JohnB

Right, let's start at the top. The very first point is that I'm Australian and therefore quite a few hours of time zone away. g-f, do not think I'm ignoring you (yet), I simply go to bed and sleep while you lot are awake. Could you please explain how online versions of the pyramid texts are "occult"? I point out that you are quoting a translation that is now hopelessly out of date, the translations now are much better. Did you even look at the link I gave you that showed where Faulkner did not translate certain parts of passages? Your book has bits missing. While we're at it, and to put things to rest. Why on earth are you complaining on an internet forum that I'm using the internet for references? What do you expect me to do? Make a video showing the pages of my reference books and post it on Youtube? Of what possible use is to you if I said that my translation of #1067 is on Page xxx of my copy of "The Pyramid Texts" translated by Mercer in 1952? Do you expect me to scan the pages of my reference works and post them? Concerning Spells, Lines and Utterances. Many passages of the three are the same. The lines from the Pyramid Texts (Faulkner) or (Mercer) are often exactly the same as "The Book of the Dead" or "The Papyrus of Ani" (Budge) and the same as the later "Coffin Texts". For example, Faulkner translated the Pyramid Texts as "lines" which is how you are quoting them. Mercer took those "lines" and combined them into "Utterances" in his later translation. The original glyphs for both remain the same. It is folly to assume that because Faulkner was the earlier translator he was more correct. Both Faulkner and Mercer use the original heiroglyphs as a basis, but due to the work done in the time between the two translations, Mercer is the more authoritive now. Remember that when Faulkner did his translation, many symbols had not been assigned meanings and could not be translated. Just so you are very clear on this. All my Utterances have been quoted from "The Pyramid Texts", the 1952 Mercer translation. Don't like it? Tough. I'll back my Pyramid Texts over yours any day. (Although I must get a copy of Faulkner, it will be interesting to compare passage by passage with Mercer.) I'm glad you agree that my years studying ancient Egypt haven't been wasted then. I told you earlier that I was capable of translating glyphs myself, didn't that alert you to the fact I had studied? Or do you think translation skills are picked up over a weekend course at your local primary school? And what personal attacks? I said that the source you were quoting was wrong in facts and interpretation. I said the source you were quoting was full of rubbish, how is that a personal attack? And here is your answer. Yes, I have read them. Mercer is part of my library. Again, the Utterances I quote are directly from Mercers "The Pyramid Texts". The entire book can be found online here. Mercers translation is taken from exactly the same source as Faulkners, the Pyramids at Saqqara. Mercers is simply a later and better translation. But both are Pyramid Texts. To answer your oft repeated questions. And I hope that you won't mind if I do it from memory, rather than copying from somewhere? Nut, the Sky Mother was cursed by Ra that she would not bear children on any day of the year. This obviously upset Nut a great deal and she went and cried on Thoths shoulder for a while complaining about how unfair it was. Thoth however was a pretty cluey guy and decided to help Nut. He couldn't go to Ra because a curse of Ra cannot be lifted. So he went to the Moon and challenged the Moon to a few games of dice. Now Thoth, being the scholar that he was, was able to keep winning until he got the Moon to bet his light. In the course of the game Thoth won 5 days worth of Moonlight which he took with him. This is of course why the moon waxes and wanes, rather than being full every night. The Moon no longer has enough light to be full every night. Thoth took the 5 days of light and inserted them into the year, between the end of one year and the beginning of the next. (Note that there is very close parallel here with the "5 dark days" after the Winter Solstice in Wiccan and Celtic beliefs) Anyway, since these 5 days did not belong to either year, or any year, then Nut was free to bear children on those days. A child was born each day in the order of Osiris, Horus, Set, Isis and Nephthys. Your versions may differ, but that's how I heard it. Nut is the mother of Horus. There are however other versions that say that Horus was the son of Isis/Hathor and Osiris, but I just happen to prefer the version I learned first. Your question about the Morning Star is pretty much unanswerable as a general thing. Because many different local religions were mixed together with the unification of the Two Lands, many different modes of thought were mixed as well. Gods evolved and changed attributes and even appearance. But I'll tell you what, you tell me whos followers you are talking about, and I'll tell you who the Morning Star is. As the answer will differ depending on whether you are a follower of Horus, Osiris, Isis, etc, please be specific. I add that it is not enough to say "In the Pyramid Texts". The followers of different Gods had differing levels of influence at different times. So a Morning Star reference from the Pyramid of Pepys II may have a different meaning to one from the Pyramid of Unas. You need to specify which tomb you are referring to. I also fail to see the relevence of the New Testament. Except in passing, I've never really read the thing. That there would be similarities is not really unusual though. The people who wrote the Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts etc were called "scribes". Quite valued for their ability to read and write. Now strangely enough, the people who wrote the Bible (circa 800BC for the OT) were also "scribes", because they too could read and write. Even stranger, it is highly likely that those Biblical scribes were educated in Egypt. Why on earth would you find something odd in similarities in religious texts written by the same people? Was there anything else? Edit to add. Arrrrggghhh! You're using the 1969 copy of Faulkner, aren't you? Not an earlier translation. You know, the one with the "modernised" language? "You" and "Yours" instead of "Thees" and "Thous"? The "Good News" version of the Pyramid Texts.

swansont, I hope you realise my comment was with tongue firmly in cheek. "Only a physicist" jimmy, thanks for the vote of confidence. g-f, I now see where these ideas are coming from. http://home.hiwaay.net/~jalison/bowles.html I'll leave it to our Astronomers to explain why Mr. Bowles is incorrect in his statement that Jupiter is a "Brown Dwarf" star. I did ask for better references, but as I can now see that you simply copy/paste from Mr. Bowles website I understand why you can't provide them. I will however state categorically that Mr. Bowles is wrong in saying that; This is certainly not part of the Egyptian creation mythology. To quote from here. Lots about water, the sun and a hill, but nothing about Jupiter. Now to the quoted texts. #1806. Firstly the part you are quoting is only part of the passage, that's why I asked for the full text as context is important. #1806 is actually part of Utterance 638 from "The Book of the Dead" and is from the Atlantean Wall in the pyramid of Pepys II. More recent and more complete translations put the passage as: When put into context with the next Utterance (Number 639) it's plain to see that the texts are about gaining the "Second Sight" as granted to the Pharoah by the Eye of Horus. If you are interested, a complete transliteration can be found here, along with notes about Faulkners original translation and which bits he left out. The actual translation is not what Faulkner thought, nor is what Faulkner wrote correctly quoted by Bowles. (You'll notice that Utterance 639 is Bowles reference number 8) The bottom line is that the texts refer to the supernatural powers granted to the Pharoah after his death. Along with "Second sight" he is given the power to both create and destroy Ka or souls as well as other God like attributes. #1067. You quote it as; Where do you get this garbage? (Never mind, I know.) Talk about a mish mash. The 10 day Festival was generally dedicated to Sokar, Lord of the Underworld and ended on 30 Choiak. Known as Ka-Her-Ka part of the festival was the raising of the Djed pillar in honour of Osiris on 26 Choiak. (Roughly the Winter Solstice) "Yea, verily. And the God Osiris was raised up from the Underworld and took his place in the Duat and peace and plenty was upon the land." It was a festival about abundance for crying out loud. Many ancient cultures had festivals at the Winter Solstice to celebrate the end of the cold time and return of warmth and planting and crops growing. Add to that, passage #1067 is better known as Utterance 497. It really is better to quote Utterances rather than just lines of text, it saves so much time checking. The Utterances around 497 and including 497 are to do with food. Eating in the afterlife. Here is what 497 actually says; (The fourth line is unfortunately lost to us.) Not exactly what you thought it said, is it? But let's look at 496, the Utterance said immediately before the one you quote; So it was about food and abundance, not Jupiter. I trust we have now put these ideas to rest? As a final note on Mr. Bowles knowledge and veracity. I notice in his "theory" he quotes; He takes Utterance 639 from the Pyramid Texts and tacks Spell 66 from the Book of the Dead onto the end? Putting it forward as one continuous line? What sort of rot is that? BTW g-f, you wouldn't happen to know "Equestrian" over at Armageddon Online would you? He's been arguing the same thing recently using Bowles as a reference too. (And appealing to Velikovsky didn't help his case.)

gentleman-farmer. swansont is quite qualified to move a speculative thread to speculations. However, just to clarify the point since he is, after all only a physicist and can't be expected to know the details of 4,500 year old religious texts, and assuming he was in need of my support, which he isn't. Then speaking as one with a fair library of documentation from the period and the ability to translate heiroglyphics into English, I say you are speculating too. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of "The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts" by Faulkner handy, but this would be the 1910 edition would it not? If so, the translation may have changed since then. You quote a passage from Faulkner but not the context. (Bearing in mind that "Pyramid Texts" usually refers to the texts found in the pyramid of Unas, VIth dynasty) #1806 "O Osiris the King, the gods have knit together your face for you and Horus has given you his Eye, that you may see with it." You'll perhaps notice a similarity with the modern translation of Utterance 25, found on the North Wall of the Sarcophagus Chamber. "Osiris Unas, I give you the Eye of Horus, that your face may be adorned with it, that the perfume of the Eye of Horus may spread towards you." As Unas, in accordance with the beliefs of the times became Osiris after he had passed the tests of the Underworld he would be given the gifts and assume the form of Osiris. None of this is new and has been well documented in translations of "The Book of Coming forth By Day" by everybody from Budge onwards. Consequently your attribution of the Eye of Horus to Jupiter is most likely incorrect as the Eye was specifically given to Osiris when he assumed his place in the Duat, and it was also given to every pharoah that followed the ways of the Gods. If you would care to debate this further then please provide a more modern translation, or at least which Utterance or Spell the original comes from to allow for correct translation and context. It is also worthwhile to remember that in the original stories Osiris was cut into 14 parts by Typhoon (an agent of Set) with the parts spread over the land. It was Isis who gathered the parts and wrapped Osiris in linen to allow him to become whole again. In a very real sense the Gods did "knit together his face". That the Egyptians and other civilisations in the past were aware of the changing sky is not in dispute. The Pharonic calendar was based on the "Sothic" cycle as were some even earlier ones. The rising of Sirius after the 70 days in the Underworld was also of great importance as it heralded the flooding of the Nile. They noted the fixed stars and the ones that moved amoung them. Even the word "Planet" is derived from the ancient Greek word meaning "Wanderer". There is however zero evidence that the Pharonic Egyptians observed Jupiter in a manner that allowed them to see the Great Red Spot or that the spot has any connection with the legends of the Gods from Egyptian history.

Reading the Cap'ns link I found that someone had put the article into a pdf for printing. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1180398/Urinal_protocol_vulnerability.pdf Print and post ParanoiA. Alternatively, you could suggest your coworkers watch this educational film on the subject. http://z-studios.com/films/mre/

Well, that will learn me to ask a rhetorical probability question in a room full of scientists, won't it? I just thought it unusual.

I was just looking at the bottom of the index page, who is on and the like when I noticed; With 21,310 members, what are the odds? I really thought that we would have at least 1 member having a birthday every day.

As a Pagan, men and women are equal but different. And at Beltaine, "Viva la diffrance!"

I think that they may have simply chosen the most basic option. Can a woman wear a Burka while driving? If they can, should they? Of what value is photographic ID if the person is veiled? Either in the photo or in person? To try a partial ban for IDs and the like would be a nightmare to write as Legislation, by the time you got through with all the exceptions, wherebys and wherefores you'd have 5,000 pages. You would also be faced with rediculous contradictions. For example, motorcycle riders in most nations are required by law to wear helmets, but they are also required by law to remove these headcoverings when entering a bank to allow for identification. So you would have the situation where the person wearing a headcovering because of the law is required to remove it but the person wearing a headcovering from choice is not. Far easier to have a total ban.

I'm sorry, but aside from stating the obvious, did you have a point? Or wish to have a discussion?

Land use change could be a biggy that has been underrated, for a start. Possible, but I don't think probable. The first thing to be remembered is that forcings from the increase in CO2 are logarithmic and not linear. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees for a doubling of CO2, what does this mean in the real world? (Ignoring feedbacks) If the concentrations go from the preindustrial 280 ppm to 560 ppm the temps go up 3 degrees. However we have to go to 1120 ppm to get the next 3 degrees and 2240 ppm for the next. So the process slows down greatly over time. Secondly you are assuming an unlimited supply of fossil fuels to drive the CO2 increase and as many will quite happily tell you, we are running out of them so at some point we will stop. (Even if it's because there's nothing left to burn) Thirdly you are assuming no great changes in energy production or societal needs in the next hundred years or so. I quote from a speech given by Michael Crichton back in 2003; Do you really think the "not much change" assumption to be well founded? Lastly, and I left it until last because of the age, is the historical record. As you can see the CO2 levels have been far, far higher than todays without the temps going into runaway warming. If it didn't runaway at 7,000 ppm in the Cambrian it's unlikely to do so today at 400 ppm. However one must be careful when using graphs of such old periods. Note the size of the "Estimate of uncertainty" for the CO2, it could have been 7,000 ppm in the Cambrian, but it could have only been 3,000 too. Also note the lack of uncertainty/error bars for the temperatures. With the maximum temps always around the 22 degree mark, I do wonder if it is "real" or simply an artifact of our detection methods. Did the temps stop at 22 degrees, or does it just look like it? And in either case, why? Another reason to be wary of very long term climate temps is time. Over Geological time periods, the Earth itself changed dramatically. In making any sort of "detailed" comparison I don't believe that you can go back more than 50 million years. While the continents were in roughly the same positions for longer than that, a defining event occurred 50 million years ago, North and South America joined and cut the Atlantic off from the Pacific. This will have resulted in wholesale changes to the ocean currents and climate over the face of the planet. I think that comparing before and after, except in very general terms is a case of apples and oranges. Now, if you meant "catastrophe" in terms of our civilisation having to adapt to major changes, that is another matter. Yes, we will. Even if we became absolutely CO2 neutral, the climate would still change. In the short time that humans have been on the face of the Earth, sea levels have been between 8 metres higher than today and 150 metres lower than today. Unless we can actually find a way to accurately control the planetary climate only one thing is certain in the future. Climate catastrophe will come and there will be nothing we can do about it except adapt. In that respect at least, it doesn't matter if we burn fossil fuels, have all the wind and solar power money can buy, or live in grass huts, the climate will change and we will have to adapt. To think anything else is to live in a fantasy world. Just as a side note, it appears to be becoming more accepted in the Archaeological community that rapid climate change may have had far more impact on ancient societies than previously thought. "Rapid" being 200 years or less. Climate change apparently caused the end of the "Oasis" peoples and caused them to move to the Nile Valley and become the Pharonic Egyptians. It has also been linked (in both strong and weak fashions) to the falls of the Harappans in India, the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Maya in Central America, even the Clovis people in North America, many peoples at many times all over the globe. The ruins of advanced, city building civilisations are strewn around the globe, many were destroyed, but many more seem to have just "died" with the reason a mystery. Perhaps it's not such a mystery after all. CC may even have been a factor in the fall of Rome as at the end of the "Roman Warm Period" Rome and Italy became more and more dependent on grain shipments from Egypt and other warmer lands. Colder times in Europe meant lower harvests and more reliance on imports. It can also have a bearing on why the Germanic and other Northern tribes moved south to attack the Empire. It was cold, they were starving, they had little choice. It may turn out that rapid climate change was one of the major reasons for societies "ending".

Yes and no. In some areas my answer is "I don't know, data insufficient". Being well aware of the uncertainties involved, I'm pretty certain that anybody who thinks they do know is pretty much fooling themselves. Only by minimising the uncertainties in the data and the processes involved can you convince yourself that you are "sure" of your answers. I find myself wary of people who can find certainties in uncertain data.

I agree with the Cap'n. I think the question was something in the line of "Since there are forces always pulling at the planets, how come the Solar System and the orbits are so stable?"

Hi Bilko. As one of the resident sceptics, here is my take. Firstly I have to agree with both swansont and cypress. Anybody who denies the increased forcing due to radiant physics is a fool and wrong. Increase the CO2 and the temperature will go up. IIRC about 1.1 degree for a doubling of CO2. This fact of basic physics is not in dispute at all as far as I can tell. Secondly, the world has warmed over the last 100+ years. This fact is also not in dispute. Not only physics, but actual historical records show this to be true. (For example, there aren't "Ice Fairs" on the Thames River as there were in the 1860/1870s. The river no longer freezes in winter.) Now it starts to get hairier. We get into Attribution and Feedbacks and the confidence levels associated with them. Attribution is the process of working out how much of the warming (or cooling) in the 20th Century is due to which forcing. CO2 is a positive forcing and drives the temps up, many aerosol pollutants block light and are negative forcings, cloud patterns can change from natural causes and therefore be a positive or negative forcing depending on their height. You can add in the Sun, land use changes, Milancovich Cycles, major current reversals and pretty much everything that can effect the climate. The idea is to work out how strong each of these forcings are at given points in time. During the 20th Century we had 2 warming and 1 cooling phase. 1910-1940 warmed, 1940-1970 cooled and 1970-2000 warmed. So attribution is used to determine what the forcings were in each of these periods to produce the observed temperature changes. It's not enough just to note the temperatures going up and down, we are trying to understand all the variables that make it go up and down. A system doesn't change for no reason, there must be either an internal or external forcing that makes it change. Feedbacks are processes that depend on previous forcings. They can also be considered forcings in their own right and again come in positive (they will accelerate the trend) and negative (they will decrease the trend) types. One thing to remember here is that positive and negative refers to trends, not temperatures. In a time of warming a positive feedback will make things warmer but in a cooling phase a positive feedback will make things colder. The biggest feedback is water vapour, which is also the most powerful of the GHGs. As the world warms, more water vapour is put into the air and this increases the warming. A positive feedback. However, it also forms more clouds, which can be either a positive or negative feedback as I said before. It's the balance of the values that are used in attribution and feedbacks that we use in our Climate Models. Most of these seem to centre around the 2.4 to 3.2 degrees rise for a doubling of CO2. (With a range about 1.2 to 8 degrees rise) So put simply, we know (from physics) that doubling the CO2 will result in around a 1.1 degree rise in temperature. Everything above or below that value is based on interpretation of the attribution and feedbacks in the system. It is this area and the confidence expressed in the conclusions that are in dispute. One more thing to keep in mind. Polar bears, growing seasons and melting ice are indicitive of only one thing, the world is warming. They are not in any way evidence that the actions of mankind had anything to do with the warming. All of the effects would happen whether man was responsible or not. Anybody who says otherwise is being dishonest. However, and just to make things a bit more confusing, melting Polar Ice is actually a feedback in the climate system due to albedo changes. By the same token, beware of those on my side who talk about "scams" or the like. These people would classify as the "extremist" end of the spectrum and are generally incapable of rational discussion. Your best bet is some of the more "moderate" blogs and keep reading about the science. (I've been reading all sorts for years and am still a beginner.) And always remember that what you read in the newspaper or see reported on TV or the newsnet is not always what the scientists involved actually said.

Okay, this has been bugging me for some time now. As I said above, I think the Reference Station method should be accurate and it's irritated that it apparently isn't. I have come up with a possible explanation, but have no idea how to test it. It's not only "above my paygrade", but above my abilities. The RSM uses the bias between stations to extrpolate into areas of station drop out. Because it uses the long term averages to calculate the bias, the bias during either a warming or cooling time period will move towards the centre of the range. It's an average, it doesn't care which way the temps go. Also, by being a constant, it to a great degree ignores altitude. However, if the reference station warms faster than the one being extrapolated, while it will effect the bias, it will still result in a constant. The bias is a constant. Anyone reading on climate change is well aware of "Arctic Amplification", that higher latitudes will warm faster than lower ones. I wondered if there is a detectable difference between the rates of warming at different altitudes. Do higher altitudes warm faster or slower than lower altitudes? It struck me that there should be a difference. Consequently I wonder if the bias, rather than being a constant derived from the difference between two averages would be better worked as an evolving value derived from the difference between the rates of change of the two averages. So, depending on whether the difference between the rates of change of the averages converge or diverge the bias will increase or decrease. There would have to be a limit to the bias, but how to arrive at that figure I just don't know. Given a good enough base period, I think it might go some way towards solving the problem. Thoughts?

Looks like we're getting a similar system. http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_5516 Considering that this years budget concentrates on linking up the current bikeways into a more complete network I think it has a lot of promise.

Thanks IA, that's exactly it. Once the winner is known, the magician hands over the key to the cypher and *drum roll* it decodes to the winners name. Which key he hands over depends on who the winner is. Because it's just the name of a nation, the cypher is very short and uncomplicated. As for the card in the box, that's a newish version of a very old illusion.

Okay, I've been having a bit of phone trouble lately. No dial tone. As the handset was old and rented from Telstra I went to the Telstra shop to get a replacement. Seems simple, doesn't it? So I'm standing in the Telstra shop this morning with my phone in my hand and say "My phone doesn't work, I need a replacement". Simple request, one would think. The charming young lady looks at me and replies "What you need to do is phone Telstra and we will give you a reference number, then you come in here and we will give you a new phone." Still with my broken phone in hand I look at her and say "Phone them about my broken telephone?" "Yes." I looked at her and said "Do you not see the logical problem inherent in this advice?" She looked blank. "Um, no." However she was helpful. She suggested I go to the public phone outside the Telstra shop and call Telstra from there. That way I could get my reference number, walk back inside and she would give me a new phone. My head was spinning and I thought I'd try my luck elsewhere. So I went to the Telstra shop in the next shopping centre and said "My phone is broken and I need a replacement." The very nice young lady said "Is that it?" "Yes" "Fine Sir, give me that one and here is your new telephone." It's nice the problem is resolved, but I just loved the logic used in the first shop.

You'll find that the cryptogram can decode 4 or 5 different ways.

Firstly I was too quick. It's 2 x 1 gig sticks and 2 x 2 gig sticks. Secondly.:doh::doh: Rather than resizing the needed jpg to 400 x 500 pixels @ 100 pixel per inch I was trying to resize to 400 x 500 inches @ 100 pixels per inch. I think I know why I ran out of memory. :doh::doh: On the up side, I've run so many scans that I'm absolutely certain that the RAM is in great shape. Cap'n Refsmmat, the system is set up to be as quick as it can be. All delays have been set to zero. I'm used to tabs opening and closing instantly. For some reason over the last couple of weeks opening and closing tabs now takes time. While fine at the start, as a browsing session gets longer the speed of tab openings and closings slowly increases. After a while it can take tabs 5-10 seconds to close down. A reboot solves the problem but it leads me to think that something somewhere is not releasing RAM when it shuts down. Page file is only 6.4 Gigs, so there's still plenty of room. Cheers guys and thanks for the suggestions.

I'm running Vista 64 bit SP2 with 6 gigs of RAM. (3 x 2 Gig sticks) For some reason I've suddenly started running low on memory. IE runs slow with more than 12 tabs open and Paint Shop Pro can't resize a picture. Every scanner I've got says that I have roughly 4.5 gigs free. First thought was that something was hiding, but if it is, it's good. AVG, Ad Aware, Malwarebytes, CC Cleaner and Super Anti Spyware can't find it. Process monitor says that the memory is free, nothing out of the ordinary is happening. All memory tests show no problems with the sticks themselves. The only program that auto updates is AVG 9. I'm wondering if the Resident Shield is somehow locking off part of the memory. Any thoughts? This one has me stuffed.

I know this is getting OT but, In an open primary, what is to stop the Republicans from getting some of their people to vote for the biggest dead head on the Democrat ticket? Thereby ensuring a very poor Democrat candidate goes to the General election? Done right, with a good enough "machine" backing you, you could influence who your opponent is at the general election. Why isn't the system rorted?

According to UNEP oil spills get tracked when over 10,000 gallons or 34 tons. Working on that basis, 2.5 million gallons comes in at 8,500 tons, so you are around a WW2 tanker per day and a half. The Exxon Valdex in 4 1/2 days. So definately very bad. Using your 142.5 million barrels, that means 484,500 tons which will make it by far the largest spill in history. More than 60% larger than the Iran/Iraq one. Looks like I was wrong, disaster indeed looks to be an appropriate word, and catastrophe is not unreasonable either. At least, that's what the numbers say to me now.

Pangloss the estimates vary so widely that I don't know if the numbers are trivial or not. I simply put them up for historical comparison. iNow, yes they were less concentrated, but they end up a lot higher and for a much longer time. Those figures were for 1 month. Using the same reference terms; February 1942; W.L. Steed: 65,936 barrels of crude oil. Corilla: 10,500 tons of aviation fuel. China Arrow: 81,773 barrels of fuel oil. India Arrow: 88,369 barrels of diesel fuel. Opalia: Petrol and paraffin. Pan Massachusetts: 104,000 barrels of refined petroleum, gasoline, kerosene and diesel oil. Cities Service Empire: 9,400 tons of crude oil. Kars: 12,700 tons of aviation spirit and fuel oil. W.D. Anderson: 133,360 barrels of crude oil. Mamura: full load of gasoline. (About 9,000 tons) R.P. Resor: 105,025 barrels of Bunker C fuel oil. (As an aside, more tankers were sunk on the Spanish Main that month than anywhere else.) March 1942; O.A. Knudsen: Petrol and fuel oil. (Around 12,000 tons.) Gulftrade: 80,000 barrels of bunker C oil. John D. Gill: 141,981 barrels of crude oil. Australia: 110,000 barrels of fuel oil. San Demetrio: 4000 tons of alcohol and 7000 tons of motor spirit. Ranja: Petroleum. (7,000 tons?) E.M. Clark: 118,725 barrels of heating oil. W.E. Hutton: 65,000 barrels of #2 heating oil. British Prudence: 12,000 tons of fuel oil. Empire Steel: 11,000 tons of aviation spirit and kerosene. Narragansett: 14,000 tons of clean petroleum product. Ocana: fuel oil. (About 7,000 tons.) Dixie Arrow: 86,136 barrels of crude oil. Svenør: 11,410 tons of furnace oil. San Gerardo: 17,000 tons of fuel oil. Roughly half of these vessels were sunk within 60 miles of the North Carolinan coast. With no clean up operation the oil would be a constant attack on the coastal waters and ecology. Don't forget, I'm not saying the BP spill wasn't very bad news, just saying that it might not be a catastrophe. Trying a different example, from jrank. The Exxon Valdex released only 39,000 tons in comparison and you would have to agree (I think) that the Gulf of Arabia or the Persian Gulfwould classify as rather small and enclosed waterways when compared to the Gulf of Mexico.

Sorry, still not sure if I understand your system properly. Aren't the "Primaries" sort of internal elections where the people of each party decide who their Candidate will be at the General Elections? Say it's a Democrat held position, the Democrat primaries are to see if the incumbant is going to the polls in defence of his seat while the Republican primaries are to decide who will challenge for the seat? So a sitting Democrat would only have to worry about anti incumbancy within his own party. Anti incumbancy by the swinging voters and Republicans wouldn't come into it. Their votes only enter into the equation at the General election, don't they? Or am I not understanding the system properly?

Perception could be part of the problem too. I'm not trying to downplay what happened but the word "disaster" is bandied about a lot, also "catastrophe". Is it a disaster? A good administration will proceed according to the severity of the problem, not what the public percieves to be the severity. I saw a comment on a blog recently and had a look at the figures. Given a bit of perspective the spill is not going to destroy the fragile ecosystems. From Uboat net. January 1942. (And only looking at loaded tankers sunk near the US coast.) Norness: 12,222 tons of Admiralty fuel oil. Coimbra: 9000 tons of lubricating oil. Allan Jackson: 72,870 barrels of crude oil. Alexandra Høegh: 12,000 tons of crude oil. Innerøy: 11,000 tons of petrol. Empire Gem: 10,692 tons of motor spirit. Varanger: 12,750 tons of fuel oil. Francis E. Powell: 81,000 barrels of furnace oil and gasoline. Halo: 64,103 barrels of crude oil. The Halo was sunk just off New Orleans BTW. Those 9 ships out of the 66 hit or sunk during January 1942 amount to a lot of oil. If you start adding in the fuel oil carried by normal merchants and empty tankers to run their engines, there was a lot more dumped in the ocean that month. January 1942 was a slow month with only 66 ships hit or sunk. May had 146, June 145, the figures are quite staggering. Some of these tankers were sunk within sight of the American coastline. There were no skimmers, no dispersants, no action plans and as far as I can see, no lasting ecological impacts either. Again, I'm not trying to downplay the BP spill, but viewed historically it will not be a "catastrophe" with "long lasting ecological damage" either. However we should try to avoid spills and clean them up when they do occur. Given that historical perspective it is better for an Administration to proceed with thought and care rather than run around like headless chooks just so they are seen to be "doing something". It may not suit the public perception, but it is the correct course of action. Just my 2 cents.