Lost Civilization May Have Existed Beneath the Persian Gulf

Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience Managing Editor
LiveScience.com jeanna Bryner
livescience Managing Editor
livescience.com Fri Dec 10, 7:25 am ET

Veiled beneath the Persian Gulf, a once-fertile landmass may have supported some of the earliest humans outside Africa some 75,000 to 100,000 years ago, a new review of research suggests.
At its peak, the floodplain now below the Gulf would have been about the size of Great Britain, and then shrank as water began to flood the area. Then, about 8,000 years ago, the land would have been swallowed up by the Indian Ocean, the review scientist said.
The study, which is detailed in the December issue of the journal Current Anthropology, has broad implications for aspects of human history. For instance, scientists have debated over when early modern humans exited Africa, with dates as early as 125,000 years ago and as recent as 60,000 years ago (the more recent date is the currently accepted paradigm), according to study researcher Jeffrey Rose, an archaeologist at the University of Birmingham in the U.K.
"I think Jeff's theory is bold and imaginative, and hopefully will shake things up," Robert Carter of Oxford Brookes University in the U.K. told LiveScience. "It would completely rewrite our understanding of the out-of-Africa migration. It is far from proven, but Jeff and others will be developing research programs to test the theory."
Viktor Cerny of the Archaeogenetics Laboratory, the Institute of Archaeology, in Prague, called Rose's finding an "excellent theory," in an e-mail to LiveScience, though he also points out the need for more research to confirm it.
The findings have sparked discussion among researchers, including Carter and Cerny, who were allowed to provide comments within the research paper, about who exactly the humans were who occupied the Gulf basin.
"Given the presence of Neanderthal communities in the upper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates River, as well as in the eastern Mediterranean region, this may very well have been the contact zone between moderns and Neanderthals," Rose told LiveScience. In fact, recent evidence from the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome suggests interbreeding, meaning we are part caveman.
[Rewind: Ancient Egyptian artifacts recovered from bank vault]
Watery refuge
The Gulf Oasis would have been a shallow inland basin exposed from about 75,000 years ago until 8,000 years ago, forming the southern tip of the Fertile Crescent, according to historical sea-level records.
And it would have been an ideal refuge from the harsh deserts surrounding it, with fresh water supplied by the Tigris, Euphrates, Karun and Wadi Baton Rivers, as well as by upwelling springs, Rose said. And during the last ice age when conditions were at their driest, this basin would've been at its largest.
In fact, in recent years, archaeologists have turned up evidence of a wave of human settlements along the shores of the Gulf dating to about 7,500 years ago.
[Discovery: 100-million-year-old ancient crocodile]
"Where before there had been but a handful of scattered hunting camps, suddenly, over 60 new archaeological sites appear virtually overnight," Rose said. "These settlements boast well-built, permanent stone houses, long-distance trade networks, elaborately decorated pottery, domesticated animals, and even evidence for one of the oldest boats in the world."
[Video: Hieroglyphic funeral spells discovered in Egypt]
Rather than quickly evolving settlements, Rose thinks precursor populations did exist but have remained hidden beneath the Gulf. [History's Most Overlooked Mysteries]
"Perhaps it is no coincidence that the founding of such remarkably well developed communities along the shoreline corresponds with the flooding of the Persian Gulf basin around 8,000 years ago," Rose said. "These new colonists may have come from the heart of the Gulf, displaced by rising water levels that plunged the once fertile landscape beneath the waters of the Indian Ocean."
Ironclad case?
The most definitive evidence of these human camps in the Gulf comes from a new archaeological site called Jebel Faya 1 within the Gulf basin that was discovered four years ago. There, Hans-Peter Uerpmann of the University of Tubingen in Germany found three different Paleolithic settlements occurring from about 125,000 to 25,000 years ago. That and other archaeological sites, Rose said, indicate "that early human groups were living around the Gulf basin throughout the Late Pleistocene."
To make an ironclad case for such human occupation during the Paleolithic, or early Stone Age, of the now-submerged landmass, Rose said scientists would need to find any evidence of stone tools scattered under the Gulf. "As for the Neolithic, it would be wonderful to find some evidence for human-built structures," dated to that time period in the Gulf, Rose said.
Carter said in order to make for a solid case, "we would need to find a submerged site, and excavate it underwater. This would likely only happen as the culmination of years of survey in carefully selected areas."
Cerny said a sealed-tight case could be made with "some fossils of the anatomically modern humans some 100,000 years old found in South Arabia."
And there's a hint of mythology here, too, Rose pointed out. "Nearly every civilization living in southern Mesopotamia has told some form of the flood myth. While the names might change, the content and structure are consistent from 2,500 B.C. to the Genesis account to the Qur'anic version," Rose said.
Perhaps evidence beneath the Gulf? "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands," said Rose, quoting Douglas Adams.

• Top 10 Mysteries of the First Humans
• Top 10 Things That Make Humans Special
• Video - Lost Civilization of the Amazon Rainforest

• Original Story: Lost Civilization May Have Existed Beneath the Persian Gulf

Builders vs Bankers

Is NASA Covering Up the 100-Year Starship?

A NASA official may have made a 35-million-mile slip of the tongue.

The director of NASA's Ames Research Center in California casually let slip mention of the 100-Year Starship recently, a new program funded by the super-secret government agency, DARPA. In a talk at San Francisco's Long Conversation conference, Simon “Pete” Worden said DARPA has $1M to spend, plus another $100,000 from NASA itself, for the program, which will initially develop a new kind of propulsion engine that will take us to Mars or beyond.

There's only one problem: The astronauts won't come back. 

The 100-year ship would leave Earth with the intention of colonizing a planet, but it would likely be a one-way trip because of the time it takes to travel 35 million miles. That’s a daunting prospect, partly because of the ethical dilemma, and partly because it may be the only recourse.

"What psychological challenges should we anticipate in those who volunteer in good faith and with great courage, yet find themselves confronting misgivings or loneliness or feelings of rage or beset with mental illness?" asked Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team.

There's one other bizarre aspect to the plan: Humans would have to be “adapted” to the alien world, Worden said, instead of figuring out a way to make the planet more hospitable to them.

“The human space program is now really aimed at settling other worlds,” Worden said during his talk. “Twenty years ago you whispered that in dark bars and got fired.” (Worden actually was fired, he confessed during the talk, under the Bush administration.)

Since that revelation, hundreds of news reports about the program have theorized that the substantial budget indicates the Hundred Year Starship is a dramatic shift for the stalled space program, not just a research project; others suggest it is a serious attempt to find a way to Mars. And NASA? The space agency seems to be dodging all questions.

FoxNews.com first contacted NASA’s Ames Research Center last week and scheduled a call with Worden for Monday. The call was postponed to Wednesday. Late Wednesday the space agency postponed again, before finally canceling the interview, citing Worden’s busy schedule.

After a week and a half, DARPA issued a press release announcing the program -- but conveying no more information than in Worden's initial speech.

But what is the Hundred Year Starship? Some experts argue that any program that suggests putting humans into space for their entire life, or for multiple generations, is doomed from the start, since many people react negatively to the idea of leaving the planet and never returning. Others are more supportive, saying it is the only way to settle a space colony.

New exploration
Speculation about colonization takes many forms, and some of the freshest ideas sound a bit peculiar. Dirk Schulze-Makuch and Paul Davies, who wrote in the Journal of Cosmology recently, suggest sending four astronauts on a one-way mission who “establish their presence” and do not come back. The suggestion is to send supplies to them occasionally, but the risks are similar to what Columbus undertook to explore the new world. (That analogy is a bit suspect, however: Columbus was most famous for actually returning.)

Les Johnson, a well-respected science author, spoke to FoxNews.com and agreed with the plan: a one-way, hundred-year mission may be the only way to get to Mars or other planets.

The main issue has to do with a basic physics conundrum. In order to travel the great distance to Mars (about 35 million miles), a starship would need a tremendous amount of fuel. Yet fuel adds more weight -- in fact, every pound you add to a ship requires 4 pounds of fuel. The more fuel you add, the more you need simply to move the ship's bulk, making it impossible to go one-way to Mars, much less roundtrip. 

Johnson said  the only solution is a longer mission using some form of propulsion that has not even been invented yet, or is still untested. One is a massive solar sail, which captures energy from the sun. Another is a fusion reactor that generates power without any on-board fuel.

Dr. Chris DePree, who heads the Bradley Observatory, also helped fill in some gaps on a 100-year mission to another planet. “It seems like the only realistic way forward, if we really want to colonize the solar system, is to have one-way trips,” DePree told FoxNews.com. “It might be that technology improves, and the grandchildren of those first Martian colonists return to Earth.”

He also explained what “adapting humans” means: The suggestion sounds absurd, but science may actually have more luck developing new breathing apparatuses or using chemical injections to make humans able to live on a foreign world than developing technology for "terraforming" a planet.

As to the question of a one-way mission, DePree says the idea is not as hush-hush as you might expect. NASA doesn't intend for a suicide mission, he said, but rather is debating the idea that an astronaut may live out his or her natural life on another planet and never return to Earth. Johnson said there are astronauts who have already volunteered for one-way missions before, and it's not a ludicrous proposition.

Swirling controversy
Even with these explanations, there is still wild speculation about the program. Worden mentioned the idea of working

with third-parties to help fund future missions. He said Larry Page, the Google founder, asked how much it would cost to fund the mission (the answer: about $10 billion). This begs the question: is NASA ready to leverage its work by enlisting private enterprises?

Some scientists have wondered how the 100-Year Starship would deal with the effects of long-term space travel. Johnson said that even after spending a few months in space, the wear and tear starts to show -- astronauts who have visited the Space Station often cannot walk for a few days. Johnson said muscle mass starts to decline and bone density decreases after prolonged periods in outer space.

Short of an official news release, one that spells out exactly how the starship program will proceed, many assume that the program is just in an early stage. Johnson said the funding level of just $1.1M sounds like it is simply for research. 

Worden may have slipped by revealing the program, but -- as evidenced by NASA’s lack of cooperation -- it may be too early for any new revelations.

Font: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/29/nasa-cover-up-hundred-year-starship/

Amazingly Fast Eruption on the Sun Photographed

Thu Aug 5, 12:57 PM
SPACE.com Staff

One of the fastest big solar eruptions in years has been observed streaking away from the sun at more than 2.2 million mph by two NASA spacecraft.
The flare occurred Aug. 1 and created a massive sun eruption called a coronal mass ejection that struck Earth's magnetic field Tuesday, creating dazzling aurora displays. NASA's twin STEREO spacecraft recorded the eruption and beamed images of the sun storm back to Earth.
The material ejected from the sun was seen speeding toward Earth at more than 1,000 kilometers per second, or just over 2.2 million mph (3.6 million kph). Another wave from the event was expected to hit Earth's magnetic field on Wednesday. NASA's two STEREO spacecraft, which monitor the sun's weather in 3-D, also recorded a video of the sun eruption.
"These kinds of eruptions are one of the first signs that the sun is waking up and heading toward another solar maximum expected in the 2013 time frame," NASA officials said in a statement. The sun goes through a regular 11-year activity cycle. The last solar maximum occurred in 2001 and its recent extreme solar minimum was particularly weak and long-lasting, the space agency added.
Coronal mass ejections are eruptions of charged particles from the sun that stream out over several hours. They can contain several billion tons of plasma and expand away from the sun at speeds of up to 1 million mph (1.6 million kph). At such speeds, they can cross the 93 million-mile (150 million-km) gulf between the Earth and sun in two to four days.
The material belched from the sun during the Aug. 1 flare is not expected to cause any disturbances on Earth other than creating spectacular auroras. Auroras are created when charged particles are caught by Earth's magnetic field and interact with the atmosphere above the poles.
The Aug. 1 solar flare was a moderate C-class flare. The coronal mass ejection it set off created a strong so-called geomagnetic storm that lasted nearly 12 hours - enough time for auroras to spread from Europe to North America, NASA officials said in a statement.
Stronger solar storms could cause adverse impacts to space-based assets and technological infrastructure on Earth.

• Video of the Sun Eruption
• Gallery - Amazing Auroras of 2010 Sun Storms
• Spectacular Northern Lights Show Signals Sun Is Waking Up

• Original Story: Amazingly Fast Eruption on the Sun Photographed

SPACE.com offers rich and compelling content about space science, travel and exploration as well as astronomy, technology, business news and more. The site boasts a variety of popular features including our space image of the day and other space pictures, space videos, Top 10s, Trivia, podcasts and Amazing Images submitted by our users. Join our community, sign up for our free newsletters and register for our RSS Feeds today!

A pardon for the notorious Billy the Kid?

By Phil Gast, CNN

August 6, 2010 -- Updated 0316 GMT (1116 HKT)

 

Billy the Kid is dead and probably doesn't care, but a pardon for the cold-blooded killer may be in the offing. Gov. Bill Richardson, called a "Billy the Kid buff," is looking at an old promise by another governor, and not the Kid's reputation, in deciding whether to issue a posthumous pardon, a spokeswoman said Thursday.
No matter that Billy the Kid has been in the ground since 1881. That hasn't dimmed interest in the cattle-rustling outlaw. Tourists, especially from Europe, are fascinated with Billy the Kid, born Henry McCarty, but also known as William H. Bonney and Henry Antrim. He died at the hands of Sheriff Pat Garrett when he was only 21.
New Mexico's tourism website even has a travel guide to Billy the Kid territory.
"His nickname carries a lyrical quality that still gallops across the high plains of our imagination," according to the text next to the only known photograph of Bonney.
"If he does anything, [Richardson] will review the promise made by Lew Wallace to Billy the Kid," Alarie Ray-Garcia, Richardson's communications director, said Thursday, a day after the governor met with descendants of Garrett.
The Garrett family and others oppose the pardon. Besides arguing that Billy the Kid was an incorrigible killer, they want to make sure Pat Garrett is absolved of wrongdoing related to the killing and a Bonney jail escape.
Jarvis Patrick Garrett, 51, two other grandchildren and two great-grandchildren of Pat Garrett met for an hour with Richardson.
"People had forgotten that Pat Garrett was one of the first individuals to bring law and order to Lincoln County," Jarvis Garrett said.
This latest chapter in the story of Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid has more twists than a lariat.
Popular history has Bonney gunning down 21 men, but many historians say the number was closer to nine. According to other legends, Bonney did not die at Garrett's hands and is not buried in Fort Sumner, New Mexico. He went to Texas and became known as "Brushy Bill" Roberts, they say.
Poppycock, the Garretts argue.
They asked Richardson to sign a petition signed by 100 people that reads, "Whereas we the undersigned accept and agree the traditional history of Sheriff Pat F. Garrett and Billy the Kid (William Bonney), and believe that Billy the Kid died at Pat F. Garrett's hand. Therefore we oppose a postphumous (sic) pardon for Billy the Kid as Brushy Bill Roberts."
Garrett killed Bonney on July 14, 1881, in Fort Sumner weeks after Bonney escaped from a jail. The sheriff, legend has it, was hiding in the dark and shot Bonney when he entered a room.
Garrett himself was gunned down in 1908 at age 57.
Richardson "agrees with the heart of the petition," but is asking his legal department to look at it, Ray-Garcia said.
But the petition doesn't affect the Lew Wallace matter.
Mark Lee Gardner, author of "To Hell on a Fast Horse: Billy the Kid, Pat Garrett, and the Epic Chase to Justice in the Old West," called for a pardon in an op-ed piece last month for the Los Angeles Times.
According to Gardner and other historians, Billy the Kid wrote to Wallace, then the New Mexico territory's governor, asking him to honor a deal. Wallace had promised to grant Bonney amnesty for his role in shooting Lincoln County Sheriff William Brady and other "misdeeds" if he agreed to testify before a grand jury investigating another murder. The pardon didn't happen. The Garretts argue Bonney decided to flee house arrest, making the pardon moot.
"Still, regardless of Billy's crimes, the motives of Richardson or the hollowness of posthumous justice, it all comes back to Wallace's promise. A deal is a deal, and 129 years doesn't change that. Billy is owed a pardon," Gardner wrote.
Bill Garrett, 72, of Alamogordo, New Mexico, said he opposes the pardon. His grandfather was Pat Garrett's brother.
"I am very passionate about this," Garrett said. "He [Bonney] was a killer."
Garrett, who was not at Wednesday's meeting but has written to Richardson, said Wallace did not exonerate Bonney.
"I think he might be better off doing something else," Bill Garrett, a retired bailiff, said of Richardson.
Richardson has been interested in Billy the Kid officially since 2003. "He thought it would be interesting to review this promise by Lew Wallace," said Ray-Garcia.
A sheriff, a deputy and others got involved and moved to have the bodies of Bonney and his mother exhumed for DNA testing to prove they are buried at the Fort Sumner Cemetery. But a judge ruled against the efforts.
Richardson wasn't interested in that aspect and the group's interest in whether Bonney became "Brushy Bill" Roberts, Ray-Garcia said. Ray-Garcia disputed contentions that the sheriff was following orders from Richardson.
According to a letter the Garretts wrote to the governor, Richardson declared support in 2003 for reopening the investigation of Bonney's death.
The investigation cited probable cause for allegations that Garrett killed an innocent victim instead of Bonney and that person is buried in the outlaw's grave, the Garretts said. There also were allegations the sheriff was an accomplice of Bonney in the murder of two deputies in April 1881 and the rustler's subsequent escape.
"This is an abomination as well as an inexcusable defamation of a great man," the letter said of the claims.
Ray-Garcia said Richardson, who leaves office in five months, had nothing to do with the probable cause claims. "The governor told them [the Garretts] that Sheriff Garrett was an honorable man."
She also denied state money went toward the investigation.
Former Lincoln County Sheriff Tom Sullivan was among those involved in the investigation. He opposes the pardon, saying Billy the Kid "was nothing but a glorified cop killer," but said there are many questions about the circumstances of his death and Garrett's conduct.
He said he raised the probable cause questions so that an investigation would glean what really happened with Garrett and Bonney.
"Nobody wants to know the truth," Sullivan said Thursday.
Jarvis Garrett and others in the family said they will continue their campaign to clear Garrett, who they said enjoyed a little gambling.
They are hoping Richardson won't issue a pardon.
"If Billy the Kid was living amongst us now, would you issue a pardon for someone who made his living as a thief and, more egregiously, who killed four law enforcement officers and numerous others?" the Garrett family wrote Richardson.
Author Gardner said there is a reason for an abiding interest in Bonney and curiosity about whether he actually died in the dark and did not escape.

"If you have a folk hero die, you want him to go out with a blaze of glory."

 

The Ruling Elite Called
By James Quinn
The Burning Platform
Published on FINANCIAL SENSE (http://www.financialsense.com)
Created 30 Jul 2010
Here is the message from the ruling elite to the masses: Debt got us into this mess and it sure as hell is going to get us out. They have convinced the mainstream media that the reason the economy is sputtering is because the average Joe is not doing their part. This crazy concept of saving for a rainy day seems to be catching on. This is very dangerous.
I just got off the horn with the Ruling Elite. We had an emergency conference call and to tell you the truth, they ain’t happy. You little people are not responding the way you are supposed to. A significant portion of you are not getting more optimistic because they tell you to. Instead of just reading the headline on Bloomberg that durable goods orders skyrocketed in June, you actually read the details that said durable goods orders plunged. It is getting difficult for the ruling elite to keep the masses sedated and dumbed down. These damn bloggers, with their facts and critical thinking, are throwing a wrench into the gears. Obama and his crack team are working round the clock to lock down the internet, but it will take time. Not that they are totally dissatisfied. They’ve been able to renovate their penthouses and purchase new mansions in the Hamptons with the billions in bonuses you supplied through TARP. The $1.2 trillion supplied by your children and grandchildren to buy up toxic mortgages off their balances sheets was a godsend. They will never call you suckers, to your face.
Their spirits were buoyed by the 2,600 pages DONK (Dodd/Frank) financial reform bill. So many loopholes, so little time. Obama and his crack team of Obamanistas in the White House, supported by their mouthpieces in the mainstream media, have been able to easily manipulate the non-thinking masses into believing this bill would have stopped the last financial crash and will stop the next one. The Ministry of Truth has been working overtime utilizing Federal Reserve paid shill economists like Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi to perpetuate the myth that the actions taken in the last 18 months have averted a Depression, saved 8 million jobs, created a long-lasting recovery, wiped out Swine Flu, and earned Paul Krugman a nobel prize in fiction.
This is where we have a problem. The worshippers of Keynes, that rule the country, are pissed off at you. Don’t you realize that government spending of your money, borrowed from the Chinese, with the bill passed to your grandchildren, was supposed to reinvigorate your animal spirits. They handed you other people’s money to buy cars and homes and what do you do? You stop buying cars and homes as soon as they stop paying you to buy cars and homes. You ungrateful bastards. Bennie has been hugely successful at ruining the retirements of millions of grandmothers by paying them .20% on their money market accounts while forcing mortgage rates for 30 years down to 4.5%. And still you don’t buy houses. Timmy has instructed Fannie Mae to make home loans to anyone with a pulse who can make an X on a piece of paper. No money down, no proof of income, no assets. Just like the good old days. Still you don’t buy houses. What is wrong with you?
The criminal banking elite have more than bent over backwards to get this economy humming. They have patiently stood by while you haven’t made your mortgage payments for two years while still residing in the house. They’ve pretended to go along with the brilliant HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) plan, masterminded by the rocket scientists in the White House. Just because virtually no one has been able to qualify for the plan and the redefault rate is 75%, doesn’t mean it hasn’t worked wonders for the economy. The awesome part of not making people pay their mortgages is that they were able to make payments on their credit cards. That allowed the mega elite banks to pretend that consumers are flush and relieve their loan loss reserves while not writing off the bad mortgages and reporting billions in profits for the 2nd Quarter. It is good to be the ruling elite.
The ruling elite are letting you slide on your mortgages and you have the gall to withdraw $20 billion from U.S. equity funds and not buy into this fake stock rally. Don’t you realize that when the stock market goes up, the economy follows? Everyone knows this. But, instead you sit on the sidelines and refuse to invest in the stock market. The super computers of the mega-banks are getting tired of trading with each other and single-handedly making the stock market appear safe. Just because the ruling elite have vaporized $10 trillion of your net worth in the last two years, you hold a grudge? Remember the mantra “Stocks For the Long Run” that the ruling elite burned into your brains through CNBC and the rest of the shillstream media? Why are you so suspicious of our advice. Ignore the fact that the S&P 500 today is at the exact level it reached on March 24, 1998. They meant the really really long term.
Here is the message from the ruling elite to you ignorant masses: Debt got us into this mess and it sure as hell is going to get us out. They have convinced the mainstream media that the reason the economy is sputtering is because the average Joe is not doing their part. This crazy concept of saving for a rainy day seems to be catching on. This is very dangerous. Savings could lead to investment and long-term stability. The ruling elite will have none of that foolishness. The mainstream media is telling you that this new found austerity will push us back into recession. The talking heads continue to pound away that you have reduced your spending too much, when anyone with a calculator and half a brain (Krugman doesn’t make the cut) can determine that the decrease in consumer debt outstanding is completely the result of write-offs by the mega elite banks. Consumers are living off their credit cards at this point.
The military industrial complex continues to do the heavy lifting for this economy. If they weren’t blowing up bridges, power plants and orphanages in foreign countries and then rebuilding them at ten times the expected cost, how would they possibly spend $895 billion per year. It ain’t easy to waste that kind of money annually. Whenever some crazy dude like Ron Paul questions the need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military, some potential terrorists are captured in the nick of time and the threat level is raised to Orange (thanks Tom Ridge). The “professional” journalists on the major networks then do their part in this farce by spreading fear among the general population. Rinse and repeat.
So, we now find ourselves at the edge of the abyss again. The ruling elite have a great plan. It involves more debt, more stimulus, more printing, more accounting fraud, more pain for the masses, and of course more bonuses for Wall Street. If you, the little people, will just follow this 10 step plan, the ruling elite will be just fine:
1.Stocks are undervalued according to the same “experts” who told you they were undervalued in October 2007. Take out a loan and buy mega-banks stocks, commercial real estate developers, and bankrupt car companies.
2.General Motors, in a brilliant strategic coup, has bought “subprime” auto loan company Americredit. What else does a government/union owned car company need? The fact that GMAC has lost $10 billion of taxpayer funds in the last year shouldn’t worry you about your investment in GM. If you can’t sell cars to people with no income, no job and no prospects for repaying the seven year 0% loan, who can you sell a car to. When the government pays Goldman Sachs millions to convince you to buy the stock of GM in its Fall IPO, ask no questions and just buy buy buy.
3.Ignore the fact that Citicorp, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo would be declared insolvent if the FASB had not caved into threats from the Federal Reserve and Treasury. Just buy their stocks. Trust Wall Street.
4.Enough austerity already. You haven’t bought a new HDTV in six months. It’s like you’ve been living in a 3rd world country. If you have any equity left in your house, borrow against it and buy something big and glitzy. Make sure you show it off to your shallowest neighbors. They will go out and buy something bigger and glitzier on credit. Before you know it we have a recovery. Keynesianism 101.
5.Stop frequenting financial blogs like Naked Capitalism, Credit Writedowns, Dollar Collapse, Market Oracle, 321Gold, Jesse’s Cafe Americain, Of Two Minds, Zero Hedge, Mike Shedlock, or Barry Ritholtz. These sites will just shower you with facts, analysis and truth. Watch CNBC, Fox, MSNBC and the other corporate media to get the ruling elite approved view of the world.
6.If you are currently renting or living in your mother’s basement, have no job, no savings and no prospects, Fannie Mae wants to put you in your very own house. Mortgage payments are optional. The 50% of Americans that pay taxes will gladly fund your new abode.
7.If you are approaching the 99th week of unemployment, have no fear. The ruling elite will use the MSM to run hundreds of sob stories about only two years on the dole being immoral and cruel. The White House will present a study from “impartial” economists that proves that extending unemployment benefits to 156 weeks will create or save 3 million jobs.
8.The stress of this recession has been too much. You need to whip out that credit card and book a trip to Disney World or Dollywood. Worry about funding that 401k sometime in the future.
9.Unquestioningly accept the fact that Iran is an imminent threat to your safety and liberty. Support the obliteration of this evil nation based upon information provided by the CIA (WMD slamdunk) and the Israelis.
10.Lastly, call your Congressman and tell them to extend the tax cuts for the rich. As you have probably concluded, the ruling elite are rich. They don’t like paying taxes. That is why they employ thousand of tax lawyers. Since the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will hurt the ruling elite the most, a full court press of disinformation is in order.
The ruling elite expect you to comply without question. Have they ever led you astray before?
© 1997–2010 Financial Sense® All Rights Reserved. PO Box 503147 San Diego, CA 92150-3147 USA 858.487.3939
James Quinn
Quinn Advisors Senior Director of Strategic Planning
Primary Tel (215) 573-5404
quinnadvisors @ comcast.net
http://theburningplatform.com/

Interracial marriages at an all-time high, study says

 By Stephanie Chen, CNN

 The first time Priya Merrill, who is Indian, brought her white boyfriend home for Thanksgiving in 2007, the dinner was uncomfortable and confusing. She still remembers her family asking if Andrew was the bartender or a family photographer.

The couple married last August, and her Indian family has warmed up to her husband despite their racial differences.
"I think we get the best of both cultures," said Merrill, 27, of New York. She added, "Sometimes I just forget that we're interracial. I don't really think about it."
Asian. White. Black. Hispanic. Do race and ethnicity matter when it comes to marriage?
Apparently, race is mattering less these days, say researchers at the Pew Research Center, who report that nearly one out of seven new marriages in the U.S. is interracial or interethnic. The report released Friday, which interviewed couples married for less than a year, found racial lines are blurring as more people choose to marry outside their race.
"From what we can tell, this is the highest [percentage of interracial marriage] it has ever been," said Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer for the Pew Research Center.
He said interracial marriages have soared since the 1980s. About 6.8 percent of newly married couples reported marrying outside their race or ethnicity in 1980. That figure jumped to about 14.6 percent in the Pew report released this week, which surveyed newlyweds in 2008.
Couples pushing racial boundaries have become commonplace in the U.S., a trend that is also noticeable in Hollywood and politics. President Obama is the product of a black father from Africa and a white mother from Kansas. Supermodel Heidi Klum, who is white, married Seal, a British singer who is black.
But not everyone is willing to accept mixed-race marriages. A Louisiana justice of the peace resigned late last year after refusing to marry an interracial couple.
However, studies show that support for interracial marriages is stronger than in the past, especially among the Millennial generation. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, about 85 percent accept interracial marriages, according to a Pew study published in February. Scholars say interracial marriages are important to examine because they can be a barometer for race relations and cultural assimilation.
Today's growing acceptance of interracial marriages is a contrast to the overwhelming attitudes 50 years ago that such marriage was wrong -- and even illegal. During most of U.S. history, interracial marriages have been banned or considered taboo, sociologists say.
In 1958, a woman of black and Native American descent named Mildred Jeter had married a white man, Richard Loving. The couple married in Washington, D.C., instead of their home state of Virginia, where state laws outlawed interracial marriages. The couple was arrested by police. Their case made its way to the Supreme Court in the case Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, where the justices unanimously ruled that laws banning interracial marriages were unconstitutional.
In the decades after the court's ruling, the U.S. population has been changed by an unprecedented influx of immigrants. The growing numbers of immigrants, said Pew researchers, is partially responsible for the increase in interracial marriages.
The Pew Center study released Friday found that marrying outside of one's race or ethnicity is most common among Asians and Hispanics, two immigrant groups that have grown tremendously. About 30 percent of Asian newlyweds in the study married outside of their race, and about a quarter of Hispanic newlyweds reported marrying someone of another race.
David Chen, 26, of Dallas, Texas, is Taiwanese. He is planning a wedding with his fiancee, Sylvia Duran, 26, who is Mexican. He says race isn't an issue, but parts of their culture do play a role in their relationship. They will probably have a traditional Chinese tea ceremony at their wedding.
"The thing that we really focus on is our values and family values," instead of their race, he said. "We both like hard work, and we really put a focus on education."
The African-American population also saw increases in interracial marriage, with the number of blacks participating in such marriages roughly tripling since 1980, the study said. About 16 percent of African-Americans overall are in an interracial marriage, but researchers point out a gender difference: It's more common for black men to marry outside of their race than for black women.
The gender difference was the reverse in the Asian population surveyed. Twice as many newlywed Asian women, about 40 percent, were married outside their race, compared with Asian men, at about 20 percent.
"We are seeing an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic country," said Andrew Cherlin, professor of public policy and sociology at Johns Hopkins University. "The change in our population is bringing more people into contact with others who aren't like them."
The Pew Center also found education and residency affected whether people married interracially, with college-educated adults being more likely to do so. More people who live in the West marry outside their race than do people in the Midwest and South, the survey found.
Cherlin explained why education has helped bridge various races and ethnic groups: With more minorities attending college, education, rather than race, becomes a common thread holding couples together.
"If I'm a college graduate, I am going to marry another graduate," Cherlin said. "It's of secondary importance if that person is my race."
Technology is also making it easier for people to date outside their races, said Sam Yagan, who founded OkCupid.com, a free Internet dating site. He said his site, which receives 4 million unique visitors a month, has seen many interracial relationships result from people using its services.
Adriano Schultz, 26, who is Brazilian, met his wife, Theresa, who is white, through the site in 2006. A year later, the couple married.
"I don't feel as if ethnicity for us was a big issue," said Schultz, of Indiana. "It was more about personalities and having things in common that really drove us together."
Yagan attributes the increase in interracial relationships to the Internet, which makes it easier to connect with someone of a different race. People who live in a community where race is an issue can meet someone of another race more privately, than say, instead of having to start their relationship in a public setting.

"You don't have to worry about what your friends are going to think," he said. "You can build the early parts of the relationship."

ISRAELE HA FATTO BENE A SPARARE

DIECI MORTI TRA GLI AMICI DEI TERRORISTI
ISRAELE HA FATTO BENE A SPARARE
Con la scusa del pacifismo, una flotta di navi voleva violare la sovranità dello Stato ebraico e portare aiuti ad Hamas. I soldati di Gerusalemme l’hanno fermata per controlli e sono stati aggrediti: reazione inevitabile
di Vittorio Feltri

Quello che stiamo per dire non pia­cerà a tutti. Me­glio dirlo prima perché conosciamo molti polli italiani e i lo­ro sentimenti antisrae­liani. La notizia nuda e cruda l’avete appresa ie­ri dalla tivù, dalla radio e da internet. Una flotta di navi carica di pacifi­sti e di aiuti materiali per gli abitanti della stri­scia di Gaza (assediata) è stata intercettata dal­la marina militare di Israele, ed è successo un macello. Si parla di una decina di morti e ventisei feriti. Non era­vamo sul posto (né noi né altri giornalisti) quin­di non siamo in grado di ricostruire l’accaduto se non attraverso fonti ufficiali, quella di Tel Aviv, che ha fermato le imbarcazioni con a bor­do gli amici dei palesti­nesi, e quella della Tur­chia da cui sono salpate le navi.
Versione israeliana.
La flotta dei pacifisti è entrata in acque israe­liane con l’intenzione di rompere l’assedio di Gaza e di portare alla gente dieci tonnellate di aiuti umanitari. La marina militare l’ha bloccata in obbedienza agli ordini del governo. I soldati sono saliti sulle navi non autorizzate a dirigersi a Gaza: sem­brava una normale ope­razione di polizia e, in­vece, i pacifisti hanno reagito con armi da fuo­co, bastoni, coltelli ecce­tera. La risposta degli israeliani è stata imme­diata e rabbiosa, come sempre avviene in que­ste circostanze, con con­seguenze tragiche. Sul numero delle vittime ab­biamo già detto; vari i fe­riti da entrambe le par­ti. Versione turca . Non è vero che la flotta sia stata intercettata in ac­que israeliane bensì in­ternazionali, a 70 mi­glia nautiche dalla terra­ferma. Non è vero che i passeggeri fossero ar­mati. Erano saliti a bor­do passando attraverso il metal detector e i rag­gi X; responso negativo. La dogana conferma.
Sia come sia, un dato è sicuro. Gli amici dei palestinesi non aveva­no il permesso di appro­dare in territorio israe­liano, quindi non dove­vano trovarsi in quel punto del mare; è evi­dente che progettasse­ro una azione di forza, forse non calcolando la inflessibilità della mari­na. Inoltre trasportava­no tonnellate di merce (non zavorra) che avreb­bero scaricato senza l’ok di Israele. Infine non hanno tollerato le ispezioni e ciò ha provo­cato la sparatoria.
A prescindere da chi abbia attaccato per pri­mo, c’è comunque un fatto non trascurabile: Israele è in conflitto da sempre con i palestine­si, ma non lo è col popo­lo sofferente e incolpe­vole, bensì con Hamas che non è un mite parti­to votato ad amministra­re con garbo la sua gen­te; è un grande movi­mento terroristico col quale ogni trattativa è regolarmente finita nel sangue, bombe e roba del genere. Pensare che uno Stato sovrano accet­ti di ospitare chi dà una mano ai suoi nemici è imprudente. Tanto più che, chi va in soccorso dei terroristi, è IHH, cioè un gruppo terrori­stico, come spiega Fiam­ma Nirenstein nel suo articolo.
Il minimo che doveva­no aspettarsi quelli del­la Freedom Flotilla era una raffica di mitra, vi­ceversa sono andati avanti con una tranquil­lità ai limiti dell’inco­scienza: ovvio non ab­biano trovato un sorri­dente comitato di acco­glienza.
Israele è circondato da Paesi più o meno isla­mici che non gli ricono­scono il diritto di esiste­re e meditano (vedi l’Iran) di trasformarlo in un cumulo di detriti mediante bomba atomi­ca. Non è un sogno: è un piano. Basti pensare che nelle carte geografi­che mediorientali non vi è neppure traccia del­l’odiato nemico. Ebbe­ne, se la situazione è questa, è da irresponsa­bili recarsi in determi­nate zone facendo il tifo per chi tenta di cancella­re la patria degli ebrei. I quali si difendono con i denti, e non hanno tem­po per convincere con le buone i pacifisti a ri­nunciare alle loro cro­ciere finalizzate a soste­nere Hamas, una banda di feroci assassini. Spa­rare è più persuasivo.
Per concludere il di­scorso con una semplifi­cazione polemica, desi­deriamo ricordare ai si­gnori pacifisti che, se agiscono da supporto ai terroristi, tanto pacifi­sti non sono, semmai complici dei seminato­ri di morte. E che la rego­la madre è quella di oc­cuparsi dei casi propri; così non ci sarebbero più le guerre e nemme­no i pacifisti.

3 TITULI

Tropical storm leaves more than 100 dead in Central America

The office of Guatemala's president handed out this aerial view of a crater that opened up after Agatha hit.
If this does not scare you...

Storia di Milano

Storia di Milano
Wikipedia
Yahoo
Milanomia
Ciaomilano
Google

The government has your baby's DNA

By Elizabeth Cohen, CNN Senior Medical Correspondent
February 4, 2010 9:11 a.m. EST

(CNN) -- When Annie Brown's daughter, Isabel, was a month old, her pediatrician asked Brown and her husband to sit down because he had some bad news to tell them: Isabel carried a gene that put her at risk for cystic fibrosis.

While grateful to have the information -- Isabel received further testing and she doesn't have the disease -- the Mankato, Minnesota, couple wondered how the doctor knew about Isabel's genes in the first place. After all, they'd never consented to genetic testing.

It's simple, the pediatrician answered: Newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent, according to Brad Therrell, director of the National Newborn Screening & Genetics Resource Center.

In many states, such as Florida, where Isabel was born, babies' DNA is stored indefinitely, according to the resource center.

Many parents don't realize their baby's DNA is being stored in a government lab, but sometimes when they find out, as the Browns did, they take action. Parents in Texas, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits, and these parents' concerns are sparking a new debate about whether it's appropriate for a baby's genetic blueprint to be in the government's possession.

"We were appalled when we found out," says Brown, who's a registered nurse. "Why do they need to store my baby's DNA indefinitely? Something on there could affect her ability to get a job later on, or get health insurance."

According to the state of Minnesota's Web site, samples are kept so that tests can be repeated, if necessary, and in case the DNA is ever need to help parents identify a missing or deceased child. The samples are also used for medical research.

Art Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, says he understands why states don't first ask permission to screen babies for genetic diseases. "It's paternalistic, but the state has an overriding interest in protecting these babies," he says.

However, he added that storage of DNA for long periods of time is a different matter.

"I don't see any reason to do that kind of storage," Caplan says. "If it's anonymous, then I don't care. I don't have an issue with that. But if you keep names attached to those samples, that makes me nervous."

DNA given to outside researchers

Genetic testing for newborns started in the 1960s with testing for diseases and conditions that, if undetected, could kill a child or cause severe problems, such as mental retardation. Since then, the screening has helped save countless newborns.

Over the years, many other tests were added to the list. Now, states mandate that newborns be tested for anywhere between 28 and 54 different conditions, and the DNA samples are stored in state labs for anywhere from three months to indefinitely, depending on the state.

Brad Therrell, who runs the federally funded genetic resource consortium, says parents don't need to worry about the privacy of their babies' DNA.

"The states have in place very rigid controls on those specimens," Therrell says. "If my children's DNA were in one of these state labs, I wouldn't be worried a bit."

The specimens don't always stay in the state labs. They're often given to outside researchers -- sometimes with the baby's name attached.

According to a study done by the state of Minnesota, more than 20 scientific papers have been published in the United States since 2000 using newborn blood samples.

The researchers do not have to have parental consent to obtain samples as long as the baby's name is not attached, according to Amy Gaviglio, one of the authors of the Minnesota report. However, she says it's her understanding that if a researcher wants a sample with a baby's name attached, consent first must be obtained from the parents.

More Empowered Patient news and advice

Scientists have heralded this enormous collection of DNA samples as a "gold mine" for doing research, according to Gaviglio.

"This sample population would be virtually impossible to get otherwise," says Gaviglio, a genetic counselor for the Minnesota Department of Health. "Researchers go through a very stringent process to obtain the samples. States certainly don't provide samples to just anyone."

Brown says that even with these assurances, she still worries whether someone could gain access to her baby's DNA sample with Isabel's name attached.

"I know the government says my baby's data will be kept private, but I'm not so sure. I feel like my trust has been taken," she says.

Parents don't give consent to screening

Brown says she first lost trust when she learned that Isabel had received genetic testing in the first place without consent from her or her husband.

"I don't have a problem with the testing, but I wish they'd asked us first," she says.

Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.

"It's really a black mark against her, and there's nothing we can do to get it off there," Brown says. "And let's say in the future they can test for a gene for schizophrenia or manic-depression and your baby tests positive -- that would be on there, too."

Brown says if the hospital had first asked her permission to test Isabel, now 10 months old, she might have chosen to pay for it out of pocket so the results wouldn't be known to the insurance company.

Caplan says taking DNA samples without asking permission and then storing them "veers from the norm."

"In the military, for instance, they take and store DNA samples, but they tell you they're doing it, and you can choose not to join if you don't like it," he says.

What can parents do

In some states, including Minnesota and Texas, the states are required to destroy a baby's DNA sample if a parent requests it. Parents who want their baby's DNA destroyed are asked to fill out this form in Minnesota and this form in Texas.

Parents in other states have less recourse, says Therrell, who runs the genetic testing group. "You'd probably have to write a letter to the state saying, 'Please destroy my sample,'" he says.

He adds, however, that it's not clear whether a state would necessarily obey your wishes. "I suspect it would be very difficult to get those states to destroy your baby's sample," he says.

Economy flounders, despite the stimulus - By Ron Paul

(CNN) -- A year after a nearly $800 billion stimulus package was passed, the U.S. economy still finds itself mired in mediocrity.

Economic growth is stagnant, unemployment remains higher than almost any time since the Great Depression and millions of Americans are upset that trillions of taxpayer dollars have been committed to numerous government bailout programs with no improvement of the economy within sight.

They question, rightfully, is where this money is going and why it hasn't been as helpful as the government has claimed.

The problems with stimulus packages are manifold. The primary reason they fail is because they do not address the roots of the problem. If you are unable to identify the cause of your problem, then your solution is doomed to fail.

In the case of the current economic crisis, it had its root in loose monetary policy and easy credit that skewed the allocation of resources within the economy.

Combined with other measures to promote home ownership, these easy money policies caused a massive housing bubble. Money that would have been put to other uses was used to produce raw materials, hire workers and loaned to homebuyers, all while home prices spiked.

The boom was, of course, unsustainable, as many prognosticators pointed out during the housing bubble's peak. But the damage was done, and now that the bubble has burst, we need to stand back and allow the mess to unwind. Yet the government does everything in its power to stave off true recovery and is attempting to re-inflate the bubble.

Rather than allow prices to fall so that the housing market returns to a sustainable level, the government does everything in its power to try to keep housing prices elevated.

The reasoning behind the stimulus package was that underconsumption was to blame for the collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting economic crisis. The government seems to think that if consumption can be spurred, then the economy will be return to normal.

In reality, the collapse of the economy was not caused by a sudden lack of consumption but rather a malinvestment of resources into sectors of the economy that were unsustainable without easy credit. The rise in housing prices was not, in fact, indicative of the new normal but rather an indicator that something was seriously wrong.

Government attempts to boost the economy through measures such as stimulus packages merely take money from hardworking taxpayers and throw that money into unproductive endeavors, into the sectors of the economy that already suffer from malinvestment or into make-work projects. Washington is throwing good money after bad, wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and accomplishing nothing.
As the eminent economist Frederic Bastiat once pointed out, there is a difference between what is seen and unseen.

The government likes to tout the number of jobs that have been created or saved by the stimulus. But even if these numbers are accurate, they do not count the number of jobs that are not created in other more productive or self-sustaining sectors of the economy. Nor do they count the jobs that will be lost in the future when tax rates will have to be increased to pay off the interest on the debt that is financing much of the stimulus package.

Finally, the stimulus package enables the government, rather than the market, to pick winners and losers.

Whenever the government doles out money, political factors come into play. Firms that are politically well-connected or located in important congressional districts will benefit, while those firms without political connections, the ability to navigate bureaucratic hurdles or that exist in isolated areas unimportant to Washington will lose out.

Once the stimulus money runs out, the companies and jobs dependent on that handout will find themselves once again struggling.

A company that cannot satisfy consumer needs in the marketplace and that requires a government stimulus to remain competitive is a company that should not be in business.

The last thing this country needs is more government spending, especially on such wasteful measures as stimulus packages. We have wasted trillions of dollars in the past year and a half in stimulus packages, bailouts and guarantees to unsound companies.

We have run up our national debt to unprecedented levels. We are destroying the dollar. And it seems as if there is no end in sight.

Loose monetary policy, easy credit and too much debt created the bubble and got us into this economic crisis. Unless the government learns its lesson and opts for restrained monetary and fiscal policy, it risks a complete implosion of the U.S. economy.

Haiti dopo il terremoto

L’ottanta per cento della popolazione vive con meno di due dollari al giorno
L’isola dei colpi di Stato, dove si mangia l’argilla e la natura compie stragi
Due secoli fa la liberazione dalla schiavitù. Da Papa Doc a Aristide, violenze e fallimenti

Se pa fotmwen. Se una frase potesse definire un Paese e il suo posto nel mondo, per Haiti varrebbe questa: se pa fotmwen. In creolo vuol dire «non è colpa mia». E’ una frase del vocabolario quotidiano di Port-au-Prince, dove l’80% della popolazione vive con meno di 2 dollari al giorno. E forse è anche una password per entrare nella storia (rovinosa) di un Paese che ebbe il suo primo (e unico) momento di gloria due secoli fa, quando i neri guidati da Toussaint Louverture prima di tutti gli altri si liberarono della schiavitù e cacciarono i soldati francesi mandati da Napoleone a domare la rivolta.


Di chi è la colpa se una ricca repubblica dei Caraibi — coperta da foreste meravigliose e avendo al comando un Obama ante-litteram portatore dei principi sincretici di egalité, fratérnité e religione vudù— è riuscita a diventare il luogo più miserabile e spelacchiato dell’emisfero occidentale, dove nei mercati delle baraccopoli c’è chi per sopravvivere va a «achté tè» ovvero comprare tortine fatte di terra? Se pa fot mwen dicono i poveri nelle baracche di Cité Soleil o Delmas controllate da gang criminali che hanno fatto dei sequestri un’industria: espressione rassegnata ominacciosa che serve ai più per contemplare la propria miseria (in alternativa a TiTanyin, meglio che niente) mentre ai ricchi (l’1% possiede metà delle ricchezze) serve per girare gli occhi dall’altra parte, verso le dimore dorate e murate sulla collina di Pétionville. «Non è colpa mia» è la frase giusta per la comunità internazionale— che ha fatto molto ma non abbastanza— e pure per la moglie di un ex console italiano che cinque anni fa disse al Corriere che in fondo i disgraziati di Cité Soleil si meritavano quello che (non) avevano. La frase giusta dopo un terremoto: di chi è la colpa se quel pezzo dell’isola che Cristoforo Colombo nel 1492 chiamò Hispaniola sta lì in bilico sulla microplacca di Gonaives, tra le grandi placche del Nord America e dei Caraibi a Sud? Se la faglia è simile a quella di San Andreas che minaccia di far saltare un giorno la California? La cosiddetta «diplomazia delle catastrofi» che talvolta riavvicina Paesi nemici servirà a unire un Paese da sempre diviso lungo immutabili faglie socio-economiche?

La muraglia che si vedeva sulla collina di Pétionville— costruita attorno alle ville di quella che a Haiti si chiama ancora «borghesia» — dev’essere stata danneggiata così come il palazzo del presidente sui Campi di Marzo e le baracche di lamiera di Cité Soleil tra i fetori del porto, dove i bambini razzolano nella fogna a cielo aperto. Se pa fot mwen si può dire davanti a certi disastri naturali. Ma Haiti è anche un concentrato di disastri prodotti (o non ostacolati) dagli umani. Che ironia, un terremoto nel Paese dell’immobilismo: nell’arco di 200 anni la schiera di liberatori, dittatori, generali, religiosi e politici che si sono rubati più o meno fallosamente la palla del potere hanno lasciato ogni volta inalterato il campo della società. E quasi sempre l’hanno lasciato con le proprie gambe, verso un tranquillo esilio.

Già nel gennaio 1904, celebrando un secolo dalla rivolta di Toussaint, l’allora presidente haitiano Rosalvo Bobo disse ai concittadini di essere «stanco delle nostre stupidità» e bollò il tempo trascorso come «un secolo di schiavitù di negri su negri». Spronò gli haitiani a cambiare strada in modo tale che, nel gennaio 2004, i loro discendenti avessero qualcosa da celebrare. Come non detto, Bobo: le celebrazioni del bicentenario si rivelarono l’occasione per una nuova rivolta e l’ennesima defenestrazione. Al potere a Port-au-Prince c’era Jean-Bertrand Aristide, ex sacerdote cattolico cacciato dalla Chiesa per i suoi estremismi da teologia della liberazione. Sognava una grande festa con invitati da tutto il mondo. Solo il presidente sudafricano Thabo Mbeki mostrò qualche interesse. Ma neppure lui alla fine si presentò. Un paio di mesi dopo Aristide fu costretto ad andarsene: forze ribelli conquistarono la città di Gonaives (quella che dà il nome alla maledetta microplacca tettonica) nel Nord del Paese. Erano una ciurma eterogenea quanto violenta di poche centinaia di uomini: ex soldati e scherani delle cosiddette «chimere», i temuti gruppi paramiltiari di cui lo stesso Aristide si era servito contro gli oppositori e per tarpare le recenti proteste studentesche all’università di Port-au-Prince. Nella capitale il fronte anti-Aristide, fuori e dentro i palazzi della politica, prese forza. A fine gennaio il presidente disse al New York Times: «Non me ne vado. Haiti ha subìto 32 colpi di Stato che non hanno mai portato niente di buono». Un mese dopo fu lui stesso a cadere vittima del 33esimo golpe: con il lasciapassare degli americani fu imbarcato su un aereo per il Sudafrica, dove dall’esilio ancora oggi annuncia di tanto in tanto il suo improbabile ritorno. Primo presidente liberamente eletto dagli haitiani nel ’90, otto mesi dopo Aristide fu rimosso da una colpo di Stato in cui il generale Raoul Cedras mise soltanto la faccia, un mento lungo sotto gli occhiali a specchio. Cedras era soltanto l’esecutore, i mandanti stavano nelle ville di Pétionville e in quelle di Miami e ancora più su. A Washington l’ammistrazione di Bush padre non si oppose all’uscita di scena del «prete-rivoluzionario», anzi. Ma fu la stessa Casa Bianca, dove nel frattempo era arrivato Bill Clinton, su pressione della lobby democratica afro-americana e per tamponare l’invasione via mare dei boat people haitiani (41 mila profughi fermati in 2 anni) a decidere il ritorno del prete populista nel 1994.

Non un intervento casuale: gli Stati Uniti hanno sempre giocato un ruolo a Haiti, già occupata tra il 1915 e il ’34 dopo che le tensioni tra neri e mulatti avevano messo in pericolo la pace nelle piantagioni di proprietà Usa. E all’alba del 7 febbraio 1986 fu un aereo da trasporto dell’Air Force ad aprire la pancia per accogliere una lussuosa Mercedes: al volante, accanto alla moglie con la sigaretta in bocca, c’era Jean-Claude Duvalier detto Baby Doc, il ferocemente sorridente dittatore che nel ’71, a soli 19 anni, aveva sostituito il padre «Papa Doc» che deteneva il potere dal ’57, dopo esserselo conquistato con un golpe militare. La dittatura dei Duvalier, lussi sfrenati e squadroni della morte, ha segnato a fuoco e rum la storia di Haiti. Con o senza di loro, il declino di un’economia coloniale fondata sullo zucchero non ha impedito alle famiglie dei proprietari terrieri e della nuova borghesia imprenditoriale di sfruttare i venti della prima globalizzazione con manodopera a costo zero. L’Air Force americana depositò Baby Doc in Francia, dove tuttora vive in un castello. Il suo allontanamento non coincise con una rinascita haitiana. Così come quello dell’autoritario Aristide, nel 2004, non ha cambiato le regole del gioco. Dopo i tonton macoutes di Baby Doc e le chimères di Aristide sono comparse le squadracce degli attachés. La violenza aumenta in prossimità di scadenze elettorali. Nel 2006 una «partita della pace», organizzata da ong internazionali, finisce in strage quando uno squadrone della morte fa invasione di campo sotto gli occhi della polizia: fanno sdraiare i giocatori e ne uccidono alcuni, con un colpo alla testa. Quel voto ha sancito la vittoria democratica di René Preval, l’attuale presidente. Nei tre anni seguenti la violenza a Haiti è diminuita. Merito dei circa 7 mila soldati della forza Onu (Minustah) che dal 2004 amministrano la sicurezza (fu Aristide a sciogliere l’esercito sperando di azzerare i golpe). I peacekeeper armati hanno fatto il loro lavoro combattendo le gang. Mentre la natura ha continuato la strage: 800 morti per uragani nel 2008, lo stesso anno che ha visto le rivolte della fame nelle strade di Port-au-Prince. Anche chi vive mangiando argilla si ribella. Se pa fot mwen, colpa della crisi alimentare mondiale ha detto il governo, pur dando vita a un piano d’emergenza. Nel 2009 l’Fmi e la Banca Mondiale hanno cancellato l’80% del debito estero di Haiti (1,2 miliardi di dollari). A novembre è cambiato il primo ministro. Arriva Jean-Max Bellerive. Avanti un altro, ordinaria amministrazione. La verità è che niente si muove veramente a Haiti, a parte la maledetta placca di Gonaives.

10 Things Your Auto Insurer Won't Tell You

Updated and adapted from the book, "1,001 Things They Won't Tell You: An Insider's Guide to Spending, Saving, and Living Wisely," by Jonathan Dahl and the editors of SmartMoney.



1. “When I say this is a good policy, I mean it’s good for me.”
While agents can help you navigate auto policies, some may not have your best interest at heart: Often, large auto and home insurers use “contingent commissions” to compensate agents who sold their policies. These fees come in two types: “steering” commissions for signing customers with a particular carrier, and profit-based commissions, when clients don’t file a lot of costly claims. The concern with the former is that unscrupulous agents push certain policies to reap larger commissions; with the latter, they might delay or discourage claims.



How to protect yourself? Ask about commissions, and have prospective agents explain their recommendations.


2. “Young drivers can't catch a break.”
Statistics show that drivers under age 25, especially male, are in a high risk group, and have difficulty getting insured. But the specifics are startling: Drivers in New York under the age of 19 pay a median auto insurance rate that is over 100 percent higher than drivers age 60 to 74, according to a 2009 survey published on InsuranceRates.com.



It typically takes three years of driving experience to be quoted a lower rate, according to AllInsuranceInfo.org's site. But there are other ways to ensure a better rate in the short term. For example, avoid sports cars and opt for a car with a lower engine capacity. Also ask your insurer for ways to score a lower premium. According to information posted on the AllInsuranceInfo.org site, some insurers will give a lower rate to young drivers who complete a defensive driving course.



3. “Spotty credit? That’ll cost you.”
Since the 1990s, insurers have discovered a strong correlation between low credit scores and filing lots of claims. Today, more than 90 percent of insurers use credit history in their underwriting, according to the Insurance Information Institute, a New York-based organization. Although consumer advocates argue that it unfairly penalizes the poor, it can also bite the middle class, says Birny Birnbaum, executive director at the Center for Economic Justice. After all, “87 percent of families in bankruptcy are there because of a job loss, medical catastrophe, or divorce,” he says.



Since many insurers do factor in credit history, it’s important to get your credit report from each of the three bureaus—TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax—and check them for errors before you shop for insurance.



4. “How do we set premiums? That’s for us to know and you to find out.”
As insurers continue to adopt complex pricing systems, not everyone is seeing savings. Why the disparity? For starters, premiums vary widely by state.According to a 2007 study from the National Association of  Insurance Commissioners, the average year-long policy in 2005 cost $949—ranging from a low of $664 in Iowa to a high of $1,343 in the District of Columbia.



What’s muddied the waters even further are the formulas used to set premiums for individuals. Twenty years ago most insurers sorted customers into four or five pricing tiers, based on where they lived, their age, and their driving record. Over the past decade, hundreds of variables have been added to the mix, including credit history, homeownership, and limits on past policies. Since each insurer interprets these variables differently, it’s even tougher for consumers to get a handle on the system.



5. “Your repaired car might look and run like new, but it’s worth a lot less.”
As many policyholders know, when the other party’s insurer is paying for repairs after an accident, you have the right to opt for original manufacturer parts instead of generic aftermarket ones. But even with the best parts and service in the world, a fully-repaired vehicle will often be worth less as a used car or trade-in than an identical car without the accident history.



Luckily, it’s not a total loss—even if you can’t collect diminished value, you can probably write it off on your tax ret urn. (Consult your tax adviser.) That’s why it’s a good idea to hire a post repair inspector, both to ensure that the work was done properly and to assess diminished value.



6. “Totaled your car? Good luck collecting its full value...”
Policyholders may be surprised that insurance companies don’t typically get their valuations from such standard sources as Kelley Blue Book or Edmunds.com. Instead, many use claims servicing companies, which consult proprietary databases to assess valuation. Some firms canvasses dealerships in local markets to build a database of comps.



If your car is totaled, you needn’t accept your insurer’s first offer. Go to Edmunds.com or AutoTrader.com to find better comps, and call the sellers listed on the insurer’s report to verify their price. No dice? If it’s a matter of $1,000 or more, hire your own appraiser and go through an appraisal- arbitration process.



7. "... and we’re more likely than ever to declare your car totaled.”
Given the haircut you’re likely to take when replacing your totaled car, many policyholders would prefer to have repairs covered in all but the most severe accidents. But that’s becoming increasingly difficult.



What constitutes “totaled”? An insurer’s rule of thumb is to deem a car totaled when repairs would exceed 70 percent of the vehicle’s value. And if your car’s frame is damaged, it can remain a safety hazard even when repaired. But if the damage is limited to a few minor, albeit expensive, components, you can appeal your insurer’s decision to total it.



8. “Your mechanic works for us.”
The auto insurance industry has long relied on direct-repair programs, which function like HMOs for ailing cars, with insurers maintaining lists of recommended repair facilities. In the last decade, some insurers have taken the relationship a step further; in 2001, Allstate announced it was buying a nationwide chain of repair shops.



Whether it’s a network of preferred providers or outright ownership, such coziness between insurers and body shops makes consumer advocates nervous. It lets the insurers take too much control over the repair process. And when you have pressure to keep costs low, you sometimes see shortcuts in repairs.



More often than not, you have a choice whether or not to use the insurer-recommended shop. So should you? It’s convenient, and in some cases, policyholders who take their cars there can get their deductible reduced or waived. If you do take the “in-network” route, hire a post-repair inspector to make sure repairs are done properly.



9. “Brand loyalty is for suckers...”
As more insurers adopt elaborately-tiered pricing strategies, rates may differ dramatically from company to company. You might be better off comparison-shopping once a year rather than automatically renewing your policy--especially if your own circumstances change. Start by getting online quotes from Geico and Progressive Direct. Also be sure to ask an independent agent for quotes, as well as from companies like Allstate and State Farm.



10. “. . . but be careful switching carriers—it could cost you.”
No doubt you’ve seen the warnings in your policy that not paying your premiums can cause your policy to be canceled. It might lead you to think that when you want to switch carriers, dropping the old insurer is as simple as stopping payment. Not so. If you don’t pay a bill for the next term, chances are your carrier won’t simply cancel the policy—it may also report your nonpayment to the credit bureaus. (Most insurers are required to give you a certain number of days’ notice before cancellation.) Also, your new carrier will see a cancellation in your history, which could mean you’ll pay higher rates or be declined.



To avoid the issue, get the proper documentation. Ask your current carrier for a policy cancellation form, and make sure the timing is right—that the ending date of your old policy coincides with the start date of your new one.