicans in 1995, a Democratic president had come against great opposition in the country over a number of things, among them the actions of the Democratically controlled Congress. Mandates misinterpreted, tinkering with the military both socially (homosexuals) and politically (shrinking the military even as it was called overseas), interventions failed, and the constitutionally-significant threat of the line-item veto (even if I overstate it) produced a Republican Congress. Along with the exuberance and intellectual force of the incoming Republicans, the newly necessary conciliatory tone of relations between the legislative branch and the executive took form over a period of time, through great difficulty and consternation.

But most Americans would remember the late 1990s with general fondness. The work product of Clinton’s White House with Gingrich’s House and Dole’s (and Lott’s) Senate is now highly regarded. They left a healthy budgetary surplus, economic growth, and peace (all of which should be measured against governments before and since, for scale if not for positivity). Despite noteworthy caveats—the dot com bubble, continued hostilities with Iraq, terrorist attacks—it was precisely the head-on collision of political ideologies and approaches to governance which birthed a period most Americans now wish to return to.

Therefore, with a Congress absolutely run amok and yet a golden boy in the White House with great potential yet, I propose the best thing that could happen to this country—as litigious and painful as it would feel at first: return to Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

I would worry not whether the minority retakes a supermajority in the Senate; I would insist on it in the House. We have witnessed too much rampant spending, too much unbridled growth in government, too little improvement under the Democratic majority. Perhaps it is that they recognized the rare opportunity they had (they will openly, depending on the agenda item), worth seizing therefore on all fronts their legislative prerogatives to the exclusion of public opinion, the minority, and their own majority-minority. Perhaps the chance was now theirs to jam through a variety of initiatives finally at hand after reclaiming the Congress, with a now-reviled president like Bush in the White House.

So, Golden Boy can glow yet—with a Republican Congress. It would be best for both sides in a number of healthy ways (again, won’t look friendly or feel positive). The President’s skills are rhetorical, his attitudes academic. This last becomes a skill which could be activated and with which he could really impress us. With the Democrats’ ascension and the treatment of their outgoing president, Republicans could have been expected to veer right, and they have in large measure. Some modicum of moderation, whether as the majority or the minority, would be productive at best, and at least. Moderates do exist in the Democratic majority; they are harder to spot both in the current Republican minority and in the populace. One party is fractious on account of itself; the other is unified and marginal.

I have been told that one aim of the majority during the second session of the 111th Congress will be great constituent services. With this personalized piece, they hope to keep their majority status. The House is projected to be in session much less than in the first session, which featured so many huge, flawed pieces of legislation jammed through on bad processes. Let my friends across the country not be redirected by this approach. Let them not be so short-memoried that the legislative and economic devastation of this year are at the forefront in 2010.

The Democratic majorities in Congress will serve in the final analysis to have stifled the President’s ability to really shine, even as they have done nearly everything he wanted. This shortcoming is a failure of democratic political conflict. This thinker would like to repeat 1995 in 2011. Moreover, this conservative would love to see Obama re-elected—only if restrained by an opposing Congress.

Panasonic completes its purchase of a 50.2% majority stake in Japanese electronics rival Sanyo…. From BBC News. Full story

This site may contain information about: history of japan. The blog is also related to: living in japan.

In the last 60 years, Republicans have controlled the White House and the Congress for only 6 years.  W. Bush had a united Washington for 4 years (he lost the House before losing the Senate), and Eisenhower had it for 2.  In that same time, Democrats controlled a united Washington for 19 years.  1 under Obama, 2 for Clinton, 4 for Carter, 5 for Johnson, 3 for Kennedy, and 4 for Truman.*  Republicans 10%, Democrats over 30%.

Just something to think about when you hear someone complaining about how all of our problems are the fault of the evil Republican rule we’ve been living under for so long.  Not only did it simply not exist as often described, but most mistakes by our government have had some degree of bipartisan support.

*Truman had a total of 6, but some of those didn’t make the 60 year cut off.

So I guess an update is in our since it’s been the better part of a year since my last post. Here’s the quick and dirty (not really) version: I got a job with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), moved back to Washington DC where I lived for most of my childhood and have been working my tail off for a new initiative within the Bank called Opportunities for the Majority (OMJ). The Majority refers to the 70% of the Latin American and Caribbean population that lives at or below the poverty line. The vast majority of the people… OMJ creates and identifies business models that alleviate poverty and improve quality of life for these low-income communities. We do this by extending loans and other types of credit packages to private-sector companies in the region. And I love it. Best job I’ve every had.

Today was Part II of putting the parties together. As of right now, the class has five parties.

Early on there was a brief attempt at a merging of two groups, the initiating party stating their belief that a major advantage could be won with a consolidation of power. However, this was unsuccessful; the second party reportedly had undergone a ideology shift and the two parties’ goals would not permit a joint effort.

This attempt may underline some initial fears of the people.

Participation in creating policy specific to the values of yourself and your friends is a personal enterprise. The multitude of smaller groups will no doubt reinforce this feeling for many participants.

Unless people are willing to step back from their parties and act as Pollsters, Think Tanks, and Interest Groups, there appears to be a conflict between the need for leaders within these smaller factions and the need for participation outside of the platform-creating parties. Without unaffiliated individuals, or at least individuals willing to be swayed, the largest group may have walked into victory simply by forming in slightly larger numbers.

This potential struggle may be sorted out tomorrow when people have slept on the knowledge of who is now leading their party, and what position they themselves are in to affect the campaign. It is possible that when participants reevaluate the likelihood of election they will redivide according to new compromises of policy.

Length: 3:53

Related: Responsible Government and Confidence; parliamentary language

Rasmussen – the nation’s most accurate polling organization – says the numbers are crystal clear: America doesn’t want ObamaCare.

Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.

Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.

Rasmussen Reports is continuing to track public opinion on the health care plan on a weekly basis. Next week’s Monday morning update will give an indication of whether these numbers reflect a trend of growing opposition or are merely statistical noise.

Only 16% now believe passage of the plan will lead to lower health care costs. Nearly four times as many (60%) believe the plan will increase health care costs. Most (54%) also believe passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.

As has been the case for months, Democrats favor the plan while Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed. The latest numbers show support from 73% of those in the president’s party. The plan is opposed by 83% of Republicans and 70% of unaffiliated voters.

Other recent polling shows that Democrats consider health care reform to be the top priority for the president. Republicans and unaffiliated voters see deficit reduction as most important.

Among the nation’s senior citizens, 34% favor the health care plan and 60% are opposed. A majority of those under 30 favor the plan, but a majority of all other age groups are opposed (Premium Members can see full demographic crosstabs).

Support for health care has declined along with President Obama’s approval ratings. For the first time in the Obama era, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Approval Index has been in negative double digits for nine straight days.

Despite the decline in support for the health care plan, 50% still say it is at least somewhat likely to become law this year. That figure includes 17% who say passage is Very Likely.

While Senate Democrats this weekend assembled enough votes to begin debate on the plan, many challenges remain. All Republican Senators and several Democrats, for example, have expressed opposition to the so-called “public option.” Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a “public option” government-run health insurance company. Most liberal voters say giving people the choice of a “public option” is more important. But most moderates take the opposite view and say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance is the top priority.

Overall, 46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. However, if the plan encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%.

As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent. … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.”

Other challenging issues in the Senate debate include abortion and illegal immigration. Ever since the House’s passage of the Stupak Amendment which says the “public option” would not cover elective abortions and that recipients of federal insurance subsidies could not use them to buy abortion coverage, the divide among Democrats has been visible.

Earlier polling showed that 48% nationwide favored the abortion ban, but most supporters of health care reform didn’t want to address the issue. Just 13% of all voters wanted abortion coverage mandated in the legislation.

The Democrats are on the wrong side of health care – and every single element within their health care plan.  And yet here they are, determined to ram it through (especially before the public can get a chance to know how truly bad the plan is) and impose it on a country that doesn’t want it.

Obama’s approval is now at minus 15 – his lowest recorded number yet.  Only 45% of the country approves of him, versus 54% that disapprove.

You’d think that would matter.  But Democrats seem on a suicide mission to destroy America and destroy our way of life.  Your key words for understanding why: the Cloward-Piven strategy.  First ruin the country and cause it to implode, then assume total control over a desperate and hungry population by offering government as their only savior.

Elections have consequences.  A foolish America may literally pay for electing Democrats with their country.

Americans need to begin giving Democrats hell, or else Democrats will most assuredly give hell to Americans.