[outrigger canoe] best all round performer

Water has this annoying habit, like millions of tiny fingers, of dragging on any underwater surface it comes in contact with. Therefore, the greater the area of the boat’s hull exposed to the water, the slower it will be.

The best hull design is long, thin and as close to a circle underneath as possible. The problem with the circle is that it is harsh, as the boat crashes down after each wave and so a compromise towards the soft and forgiving V shape, which has a larger wetted area, is necessary.

It’s interesting how the Pacific islands and the west have approached the problem from different angles. Thinking western, one solution to the problem you can see below in the International Canoe – the use of a hiking plank or a trapeze, to shift weight outwards from the boat.




This, as you can see, is highly unstable though exhilarating in short bursts. The essential problem is that the wind is not even – it comes in bursts or ‘gusts’ and often changes direction, sometimes constantly. The result is sudden tipping over or ‘heeling’ moment and sudden crashes backwards.

The Pacific islanders said: simple – just put a log, an ‘ama’, of neutral buoyancy [i.e. one which can equally be pushed under or lifts into the air] at some distance from the main hull [vaka].

This is the solution which Gary Dierking chose in his Waapa below and it is quite workable in a small boat.




Where it comes unstuck is in larger, more extreme craft, such as the Hawaiian canoe below and you still have that sudden lift or crash problem. In the Pacific, where labour is plentiful and cheap, the answer is to load more bodies onboard and they run back and forth into certain positions to keep the boat balanced.

Added weight is the problem – the bane of sailcraft.

Going the other direction, the log can no longer be a log – it needs to be another thin hull with buoyancy and that is added weight.




One western solution is to have two equal outriggers either side, as you see below. Thus the trimaran was born although it is not specifically western – the west just adopted it in a big way.

The downside of the trimaran is that the weight is doubled and therefore you need much more sail, which tends to go upwards, cutting into the stability and creating serious fore and aft [front and back] stability problems.

With a western rig on board, the strain on the hulls is enormous and things can snap quite quickly. Tris have a nice motion through the water but the western variety are quite highly strung and temperamental.




The west tended to go the other way, traditionally. Widening the one and only hull, they put lead down below in a keel and this balanced the sail.

No matter which way the west tried to refine the design – space-age plastic materials, clever hull section design, variations on the keel, these boats were still tubs, slow due to their wetted area and inability to carry much sail. The west reacted against this inferiority by pumping in more power, more stress and a greater need for tougher materials, such as titanium and kevlar, at a hideously out of control cost.

Monohull sailors cite their safety record – that they’ve been plying the oceans for centuries. Yes they have – and they’ve been sinking too, especially when the lead keel falls off.

The only good things about a monohull is that if they are suddenly hit by a gust, they go over but then come back up again [something the multihull doesn’t] and they are good-looking. They really are beautiful to look at.




The west then looked at the Pacific for a solution and found it in the catamaran. Pound for pound, foot for foot, the cat gives the best and most stable performance and almost all the speed records at sea are held by cats or sailboards although this doesn’t include the outriggers, which might be faster, by a process of logic.

The downside of the catamaran is that it is not stable past a certain point. To illustrate this, put a plank on the floor, against a wall. Try pushing sideways with your fingers and it won’t budge but then, suddenly, with enough pressure, the edge of the plank suddenly shoots up and over.

That’s the catamaran.

The solution? Back to the trimaran. No other craft absorbs punishment as well and if you look at it it, it’s easy to see why. In a sudden ‘knockdown’ by the wind, no matter in which direction it’s going, the lee [or downwind] hull simply buries itself in the sea and when the gust dies, it comes back up again.

The trimaran is a very forgiving design, which is why it is preferred by so many these days for sea voyaging and island hopping. Yet if the outrigger is designed well [see below], then it can be excellent.




The best compromise of all – low wetted area, light weight, long, thin hull, comfort through the water, stability, both sideways and fore and aft, low stress on the rigging and on the boat, low cost of materials and the ability to be amateur built and repaired at sea, has to be a variation of the outrigger. It’s no accident that the Pacific islands have used them for centuries.

Of course, any yacht is only as good as its rig [sails] but that’s another topic. Looking only at hull design, if you can give the ama enough buoyancy and yet enough weight as well [a critical calculation], then on one tack [direction of travel], it will act as a trimaran and on the other – will be stable enough so as not to flip, providing you don’t build a huge deck across the akas [crossbeams], which the wind would use as a scoop.

Pound for pound, foot for foot, this enables a longer, thinner hull and that augurs well for comfort and safety at sea, along with speed - surely what one is aiming for.




Why won’t the west adopt this? For a start, it’s asymmetrical and the west loves symmetry. It is less comfortable, accommodation wise – most westerners prefer the floating home concept and then there is the evolution of sailcraft in the west. People tend to go with what is readily available, the accepted technology and its apparent superiority [though not borne out by test tank results] and innate conservatism, even for the lesser product – remember VCRs?

I can tell you – if I go to sea, I want to be in the best available craft and to hell with convention. A stable outrigger is most certainly the best all round performer and the best all round for safety.

But even more than that is the sheer joy of the motion for such a low cost - anyone can enjoy this without having to be a millionaire.
.

[shriners] behind the red fez

Represents the blood of the massacred Christians - interesting symbol within a supposedly Christian country

Quite interesting to me was that both Earl Warren and Abraham Zapruder were both Shriners.

On the surface, this organization is a charitable boys club which generates money through fundraising and donates it to the upkeep of Shriners Hospitals across America. Understandably, there are countless testimonials from those whose children have been to those hospitals and have been benefited.

The Shriners are known for their conventions, wearing the familiar red fez and for the hi jinx at their gatherings. Bill Bryson covered one of their gatherings in his Lost Continent. They're also known for the street parades where they hire pretty young ladies and drive miniature sports cars.

All good clean fun.

Just who are they?

"The Mystic Shrine, an Illustrated Ritual of the Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the Mystic Shrine" Revised Edition 1975, Ezra A. Cook Publications, Inc. ("Serving the Craft Since 1867) Chicago defines it thus:

...Our alliance or the Rite of our Mystic Shrine is ancient, honorable, benevolent and secret. It is devoted to the cause of justice, truth and mercy. It is ancient as the corner-stone of Mohammed's Temple of Mecca; as secret as the Moslem that bound the tribes of Arabia to Allah or their god; as honorable as the Christian, and the tenets to which it is dedicated when once assumed cannot be eschewed or cast aloof. ...We require absolute secrecy and desire all our disciples to hold and interest in our noble cause and a just observance of the tenets of our faith. ...By the existence of Allah and the creed of Mohammed; by the legendary sanctity of our Tabernacle at Mecca we greet you, (p. 17-18)

The obligation is:

...and now upon this sacred book, by the sincerity of a Moslem's oath I here register this irrevocable vow, subscribing myself bound thereto as well as binding myself by the obligation of the prerequisite to this membership that of a Knight Templar or that of a thirty-second degree A. and A, Scottish Rite Mason. ... may Allah, the god of Arab Moslem and Mohammedan, the god of our fathers, support me to the entire fulfillment of the same, Amen, Amen, Amen. (p. 22)

The next stage of the ceremony is:

This is the place where our brethren stop to sprinkle the Devil's Pass with urine. You will contribute a few drops of urine to commemorate the time and place where all who pass here renounce the wiles and evils of the world to worship at the Shrine of Islam. Only a few drops will do. (p. 28)

For a start, the organization is not Christian, by definition. It is also not Muslim as Muslims have a distinctive set of practices, none of which embrace this relativistic Shriner ritual. Urinating and sexual licence is the province of a completely different arcane religion.

So who is this god they follow?

It's a god who has this penalty for any who dare tell what goes on:

The oath of the Shrine A.A.O.N.M.S. (Shriners) concludes as follows: "...in willful violation whereof I may incur the fearful penalty of having my eyeballs pierced to the center with a three-edged blade, my feet flayed and I will be forced to walk the hot sands upon the sterile shores of the Red Sea, until the flaming sun shall strike me with livid plague, and may Allah the God of Arab, Muslim and Mohammedan, the God of our fathers support me to the entire fulfillment of the same, Amen, Amen, Amen."

Virtually the same as the Masonic 3rd degree oath, with the added Islam.

How did the idea of setting up hospitals get going?

William J. Whalen, [Professor of Journalism, Purdue University, retired], Christianity and American Freemasonry, Ignatius Press 1958, 1987, 1998, explains:

"I hope that within two, or three, or four or five years from now we will be impelled from the wonderful work that has been done, to establish more of these hospitals, in easy reach of all parts of North America, and let it be known that while our friends, the enemy, is now about the only institution that is establishing hospitals and schools and things of that kind for the benefit of humanity, the Shrine is going to do them one better."

No one in Noble Adair's audience had any doubt as to the identity of "the enemy". To allay the fears of the Nobles, another speaker assured them that if the hospital committee did not "do it right and devoted themselves too much to Catholic children or Negro children we can fire them and get another committee."

The Orlando Sentinel, on June 29, 1986, explored the distribution of collected moneys to the hospitals:

They claim about 300 Million Dollars a year to hospitals and other institutions, which is good but not that much, considering that if every Mason contributes just 5 Dollars per week, they can collect 1.3 Billion Dollars per year... they are a good way to deceive the outsiders, like its secrecy, it is often a cloak to hide its real teachings and goals, and a good way to obtain propaganda... and even the so called "charity" is a way to get money for the Order: In 1985, "Circuses" of the Shriners generated 23 Million Dollars, and only 2% went to medical care of children. In 1984, out of 17 Million Dollars only 1% went to charity, the rest for the Order!

On 12/27/2004, Stacy Johnson, of KOB TV, Albuquerque, reported:

The American Institute of Philanthropy is one of several national charity watchdog organizations. It recently published its report card on 100 “failing” charities… charities that the AIP would not recommend you donate money to.

And you might be surprised at some of the results. Top failing charities in AIP’s estimation?

1. Research to Prevent Blindness
2. Shriners Hospitals for Children
3. Seeing Eye
4. Guide Dogs for the Blind
5. Cal Farley’s Boys Ranch
6. Diabetes Trust Fund
7. Give Kids the World
8. Southern Poverty Law Center
9. Omaha Home for Boys
10. YWCA of the USA-NO

The circuses they organize around America have garnered a litany of complaints for years and the USDA has cited Shrine Circus exhibitors for failure to provide veterinary care, adequate shelter from the elements, nutritious food, and clean water, as well as failure to handle animals in a manner that prevents trauma and harm and ensures public safety. Animals used by Shrine Circus have caused deaths and injuries.

Kevin Rollason,of the Winnipeg Free Press, wrote on Jan 28, 2001:

The Khartum Shriners are worried that sick children in Manitoba could suffer the fallout from a fund-raising scandal after an event for Shrine charities this week was revealed to have included sex acts and sexual fondling of nude performers.

And Canada Safeway, one of the charity's major supporters, will be asking the Shriners for an explanation. Gervin Greasley, public relations director for the Khartum Shrine in Winnipeg, said he's worried about what will happen to the organization's fund-raising.

"It will take a long time to live this down and regain the confidence of the community".

On Thursday night at the Garden City Canad Inn, two Free Press reporters witnessed two female performers climb upon a banquet table, fondle each other, kiss and be touched by as many as eight men at one time. Some of the men were seen to pour beer on the women and put beer bottles between their legs. Patrons performed oral sex on the women in view of more than 100 men. At several points, the women tried to stop the men from fondling them, complaining they were in pain and discomfort...

Elsewhere in the hotel, some patrons visited a guest room where a man at the door told them they could get sexual intercourse for 100 Dollars or oral sex for 75 Dollars. Organizers of the Shriners' Motor Patrol "V.I.P. Gentlemen's Dinner," attended by more than 400 men, told the Free Press on Friday that proceeds from the event would be used to cover motor patrol operations and support Shrine children's charities.

No better nor worse than other parties going about except that these men are meant to be the pillars of society, with wives and families. The idea of men of 'honour', pillars in the community behaving in most ungentlemanly ways still astounds so many people. I'm not astounded at all - just look at the Franklin coverup and how, if you don't accept the initial court exoneration but look at subsequent judgements and the further one investigates, the more evidence there seems to be for the goings on.

But that's another story. Back to the Shriners. Dan Slater reported in the NYT, September 8th, 2008:

The NYLJ reports that Ronald H. Tills, a retired New York Supreme Court justice, pleaded guilty Thursday in federal court in Buffalo, N.Y., to violating the Mann Act by transporting a prostitute across state lines.

According to the NYLJ, the 73 year-old Tills admitted that he recruited prostitutes to service members of a fraternal club, the Royal Order of Jesters, at gatherings in Pennsylvania, Florida, Kentucky and Ontario, N.Y., in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

In his plea agreement, Tills also acknowledged arranging for women to attend a meeting of the Buffalo chapter of the Jesters in 2001 in Dunkirk, N.Y., to have sex with members of the club. He faces from 27 months to 33 months in prison during sentencing, which is scheduled for Jan. 12.

The anecdotal evidence for what the Shriners do is folklore and there's hardly and American who does not know of their excesses and yet actual evidence still comes as a bit of a shock.

A little more:

On September 1, 2006, both Shriners charitable and fraternal corporations filed a complaint alleging defamation against Shriner whistleblower Vernon Hill and Charity Watch Center, an online watchdog site, owned and operated by Paul Dolnier, a former IRS agent. On November 6, 2007, the Clerk of the Thirteenth Circuit court of Hillsborough County, Florida, filed a "Notice of Intent to Dismiss" the Shriners v James Vernon Hill and Charity Watch Center (CWC) lawsuit because of "lack of prosecution." (1)

This means that for the past ten months, the Shriners have not pursued the case. Noting this, the clerk of the court sent out the "Notice of Intent to Dismiss" to all parties, letting them know that a hearing was scheduled for January 18, 2008 at 9 a.m. before the honorable Judge Charlene E. Honeywell.

Why the red fez?

As Christians well know, in 980 AD, 50,000 Christians, including women and children, were murdered by the Muslims. As the streets ran red with blood, the Muslims dipped their hats in that blood as a testimony to Allah.

Shriners, on admittance to the order, are given a red fez, an Islamic sword and a crescent jewel. They obviously don't give a damn about Islam but the symbology of hatred for Christianity is too good an opportunity to pass up.

The Shriners. Would you let your daughter marry one?
.

[reason and enlightenment] the greatest joke perpetrated on man

Would you place your faith and the fate of your family in the hands of these murderous buffoons and their prostitute goddess or something a bit more eternal?

The reign of terror is reason? Sigh.

"Goddess of Reason, The. The central figure in an attempt to supersede Christianity during the French Revolution. The first Feast of Reason was held on 20th Brumaire [November 11], 1793, when the 'goddess', Mlle Candeille of the Opera, was enthroned in Notre Dame Cathedral, which became the Temple of Reason.

She was dressed in white with a red Phrygian cap (liberty cap) and the pike of Jupiter-Peuple in her hand. Mme Momoro, wife of a member of the Convention, was later installed at St Sulpice. Goddesses of Liberty and Reason were soon set up throughout France, one allegedly wearing a fillet bearing the words 'Turn me not into License!'

Saturnalia of an uninhibited kind accompanied these installations." [Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable, 15th Ed. Revised by Adrian Room, HarperCollins, 1995]

Also see here and here.

For 3½ years, beginning November 24, 1793 to April 1797, religion was banned and a substitute put in place. They even changed the calendar.

Beginning with that period (November 24, 1793 or 3rd Frimaire in Year II), the churches of Paris were closed and the public reading of the Bible forbidden. Immediately, almost all parts of the town renounced religion, closed parish churches and reopened them as temples of reason.

In these temples, a prostitute, Désirée Candéille, was installed as the Goddess of Reason after she paraded naked through the streets of Paris. The goddess, after being embraced by the president, was mounted on a magnificent car, and conducted, amid an immense crowd, to the cathedral Notre Dame, to take the place of Deity.

There she was elevated on a high altar, and received the adoration of all present.

The forces of chaos are never chaotic - they have their agents in the field and in the revolution, these were the Illuminati Masons. The three greatest obstacles to chaos are the presence of G-d, through socially constraining scripture, the family unit and loyalty to a nation.

Once these can be broken down and it takes generations to achieve this - just look at our current four decades of history - once you have your people in place in the law, in medicine, in education and in all arms of the government, you're ready to move, through subterfuge and misdirection.

Once you've got the chaos moving along nicely, then you can drop in mischievous little hints - a Noyade here, a massacre there, the reign of terror facilitating all. People are easily cowed and when they sign away all freedoms in their rage against an organized grain shortage and happily go along with the sweeping away of that which they no longer value, e.g. the Christian message, only then can the wolves reveal themselves and run amok among the sheep.

The solution is oh so simple - retain your faith in G-d and keep the precepts in the back of your mind, no matter how much against the grain it goes with you, as there lies the knowledge of right and wrong on a sustainable basis, especially for your children, try to stay with your partner and family and be loyal to your nation. As long as sufficient people can hang on to these, the forces of chaos are not going to prevail.

This is what reason dictates. This is what enlightenment really is. The opposite - your Kants, Hegels, Voltaires and Nietzsches, those who argue the perfectability of Man, the fools - that is the road to darkness and chaos and that's where we're now headed, inch by inch.

These are times we're now living in when primal concepts will once again come to the fore.
.

[charlotte corday] murderess, feminist or heroine

Wiki says that under the Second Empire, Marat was seen as a revolutionary monster and Corday as a heroine of France, as represented in the wall-map. I admit to much preferring the 1860 painting by Paul Jacques Aimé Baudry.

To the upside-down and wrong-way-round question: 'Would Charlotte Corday have killed Jean-Paul Marat if the political motivation had been removed from the equation?' the answer must surely be: 'No, she would not have.'

Therefore, her action might be construed to be patriotic - in support of her country, killing a maniac who was urging everyone - and in particular, the Jacobins - on to bloodier and bloodier mayhem, from the safety of his printing press, playing on the populist reputatation he'd already built up.

Corday was obviously a thinking woman. Of the Girondin persuasion, she was pro-revolution, in the sense of the relief of the suffering of the poor and especially that of the oppression of women - and the coming Reign of Terror was to be quite misogynist in places - so much so that she'd brooded on all these things and on the rantings of this man Marat.

Thinking through her mind's eye, she'd just lived through the September Massacres, she'd have been well aware, from history, of the Massacre of the Huguenots and above all, she would have feared all out civil war. It was a quite political, dare we call it 'assassination', one which, unfortunately, added to the woes rather than nipped them in the bud.

Her claim, at her trial, was that: 'I killed one man to save 100,000," possibly a reference to Maximilien Robespierre's words before the execution of King Louis XVI. Of course, it cut no ice and she was guillotined by the Jacobin push who were turning on anyone not of their persuasion, beginning with the Girondins.

Truth is, if a man or group of men are absolutely determined to grab power for themselves - and I don't trust ANY revolutionary not to be like this - then nothing is going to stand in his/their way, nothing. It's not unlike the EU monster and its determination to ride rough-shod over the No-votes and protests and have us under its jackboot.

A sidelight to the whole matter was that the agents-provocateurs were certainly out in force and the Masonic element was well represented whenever the situation took a turn for the worse, especially at the time of the dechristianization, culminating in the placing of the prostitute on the altar of Notre-Dame.

This has always been the aim of Them, only in the revolution, it was more openly naked than usual.
.

[weekend poll] mid-poll report

Confessional style


It was a risk running this poll, not on account of the ire of Muslims but on account of the reactions of readers. Quite frankly, to be suddenly confronted with ten burqa clad women [you could split hairs as to whether they are, technically, burqas in all cases] was always going to produce emotional reactions.

For a start, there was dismay from those who saw oppressed women inside that garb and to put them in a parade, accompanied by the word 'sexiest' could be construed as low-class Trump and a sick joke. I confess that that is my own reaction and I'm uneasy about this week's offerings.

The second reaction is to say it is a statement against the oppression of women in those ridiculous robes in all weathers but against that, at least some of those women have chosen to take the hijab.

The third reaction is to be offended by the burqas, that women adopting them are deliberately driving a wedge between themselves and other members of society and I'm onside with this as well. Whichever way you look at it, the burqa certainly does nothing to endear the Muslim to the non-Muslim.

The fourth reaction is to see the funny side of it.

Interesting that people have actually voted [including me]. Are we abetting oppression? The bottom line is that it produces so many reactions, the burqa and none of them could be called positive. The moment we go banning them though, what has happened to our libertarianism?

So this week's 'sexiest' format poll has left many of us non-plussed, not least about what I was thinking in running it. I just felt it should be run, that was all.

[july 4th] or was it the 2nd or maybe august 2nd

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation,
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our Trust"

America, a double ration of rum for every soldier and an artillery salute to you on your day.

[oceanos] cowardice and courage

Click pic to enlarge

The sinking of the Oceanos, on August 4th, 1991, was a tale of cowardice and courage.

A French built, Greek owned cruise ship, she was travelling from East London to Durban, which is against the prevailing sea. That particular stretch of water is one of the most treacherous in the world, having claimed many, many craft over the centuries.

The Oceanos, by this time, was already neglected and internally derelict but that didn't worry the company, which happily packed people on board. In heavy seas, a leak in the water scoop below, which brought in cooling water and was connected to baths and toilets throughout the ship, began taking in water in increasing amounts.

The captain and crew were seen heading for a life raft, leaving the passengers and ancillary staff to fend for themselves, not even closing lower portholes, standard procedure. Passengers were unaware until they saw water around them in their bunks and wherever they were.

Later reports state that the Captain in fact stayed and was the 7th person airlifted to shore but then he came back by helicopter to 'supervise', from the safety of the helicopter, the rescue of those below. Either way, neither he nor his crew were down below organizing the rescue, which he very much should have been doing.

Two entertainers, Julian Butler and Moss Hills, not only filmed it all on a home video recorder but also coordinated the rescue effort, getting people into lifejackets, going to the bridge and issuing a mayday , then awaiting the naval helicopters, which duly arrived and airlifted the passengers in a large operation.

Captain Avranos claimed, in the aftermath, that he was only going for help and that it didn't matter at what stage he did that. Naturally, he was found guilty of neglect and as far as I can see, was reprimanded. Reprimanded? By maritime procedure, he qualified for execution!



There is not only precedent and accepted practice at sea but also now in International Maritime Law, which not only gives the Captain near absolute power but also near absolute responsibility, on pain of penalties. This, in turn, has been reinforced in healthcare, where 'Captain of Ship' is a possible defence in cases of negligence. In one particular case, this was stated:

Of course, maritime law had a totally different development than did tort law. The fact that the captain of a ship was liable for the negligence of all members of the crew had never been (and has never since been) applied to any other area of the law of negligence except medical malpractice. It is somewhat easy to see how a court was drawn into the simile of Captain of the Ship.

The problem is that it is not easy to apply as actual law and courts in various countries see it different ways. It is most certainly de rigeur for the Captain to be last off and this was another case in point:

In 1965, a cruise liner called the Yarmouth Castle caught fire in the Caribbean and began to sink. A nearby ocean liner, the Bermuda Star, sent lifeboats to help. When the sinking ship's captain was one of the first people rescued to climb aboard the Bermuda Star deck, the Bermuda Star's captain was so incensed that he forced his colleague to return to the burning wreck until all the passengers were accounted for.

Most operators of luxury liners tell ship captains "to insure the safety of everyone else before their own," said Priscilla Hoye, a spokeswoman for Cunard Line Ltd., operator of the Queen Elizabeth 2 and other vessels. But she acknowledged that in the heat of an emergency, ship commanders are allowed flexibility.

Avranos stated, in an interview with ABC News:

"When I order abandon ship, it doesn't matter what time I leave. Abandon is for everybody. If some people like to stay, they can stay."

To me, this is outrageous. For a start, he did not issue that order before he was seen preparing for his and his closest officers' departure. Secondly, he did not remain behind to supervise the rescue. He claimed he could 'supervise the rscue better from the shore'.

Naturally we and every passenger on that ship saw him as a coward, a rat who had abandoned his own ship and broken every law imaginable but you know how it is with the law and [some] lawyers. They say, 'Not necessarily,' and attempt to bring elements of Tort Law into Maritime Law.

On the other hand, in law, precedent is a major factor and the precedent in this case is overwhelming. Also, this is not the first cowardly captain to have abandoned his responsibilities. This Philippines example is more to the point - they wanted the Captain found, dead or alive. So it should be.

I can't get information as to what eventually happened to Avranos.



The people who really should have been hauled over the coals were those who headed the shipping company. To allow that level of neglect of the ship's infrastructure, in that part of the world, is in itself criminal negligence. That a shipping company were not aware of the aquadynamics which act in relation to a ship's hull in heavy seas is too much to believe.

Many people cannot understand how a huge liner or tanker can break up and sink when a little sailing boat, like a cork, can be blown every which way but come out of it alive. In the end, it comes down to stresses and the size of the sea. A 40 foot boat, when the wave crests are 30 feet apart, is going to find itself suspended and sagging between two crests at some stage and this puts strain on the infrastructure. An 18 foot boat in that situation will ride up and down the waves - more uncomfortable but structurally safer.

On the other hand, an 18 foot boat in high seas is in real danger. There is a rule of thumb that your vessel needs to be of a length, to be safe, that the highest seas it will encounter are no more than 55% the length overall. In practice, the highest seas encountered [with some exceptions] are around 30 feet, more usually 20 feet. Therefore, in round figures, the boat needs to be at least 35 feet long and preferably 60 feet long to go to sea.

This, in fact, is what most ocean going sailcraft are.

The boat I've designed for myself is a 63 foot outrigger, 7 feet wide, built in compartments and with two junk sails of 1400 square feet. That, to me, seems the best compromise.
.

[weekend poll] sexiest muslims

1. Burqa beach babe

2. A rose by any other name

3. Hospital green

4. Siberian tigress

5. Daring revelations

6. Grey on grey

7. Total effect

8. Ninja black

9. It's all in the eyes

10. Bearded ladies

Remember, you're allowed three votes at any one time.

[statue of ishtar] open again to selected members of the public

The Statue of Liberty in New York harbour was presented in 1884 as a gift from the French Grand Orient Temple Masons to the Masons of America in celebration of the centenary of the first Masonic Republic.

It was designed by Frederic Bartholdi, a Freemason, who sculpted the statue to be his artistic interpretation of the Roman Goddess Libertas which is the early Roman version of the Babylonian chief goddess Ishtar the goddess of liberty.

Click on the plaque above to read of this Masonic gift, if you're in any doubt about its purpose.

Ishtar is the Assyrian and Babylonian counterpart to the Sumerian Inanna and to the cognate northwest Semitic goddess Astarte. Anunit, Atarsamain and Esther are alternative names. Here are some others:

'Goddess of War', 'Mother of prostitutes ', 'Mystery Babylon', 'Mother of Harlots', 'Goddess of Freedom', 'Goddess of Liberty', 'Our Dear Lady', 'The Scarlet Woman', 'The Lady of the Lake', 'The Queen of Heaven', 'The Queen of the World', 'The Queen of the Underworld', 'The Illuminatrix', 'Goddess of Love', 'The Weeping Virgin', 'The Black Virgin', 'The Celestial Virgin' and 'The Queen of the Sea'.

Bartholdi, like many French Freemasons of his time, was deeply steeped in ‘Egyptian’ rituals, and it's often been said that he conceived the original statue as an effigy of the goddess Isis, and only later converted it to a ‘Statue of Liberty’ for New York harbour when it was rejected for the opening of the Suez Canal in Egypt in 1867.

She is holding the Masonic "Torch of Enlightenment". Also referred to back in the 1700's as the
"Flaming Torch of Reason", the Torch represents the "Sun" in the sky, as does the spiked corona. The Statue of Liberty's official title, according to Freemasonary, is "Liberty Enlightening the World".

Enlightening the world,in Masonic parlance, means subjugating it and bringing it under the control of the ‘elite’, manifesting itself in the CFR, TLC, Thirteen Families and the various Clubs, e.g. Rome, Paris. Again, if you're in doubt about the Masons, begin with the writings of their favourite sons, Albert Pike and Manley Hall, then compare those with the philanthropic overtones of the organization's homepages today.

Incredulity is the average reaction, but here is Masonry, in its own words:

"Masonry is a search after Light. That search leads us directly back, as you see, to the Kabalah. In that ancient and little understood medley of absurdity and philosophy, the Initiate will find the source of doctrines; and may in time come to understand the hermetic philosophers, the Alchemist, all the Anti-Papal Thinkers of the Middle Ages and Emanuel Swedenborg." [Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma , p. 741]

Heavy stuff, eh?

Pike was the Grand Master of a Luciferian group known as the Order of the Palladium (or Sovereign Council of Wisdom), which had been founded in Paris in 1737. Palladism had been brought to Greece from Egypt by Pythagoras in the fifth century, and it was this cult that was introduced to the inner circle of the Masonic lodges. It was aligned with the Palladium of the Templars.

In 1801, Issac Long, a Jew, brought a statue of Baphomet to Charleston, South Carolina, where he helped to establish the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Long apparently chose Charleston because it was geographically located on the 33rd parallel of latitude (incidentally, so is Baghdad), and this council is considered to be the Mother Supreme Council of all Masonic Lodges of the World.

Pike was Long's successor, and he changed the name of the Order to the New and Reformed Palladian Rite (or Reformed Palladium). The Order contained two degrees: 1. Adelph (or Brother), and 2. Companion of Ulysses (or Companion of Penelope). Pike's right-hand man was Phileas Walder, from Switzerland, who was a former Lutheran minister, a Masonic leader, occultist, and spiritualist.

Pike also worked closely with Giusseppe Mazzini of Italy (1805-1872) who was a 33rd degree Mason, who became head of the Illuminati in 1834, and who founded the Mafia in 1860. Together with Mazzini, Lord Henry Palmerston of England (1784-1865, 33rd degree Mason), and Otto von Bismarck from Germany (1815-1898, 33rd degree Mason), Albert Pike intended to use the Palladian Rite to create an umbrella group that would tie all Masonic groups together.

One critique stated:

"Our records inform us, that the usages and customs of Masons have ever corresponded with those of the Egyptian philosophers, to which they bear a near affinity. Unwilling to expose their mysteries to vulgar eyes, they concealed their particular tenets, and principles of polity, under hieroglyphical figures; and expressed their notions of government by signs and symbols, which they communicated to their Magi alone, who were bound by oath not to reveal them." [Thomas Smith Webb, PGM, The Freemason's Monitor Cincinnati: The Pettibone Bros., 1797, p.39]

As for the foundation and purpose of America:

"Not only were many of the founders of the United States government Masons, but they received aid from a secret and august body existing in Europe which helped them to establish this country for a peculiar and particular purpose, known only to the initiated few." [Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages, pp. XC and XCI]

At this point, it seems so much fantasy fiction that your natural scepticism leads you to reject the whole thing as preposterous - the very idea of the Statue of Liberty being a monument to Ishtar is ridiculous. Men at the head of society, the movers and shakers of the world, pragmatic businessmen, into this stuff?

When, however, you check and double check your sources on the matter, you're left with a situation where a small band of men [and to a lesser extent, women in the Eastern Star], have been at the head of society in the west at precisely the time that they've also been indulging in the type of thing presented above.

That is, quite frankly, chilling. Surely it doesn't exist today? And yet look at the promises which any Blue Degree mason still made until recently, on being initiated. The official masonic site presents a catechism:

Q. Why do your 'obligations' contain hideous penalties? For example, it is the penalty for an offence, in second degree in Masonry, to have your chest torn open and your heart taken out.

A. They no longer do contain such penalties. When the Masonic ritual was developing in the late 1600's and 1700's, it was quite common for legal and civil oaths to include physical penalties and Freemasonry simply followed the practice of the times.

The much publicised "traditional penalties" for failure to observe these promises were always symbolic, not literal and refer only to the pain any decent man should feel at the thought of violating his word. After long discussion, they were removed from the promises in 1986.

This surely begs the question. Why were those penalties in there in the first place? Who dreamed them up? Why did they remain until 1986, when scrutiny of the Masons was beginning in a big way and the advent of the internet was soon to follow in 1989? Why were they retained for so long?

Do you want to read the actual text of their initiation oaths [until 1989]?

Question: "What makes you a Freemason ? Answer: My obligation."

[question and answer from the Entered Apprentice/First Degree]

".. binding myself under no less penalty that of having throat cut from ear to ear, my tongue torn out by its roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea, a cable length from the shore where the tide.."

[ from the oath of obligation Entered Apprentice/First Degree ]

".. binding myself under no less penalty than having my left Breast torn open, my heart plucked out, and given to the beasts of the field and fowls of the air as prey."

[from the oath of obligation, Fellowcraft/Second Degree]

".. binding myself under no less penalty that of having my body severed in twain, my bowels taken out and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered to the four winds of heaven.."

[ from the oath of obligation, Master Mason / Third Degree ]

" .. in wilful violation whereof may I incur the fearful penalty of having my eyeballs pierced to thru center with a three edged blade, my feet flayed and forced to walk the hot sands upon the sterile shores of the red sea until the flaming Sun shall strike with a livid plague, and my Allah the god of Arab, Moslem and Mohammedan, the god of our fathers, support me to the entire fulfilment of the same."

Is that sane? And yet these are the men at the head of society in Britain and America, purporting to the Christian Right that they are a Christian, charitable organization. So, from the start, one of their practices is deception and coverup.

Let's go further. A simple bit of research reveals some interesting things about the Shriners, well known in America but not so much in this country. Wiki says of them:

The Shriners are committed to community service and have been instrumental in countless public projects throughout their domain.

A philanthropic organization of well-to-do men who have a bit of fun in their spare time, right? A bit of further research reveals:

[ from the oath of obligation, Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine ] ("Shriners")

"You must conceal all the crimes of your brother Masons... and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him... It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you’re keeping your obligations." [Ronayne, "Handbook of Masonry" p. 183 ]

So, the men in government and in key positions in society are sworn to secrecy and coverups, whilst at the same time, swearing allegiance to some weirdo god from ancient times. Does public policy of the last few years now become a bit more understandable? Does the expression 'the ruling class' now find new meaning?

Let's pause one moment

Look once more at the date of the Statue of Ishtar and who it was dedicated by [look at the plaque again]. Not long afterwards, on July 14, 1889 - Albert Pike issued instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the world:

"To you, Sovereign Grand Instructors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine."

This answers the question of which deity is worshipped. The sister statue is on the River Seine and is more openly spoken of in the above context. The joke is that the American people, by and large, believe the statue represents their freedom, whereas it actually represents the diametric opposite.

And the American people would be horrified if they knew who were some of the keenest exponents of the subjugation of man. One was Thomas Jefferson:

"As Weishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot and priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, and the principles of pure morality. This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment....If Weishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavors to render men wise and virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose."

Jefferson supported the butchering of the 'priestly class' and the bourgeoisie, calling the carnage, on his return, in 1791, 'so beautiful a revolution' and 'their excesses, if one called them such, reflected that national will.' That's the man who purportedly supported 'freedom' and the right to free enterprise.

U.S.A. Today yesterday wrote:

On Saturday, the statue, closed above its base since the terror attacks, will reopen to visitors — a relative few, in small groups, specially ticketed, carefully screened and escorted by a park ranger. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar seemed to encourage these ideas this year when he said reopening the crown "would proclaim to the world — both figuratively and literally — that the path to the light of liberty is open to all."

In officially announcing the move on May 8, Salazar called it "a new beginning, restoring confidence in the American people, in their government and in our place in the world."

In other words, they feel they’re pretty close to their goal now.

A Masonic Shriner carrying out charity work

[nice little supper] collected by bike

So, so simple to do. All it needs is the kick start.

Some of you will recall the Higham had a down time two weekends ago - cramps, flushes, faintness, throat and all those nasties. People said go to the doctor [good advice], do this, do that.

On the other hand, all it needed, as far as I could see, was to get off the chocolate and greasy fish'nchips, start pumping through the water [minus sugar], eat straight meat, grain, cabbage and fruit, get back on the bike and start exercising again.

Three days it took and things were back in order but then, mainly through laziness and difficulties with available shops, I slipped back into the old routine - 'just for today' I told myself and there was the old chest tightness, the old cramps, the old woes again.

'St--f that,' I castigated myself, 'get off your butt and do the right thing.' So, last evening it was lightly peppered sea bass fillet in the oven, with bulgar wheat and finely sliced cabbage. I could have thrown some cherry tomatoes in but that was enough.

Delish.

Not only that but grapes for dessert instead of some heavy pudding also did the trick and the result was well being. How simple it all really is - proper food, exercise and keeping the brain busy. How little it really takes to get yourself back on track.