Typhoid

rather than rebuilding the Tomcat - build a new, stealth fighter that is carrier capable. kinda like an F-22N maybe.......

I've been informed by another source that this is actually proves the CVN uploaded an extra charge into Katrina under the direct orders of Darth Cheney and relayed through the Stargate Command in Cheyenne Mountain......... where do these people come from?

I haven't heard that there is any problem with bring back. Their standard load for the SH is three JDAMs and tanks, and they hit USAF tankers for endurance and range.

not to mention the maintenance per flight hour which the Tomcat was horrendous on. Great plane - when it actually got into the air....... As a frame of reference the Super Hornet maintenance manhours per flight hour is less than 10% of what the Tomcat was and the availability is more than double. At the war college this was a major item at the time because the decision was still on the table. It really boiled down to one major factor - cost. In order to run the production line to fill the decks with aircraft the USN needed more than would be available. The choice with a limited amount of funds projected and a rapidly crashing threat was to go down the lower cost route of the Hornet and consolidate aircraft types into fewer types covering the broad range of missions. The SH was the only solution that would not strip the decks of planes. Had we gone the Tomcat21 route - the decks would now be even emptier than the 2/3 deck load that they are now. Also bear in mind that the decision was made under Bush the Elder as part of an initial defense cutback with the decline of the Soviet Bear into nothing. What then happened under Clinton the Perjurer was an almost complete shutdown of defense acquisition across the board with Naval Aviation in particular being almost stripped. The Hornet was on life support for much of that period of time and survived simply because it was cheaper. So at the war college running the numbers and capabilities there was an overall feeling that we would loose in capabilities but gain in aircraft numbers. This broke the crowd into two camps - Tomcat supporters (including me) and Hornet advocates. The USN leadership weighed in and told everyone that cost drove the decision and to get on board. As time went on you could tell who the Tomcat supporters were because we all added "Ret." to our ranks.......... (just kidding!!!!) today we are pretty well served with the Super Hornet and USAF tankers to get them out to where they need to go. Joint air operations leveraging the best of all services is what has enabled us to put airpower on target wherever it needs to go, and the precision strike capabilities today are an order of magnitude better than they were just a decade ago, which itself was an order of magnitude greater than a decade before that.

"wherein I flattend Hanoi airfiled, and the various depots, army bases and rail yards. " wasn't that our objective once upon a time.......?

had a similar problem after an XP service pack upgrade. After discussing with TK, I ended up putting the two weapons editors into a director in my Program Files and going to them via the cmd line. Essentially, I open them with a dos command. Then they work fine. Haven't tried the zip file technique. That sounds interesting too. Perhaps one of these days the editors will be updated to work with XP and Vista...... in about two weeks.......

right! especially since they were not in the launch capsule!

Dumb question but does anyone a good recommendation for a safe Download Manager? I have an intermittent wireless connection sometimes and downloads tend to get interupted sometimes.

Thanks for all the tips, gents! I'll check those out. Nesher, based on your recommendation I will take another look at that one. And all the others too. (of course, for an old Cold War Warrior like me to take the recommendation of "Soviet Commissar from the Ukranian Air Force......) Thanks again all.

I looked at that one. It makes a bit nervous though. I am getting paranoid about what I load up on my computer that goes out to the internet.......

that sounds like it will do the trick! in "two weeks"?

Awesome!! My shipmates!!

we are obviously never going to agree on these things, so I'm not going to keep going back and forth. Enough already. Permit me before I go, however, to address one key point that you brought up. "The thing about ANWR is that oil companies have plenty of land leased where they could drill, but simply aren't. " do you understand the difference between a lease for exploration and a permit for production drilling? That statement is one of the propaganda points that pelosi and crowd are using and its simply an enormous, back-stabbing lie. Its been pelosi, reid and crowd who have blocked permits for drilling. One of the companies recently sold the lease back to the government because they simply could not afford to keep applying for drilling permits and have them continually denied. Its not an issue of having exploration leases. Its an issue of having drilling leases and the permits to do so. pelosi, reid and company have systematically blocked the Bush energy plan implementation, blocked drilling permits, blocked exploration, etc. We now have food and energy shortages as a result of liberal dnc policies. It is the Audacity of Mendacity to claim the current economic problems are a result of conservative policies when it has been obstructionist democrat tactics that have deliberately and with malice aforethought blocked energy development and converted food crops to fuel crops.

you're drifting pretty far from what I said. don't presume to know what my position is on some of these. I left off Warmonger Clinton (and his undeclared, illegal war and unnecessary wars) simply for brevity. But thanks for proving the opposite of your own point! there was a substantial difference from the Eisenhower Military Assistance team presence in Vietnam and the JFK escalation followed by the massive LBJ escalation. Trying to hang Vietnam on the Republicans or conservatives (many who actually opposed that) is yet another example of liberal historical revisionism. Nice try. energy and food is a whole other topic of which I have written quite a bit about and been published. Your side is dead wrong on those issues. For the record, I favor all kinds of energy development including alternative. I oppose government mandated percentages, restrictions and subsidies which has led directly to our current mess - thanks largely to the obstructionist Democrats and the non-conservative Republicans in Congress (including McCain by the way!). energy deregulation in California, for one glaring example, was deregulation in name only. It actually imposed severe market restrictions and government oversight on prices and supplies and was the direct cause of the energy meltdown there. fighting poverty is best accomplished by opening up opportunity, employment, business development, etc. Perpetual welfare and government dependency is a dead end both for the taxpayers who have to foot the bill and mostly for the new underclass sold into economic slavery of the government welfare system.

we called it Astor. Yep, dumped in favor of the Mk-48 and surface/air-dropped Mk-46, both of which are conventional. GREAT FLICK!!!!!

and completely ineffective!

HAHAHAHA!!!! Are you kidding?!! How did you ever fall for that?!! first a description of the migration of a liberal to conservatism; ----------------------------------- While I was visiting friends in Seattle last month and talking to their little girl, Catherine, she said she wanted to be President someday. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats were standing there with us and I asked Catherine, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?' Catherine replied, 'I would give houses to all the homeless people.' 'Wow, what a worthy goal you have there, Catherine.' I told her, 'but you don't have to wait until you're President. You can start now by coming over to my house and cleaning up all the dog poop in my back yard and I will pay you $5 dollars. Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 dollars to use for a new house.' Catherine (who is about 4) thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me seething, and Catherine replied, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can just pay him the $5 dollars?' 'Ah', I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party'. ----------------------------------------------------- now for your comments - "What tax bracket are you living in?" according to you guys, I'm rich. but somehow still qualify for financial aid to send my kids to school. Without any of the so-called "tax breaks" your guys promised but refused to deliver. "with the largest increase in spending in history. " and therein liesthe problem. runaway spending. Democrats spend like drunken sailors. Republicans when they achieved control of Congress also spent like drunken sailors and thereby lost the support of conservatives, and were then defeated by the Dems who proceeded to triple the runaway spending of the previous, Republican drunken sailors. Bush, to his everlasting discredit, failed to find his veto pen until he faced a Democrat Congress. But look at the promises made by the two parties - Republicans to scale back spending and Democrats to spend into oblivion. "We coupled the largest drop in revenue in history" ABSOLUTELY WRONG. That is not true. The only decline in revenue occured after 9/11 due to a business contraction caused by the attacks. Which also led to a substantial increase in defense spending. Surely you are not arguing against the need for that defense increase after the infamous defense gutting of the previous decade by the (ahem) previous regime? tax data through 2004 (looking for more recent data); http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls Here is an absolute truth that has been validated many times. Low tax rates stimulate business growth which stimulates employement, all of which increases tax revenue. JFK understood that, Reagan followed his lead, and Bush the Younger also followed that prescription although all he could achieve against the Obstructionist Democrats in Congress was a temporary tax rate reduction. The above table verifies that. Those tax reductions are about to expire and will result in the biggest tax increase in US history, which Obama has declared is not enough and will double. "The most expensive and needless war in history? conservatives." really? WWI - Wilson (which party again?) WWII - FDR (which party again?) Korea - Truman (which party again?) Vietnam - JFK and LBJ (which party again?) I presume you are trying to claim that the current war is both the most expensive war in history (absurd) and was needless (highly debateable and I shall avoid discussing that hot button further. Suffice it to say that substantial numbers of people do not agree with you, including almost the entire Senate at the time that voted for it) "The only time since the great depression we didn't create more jobs than we lost? conservatives." complete fiction without any substance in fact and utterly absurd. Job growth has been pretty solid with the exception of the 9/11 post-attack slump caused by those attacks and the reduction in air travel. THAT you cannot blame on conservatives. We had a business expansion under almost every administration except Carter. You need to read some facts rather than DNC propaganda. "Unprecedented divisivness? conservatives." nope - that was Clinton and has been raised to a new level by the DNC and the looney left. You hear very little personal attacks from conservatives. You hear nothing but from liberals. Tune into Air American and listen to that derangement - all hatred all the time. On the other side you hear mostly solid discussion on the issues rather than personal divisivness. That's a fact. "The failure to respond to the greatest humanitarian disaster inside the US? conservatives." I presume you mean Katrina. I will tell you absolutely, without any reservation (from my position within NORTHCOM at the time) that is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the American people. The utter failure in responsibilities was by the city, parish and state governments which had and have the primary responsibility for the safety of their populace - all Democrats. Their failure to meet their mandated responsibilities hampered federal and military efforts. The idiot press laid all of that onto the administration (and to be fair there were substantial shortfalls in certain areas) but failed utterly to hold the State and local offices to account. "But then again, I'm being unfair, what's being passed as conservative isn't conservative at all." certainly different levels just as there are liberals. The failures of the Republicans is not a failure in conservative principles at all. You've heard the term "RINO" - refers to non-conservative Republicans who, not surprisingly, have adopted liberal ideas and failed. as I have stated. Liberalism fails every time. rant off.....

oh, that. Other way around. I think you might be referring to the SSN-14 which was a rocket assisted torpedo. It left as a rocket and when near the target (submerged sub) it dropped a torpedo which could, but not always, be nuclear. they also had one (I forget the designation) that was launched through a torpedo tube from a submerged sub. We called ours Subroc

"we've had a long eight years of continuing reagan's policies, they haven't been working." no, we haven't had eight years of continuing Reagan policies. Reagan's policies worked magnificantly across the board. Neither Bush the Elder nor Bush the Younger held to Reagan's policies nor were either of them able to put their own policies through against a deranged, liberal DNC block in the Congress. In the last eight years in particular, the obstructionist tactics of the left in Congress have prevented any semblance of Reagan policies to be passed or kept to. The closest we've had has been the Bush tax cuts which were temporary and no where far enough. Those tax policies by the way, have worked just fine. Here is a news flash for you. Conservative principles, when applied and adhered to, work everytime, over time. Liberal policies have failed everywhere and whenever they've been tried. The only time they work is when they follow a conservative administration and are able to piggeyback/take credit for the results of the preceeding conservatives. Conservatives always have to clean up the mess the liberals cause. "As for money, well look at the broader picture of donors across several elections, the right has nothing to complain about." For donations that is correct. The point that you seem to have lost sight of is the media bias, try to stay on topic. The donations represent the "follow the money" that proves the overwhelming media bias against conservatives and explains the fawning, adoring press falling over themselves in orgasmic bliss of the liberal candidates. "I don't see how anyone can look arrogant in comparison to the bush gang." just run clips of pelosi, reid, clinton (both), kerry, kennedy (all except the deceased), algore the warmer, etc., etc., etc. There is nothing from that deranged crowd except arrogance, hatred and dripping condescension.

just another example of Obama's arrogance, disdain and media manipulation. turns out that Obama made the decision not to visit the wounded troops because he couldn't take his adoring fans (press corps) and political handlers (campaign staff) with him for a photo op. I've included the entire article which is Obama's staff (lame) response and bolded the key part. DOD spokesman says Obama camp was reminded of political rules [uPDATED] Chief Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed to Politico that Department of Defense officials cautioned Barack Obama's campaign that his planned visit to wounded American troops in Germany could not be political in nature and that he would be barred from bringing along campaign staff and reporters. He also said that Cindy McCain recently requested to visit sailors aboard the U.S.N.S. Comfort and was denied. "Sen. Obama is welcome to visit Landstuhl or any military hospital in his official capacity as a United States senator," Morrell said in a brief interview. "But there is a DOD policy which governs campaigning and electioneering at military facilities that would have to be respected if he were to visit. That distinction was relayed and made clear to campaign, and they made a decision on their own based on that guidance." Morrell, in a subsequent interview, added that military officials told Obama he could only visit the military facility with his Secret Service detail and Senate staff. "We made it clear to him that campaign staff and press would not be permitted to accompany him," Morrell said of Obama. "We relayed those ground rules. They made a choice based upon the information we relayed to them. It was their choice. We had nothing to do with it." Military personnel at Ramstein Air Force Base, where the senator was to fly into, had already made arrangements to accomodate Obama's traveling press pack and campaign staff while he visited the wounded troops, Morrell said. Obama's campaign tells a different story. Obama adviser David Axelrod told the Chicago Sun-Times that the Pentagon "viewed this as a campaign event, and therefore they said he should not come." In a briefing to Obama's traveling press corps, another adviser stopped short of saying they were told to not come but also suggested that even a visit by Obama alone may have been at issue. Robert Gibbs said one of Obama's military advisers had been informed by the Pentagon that the visit may be seen as a campaign stop. "They cited a regulation," Gibbs said of their point of contact, described as legislative affairs in the office of the secretary. "We believed that based on the information we received that any presence, even his own and only his own, would get into a back and forth on whether his own presence was a campaign event," Gibbs said. Gibbs also pointed out that that their plane had been cleared to land at Ramstein and the Pentagon subsequently issued the reminder about political activity at military posts. Obama, who was not traveling with any Senate staffers, decided on the flight Wednesday from Tel Aviv to Berlin not to visit the hospital. Trying to make clear that this was not an attempt to undercut the Democratic nominee, Morrell also noted that when McCain officials asked the Pentagon for permission to let Cindy McCain visit the massive U.S. hospital ship, the U.S.N.S. Comfort, the request was rejected. "Had she gone with Sen. McCain, it would have been OK," Morrell said, underlining the delineation between what are official and campaign activities.

really? I knew they had nuclear cruise missiles for that purpose, but torpedoes? seems odd. (I don't know they didn't, just seems odd)

here is another article with another gent's comments added. This really illustrates and explains the media bias as nothing else can. Note how much the right-wing Bush sychophants (that would be Fox) gave to which parties..... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1 By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money. Even the Associated Press - no bastion of conservatism - has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias. True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms. Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment." And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all. The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric - one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. - save one. An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans . Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans - a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain. Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio. And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama - who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists - has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists. A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations. As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion: "Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left." The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year - timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked. In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public. As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors." It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though. One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader - in this case, Big Media - and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias. A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table. The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans - most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama. What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain). Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans - a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

concur with Dave and Jug. This is hyped up beyond belief. Now, when I came off duty with "various stuff" there were two of us coming back with two armed guards outboard of us. No chance to fall asleep. But the article has buried in it, below the tear line by the way for the short version which shows up all across the "unbiased media", the fact that these guys were; going off-duty, in the above ground facility, had already been replaced, and were just waiting for the ride back to main base. They should not have all fallen asleep, but it is way overblown.

yup. for antiship work at the Task Force or Fleet level we would use airplanes to hit the guys and "mission kill" an enemy surface combattant, but the SSN was the preferred platform if we could get him into the area. The saying is "you don't sink ships by letting air into the top, you sink ships by letting water in the bottom" with MK-48's. :yes:

John F Kennedy's policies were very much in line with what Reagan did. More accurately stated, Reagan completed what JFK tried to start - particularly his tax policies. Reagan and his part of the GOP were not by any stretch a fringe element of the party. I don't know where you get that idea, treraser. Well, actually I do know where you get that crazy notion - from the deranged liberal press and the agenda-journalists who write that trash. Yes, there are multiple factions within the GOP just as there are within the DNC. And yes, the GOP in the Northeast is largely made up of the Rockfeller "Democrat Light" wing. Those of US in the conservative wing of the GOP honor Reagan for the sound principles that he brought to DC and used to great effect. He was right on the issues (no pun intended) and only the failure of his successors to adhere to those principles have brought the GOP to its present status of minority and our country to its present peril. Within the DNC the radical left fringe is presently in control of that party as evidenced by the demonization of Democrats who don't adhere to the current, radical party line (Lieberman just being the most obvious, recent example). Obama as a presidential candidate is a deeply flawed candidate who cannot and does not stand up to hard scrutiny. He only does well in tightly controlled situations with a fawning, complicit press. He does poorly in an open, fluid forum which is why he avoids those. He won't be able to avoid those in the actual, general election race and it will become increasingly evident. Mark my words and just wait for the examples to mount up. Of course, McCain is not the greatest of candidates either. So the race of the liliputs............ "Oh my... You should see French and European media on him today! The rock-star is making his tour here and is welcomed as the Messiah Himself!" a great satire (I hope!) in the UK press today. UK Times Editorial on Obama. Funny http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle4392846.ece He ventured forth to bring light to the world The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers Gerard Baker And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness. The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow. When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: "Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?" In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites. And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world. He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world. And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more. From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it. And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light. And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares. From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered "Hosanna" and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet. In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace. As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites. And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over. The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for. And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again. Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it. And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times. Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length. But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him. And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets. Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not. On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One. And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: "Yes, We Can."