Monday, December 13, 2010

Stonecoat Gold Sporting Msrp

[Blog] Comparative statistics on terrorism in the USA

A little controversy, anyone?;)
The terrorist threat is virtually nonexistent
Gregor Seither - IES News Service - 07/12/2010
What are the chances of dying in a plane crash caused by a terrorist attack? According to Prof. . Paul Campos, a lawyer at the University of Colorado (Boulder, Co.) are 1 in 25 million, or almost close to zero.
In comparison, the chances of dying in a plane crash "standard" one in 9.2 million, according to data compiled by the database "OAG Aviation Database" in the United States. This means that, on average, an airplane pilot kills far more people than a terrorist. In the same
vein, the United States, you have 87 times more likely to die by drowning in a terrorist attack and 50 times more likely to die by being struck by lightning. As for the victims of police misconduct, they are 8 times more numerous than those terrorists, if one believes the figures for the 2004 National Safety Council . In the U.S., so the police kill eight times more people than do the terrorists - and these figures include deaths of September 11, 2001!

For Professor Campos the risk of a terrorist attack is so infinitesimal and its impact so insignificant a relative point of view, there is no rational justification to accept a violation of our civil liberties to a degree such as we see these last 10 years simply to try to avoid occurrence of a statistical anomaly.
a time when governments are investing billions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance technology more sophisticated, on behalf of our "protection", it is worth asking the question about what exactly is the reality This threat, against which it is claimed to protect us ... a like anti-missile batteries that the United States install in Europe to prevent an attack from Iran .... which has no missiles capable of reaching Europe!
Gregor Seither
IES News Service - 07/12/2010


only 25 Americans have died because of terrorism last year, less than car accidents, influenza, or dog bites
Zaid Jilani (*) Think Progress , August 10, 2010
One of the most common themes among the political issues post-September 11 is for politicians to campaign based on fear of terrorism. Candidates of all stripes are regularly referred to increasing threats from terrorists within the country and abroad as a reason to elect them to ensure our security.
While combating terrorism is important and fundamental to our national security strategy, the annual national report of the Secretary of State (impossible Hillary Clinton, current No. 4 Administration American equivalent of our Foreign Minister doubled certain responsibilities assigned to a prime minister) on terrorism, which was released last week shows that its importance as a subject of public interest factor is probably exaggerated. ; Warren P. Strobel of McClatchy report notes that the State Department has recorded worldwide, 25 American civilian victims of terrorism in 2009:
"There are only 25 non-combatant victims terrorism worldwide. (The definition of terrorism for the U.S. government excludes attacks on military personnel). While we do not have numbers available, there is no doubt that more U.S. citizens died abroad of car accidents, or intestinal fevers that of terrorism. "
Matt Yglesias Comparing the figures and believes that the feeling of Strobel on car accidents is correct. He writes: "26 Americans died in car accidents in Mexico City between 1 August 2009 and 1 January 2010, it is ; therefore proved to say that you are more likely to die overseas in a car accident than a terrorist attack. "
But it's not only car accidents abroad who are more deadly as terrorism. According to the Center for Infectious Disease Control, more than 13,000 Americans died of the common seasonal flu between January and April 2009, with "not less than 800 deaths per week in direct link with the flu This means that 32 times more Americans died of influenza in a single week during this period of 2009, that terrorism in one year complete.
Yet if Americans want to find a more dangerous threat to their lives than terrorism, they do not even need to leave their cars or communicate with their neighbor to catch the flu. All they have to do is watch their canine companions. Dogsbite.org, which brings together all the press reports concerning the victims of dog bites, has recorded 32 accidents involving dogs killing humans by the bite last year.
Again, the threat of terrorism is a serious matter of national security and must be treated as such. But given its death rate relatively low compared to other threats to humanity - the State Department report found that 58,142 people were killed by terrorist attacks worldwide in 2009, representing a tiny fraction of the 3 million children died of malnutrition and hunger easily treatable one year earlier - we must reconsider our priorities in more reasonable.

Zaid Jilani
Think Progress ; , August 10, 2010
Translation BlueRider for ReOpenNews

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Turquoise Hat Band Conchos

[Ticket] Europeans and their institutions



The German Marshall Fund is an institute that aims
improving
understanding and dialogue between Europe and the United States. It edits

Transatlantic Trends each year.
With Sammy, I had access to all of a sudden a huge amount of information it will take me years to analyze. Among all this, I came across a PDF quite interesting on the site of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, an organization that need to be worrying about in a future column so it is important (1) .

I had seen these documents at my research on the transatlantic market. These are the Transatlantic Trends (Transatlantic Trends). They are edited by GMFUS regularly, and show the "trend".
It covers the year 2010 (2) and contains very interesting information! Particularly a section entitled " Crisis of the Euro, but not the EU "...

in advance, sorry for the translation ...

What do you think of the Euro?
" When we asked citizens if the Euro was a good or bad for the economy of their countries, the responses were mostly negative . With few exceptions, majorities in all eurozone countries responded that the euro had been a bad thing for their economy, including two homes economic power, France (60%) and Germany (53%) , Spain also (53%) and Portugal (52%). [...] Only the Dutch (52%) and Slovaks (64%), a majority say that the euro has been good for their economy. "
" The Euro is not backed out. The majority of English (83%) and Poles (53%) [...] think using the Euro would be bad for their economy. "

And the European Union?
" Europeans continue to believe that strong leadership of the European Union is desirable . When questioned specifically about their economy, the majority of Europeans (63%) think being a member of the European Union, the largest economy in the world, was a good thing for their country. This view was widespread in the Netherlands (75%), Poland (75%), Germany (69%), Portugal (69%), Slovakia (68%) and Spain (67%).
other hand, Bulgarians (40%) and Britons (45%) were less positive about the economic benefits of EU membership. But in France, where the majority were negative for the euro, the majority (61%) maintains that membership in the EU was good for their economy . At about the same percentage of Italians (62%) [were positive]. "
" More than half of European respondents (57%) felt that the economic difficulties should result in a greater commitment to build a stronger European Union . Italians (76%), Portuguese (70%), Bulgarians (66%), Spaniards (65%) and Slovaks (64%) were especially favorable to closer integration. On the other hand, the British Euro-skeptics generally (33%) were less in agreement with this view. "

opinions in favor of European Union membership and use of the Euro
Economic Decision Making?
"[...] A majority of European respondents (46%) also believe that to manage the current economic crisis, each national government should have primary responsibility . Nearly two-fifths of Europeans surveyed (39% ) responded that the EU should have the primary responsibility in managing the economic crisis current. Only in Germany, often described as the "locomotive of Europe", the majority (54%) believe the EU should have this responsibility and should take decisions on the economic .
This option was less popular in the United Kingdom (25%), Bulgaria (24%), Slovakia (22%), Romania (15%). The French were divided on the issue, with 47% preference for the national government, and 43% saying the EU should be in charge . "

And free trade (Free- Market)?
" The vast majority of Americans (90%) and Europeans (72%) believe that people are better in an economic free trade . Enthusiasm pro-free trade in British (81%) and Germans (78%) with almost rivals that of Americans. "
" support for free trade does not undermine the government. A large majority of respondents in the EU (78%) and Turkey (55%) continues to express the government has a role to play to regulate the market . The French (88%), Britain (86%) and Portugal (85%) were most inclined to support the role of government in market regulation. "

Opening
The document contains extensive information on other topics such as NATO, the role of China Turkey and the EU etc..
Read because it is interesting!

can find all the details of the study http://www.gmfus.org/trends/doc/2010_English_Top. pdf including the methodology used and the number of participants from each country. You can more easily consult directly and statistics "key" countries Country ( http://www.gmfus.org/trends/2010/countryprofiles.html ).

Notes:
(1) Website of the German Marshall Fund of United States: http://www.gmfus.org/about_gmf
(2) Transatlantic Trends 2010 (PDF): http://www.gmfus.org/trends/doc/2010_English_Key.pdf

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Production Of Diazepam




Three of the "famous codes" are now available at the American online store
Paris Air !