Saturday, May 30

Robert Gibbs: "I think she'd change that word" Yeah? which one?

Is this the best that the White House can come up with? The White House's response does nothing to address the problem because his answer does not fit her racist-sounding statement:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. - Sotomayor, 2001
Here is the way that the White House tried to explain it away.
After three days of suggesting that reporters and critics should not dwell on one sentence from a speech, the White House had a different message Friday.

"I think if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she'd change that word," presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.

Gibbs said he did not hear that from Sotomayor directly, but rather from people who had talked to her, and he did not identify who those people were. Sotomayor herself has made no public comments about the matter and was not available for comment. - Yahoo News
(We'll forget for now that he is guessing about her response.) The problem is not any word, but the statement itself. Which word was Mr. Gibbs referring to? Her whole damn sentence is a mess.

The real problem is not any word but instead the meaning of what was said. Really, imagine if a white person called her a 'stupid Latina'. Does changing a word fix the problem. Let replace 'stupid' with 'smart'. That fixes the statement, but completely fails to address the original statement, which probably better reflects what the person was thinking, just like Ms. Sotomayor's statement probably better reflects what she thinks than any clarification. It would be a different story if she said something and then made an immediate correction. After all, just because a person's spokesperson apologizes for a person calling someone a 'nigger' suggesting that "I think he'd change that word", does not clear them of being called a racist. Not in this country it doesn't

Lets take this White House comment as some sort of acknowledgment that she had a slip of the tongue. A mistake. So when are they going to address her membership in La Raza? Is this another error in judgment? If not, then perhaps she or the White House should defend or explain her membership in such an organization. And when are they going to address the quote she chose for her yearbook:
I am not the champion of lost causes, but the champion of causes not yet won. - Norman Thomas

Who was Norman Thomas?
Norman Mattoon Thomas (1884—1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. - Wikipedia
Is this just another unfortunate mistake? Might be, but the President is already having problems dealing with accusations that he is really a socialist. His choice of Supreme Court Justice certainly is going to do nothing to dispel that charge.

As a lawyer, her word, both written and spoken, is her tool, just like a gun is the tool of a policeman. Policemen do not get a free pass for the misuse of their gun. Should a nominee for the Supreme Court get a free pass for the misuse of her position? I don't think so, especially since her word can do a lot more damage than a bad policeman with a gun.

Update:
Apparently this morning the President used a similar line of defense as his press secretary:
Obama also defended his nominee, saying her message was on target even if her exact wording was not.

"I think that when she's appearing before the Senate committee, in her confirmation process, I think all this nonsense that is being spewed out will be revealed for what it is," Obama said in the broadcast interview, clearly aware of how ethnicity and gender issues are taking hold in the debate. - AP
Really? I really look forward to her trying to explain this. Actually, I think the President needs to clarify his statement above because it appears that he is defending the meaning of her statement, just not the way she said it.

Is he giving her a free pass because of her ethnicity? It seems to be happening all the time and that is a shame. Because if we are going to hold minorities to a lower standard, then minority communities will be less for it. Just look at how minorities get a free pass for all sorts of crime. It greatly benefits the criminals, but if punishes the communities they live in. There is no need to push this ideology to a national level. That has been done enough already.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Thursday, May 28

Draft UN Resolution Condemns North Korea (Again) - Text

Inner City Press has an exclusive, obtaining a draft of the UN Resolution that will Condemn North Korea over it's recent Nuke test, among other things.

Here is the text:
Note: As obtained by InnerCityPress.com May 28, 09

----------------------
The Security Council,

Recalling its previous relevant resolutions, including resolution 825 (1993), resolution 1540 (2004), resolution 1695 (2006) and, in particular, resolution 1718 (2006), as well as the statement of its President of 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7),

Reaffirming that proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security, Expressing the gravest concern at the test of a nuclear weapon by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on 25 May 2006 (local time) in flagrant violation of resolution 1718 (2006), and at the challenge such a test constitutes to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to international efforts aimed at strengthening the global regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons towards the 2010 NPT Review conference, and the danger it poses to peace and stability in the region and beyond,

Stressing its collective support for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and commitment to strengthen the Treaty in all its aspects, and recalling that the DPRK cannot have the status of a nuclear-weapon state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in any case;

Deploring the DPRK's announcement of withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its pursuit of nuclear weapons,

Noting the effective recording of the 25 May 2009 nuclear test by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization's global network of monitoring situations,

Reaffirming its endorsement of the Joint Statement issued on 19 September 2005 by China, the DPRK, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States,

Underlining once again the importance that the DPRK respond to other security and humanitarian concerns of the international community, including the abduction issue,

Underlining also that measures taken under this resolution should not adversely affect innocent residents of the DPRK,

Expressing its gravest concern that the nuclear test by the DPRK has further generated increased tension in the region and beyond, and determining therefore that there continues to exist a clear threat to international peace and security,

Regretting the failure of the DPRK to report on its implementation of the obligations pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004),

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Condemns in the strongest terms the nuclear test conducted by the DPRK on 25 May 2009 (local time) in flagrant violation and disregard of its relevant resolutions, in particular resolution 1695(2006) and 1718 (2006) and the statement of its President of 13 April 2009 (S/PRSTI200917),

2. Demands that the DPRK, not conduct any further nuclear test or launch,

3. Demands that the DPRK immediately comply fully with its obligations under Security Council resolution 1718 (2006),

4. Demands that the DPRK immediately retract its announcement of withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons;

5. Demands further that the DPRK return at an early date to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, and underlines the need for all States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to continue to comply with their Treaty obligations,

6. Calls upon all Member States immediately to enforce the measures that were put in place by resolution 1718 (2006) and under the statement of its President of 13 April 2009 (S/PRSTI200917), including designations made by the Committee established by resolution 1718;

7. Reiterates its decision that the DPRK shall abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner, shall act strictly in accordance with the obligations applicable to parties under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the terms and conditions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safeguards Agreement (IAEA INFCIRC/403) and shall provide the IAEA transparency measures extending beyond these requirements, including such access to individuals, documentation, equipment and facilities as may be required and deemed necessary by individuals.

8. Decides/calls upon: [????????]

9. Supports the Six Party Talks, calls for their early resumption, and urges all the participants to intensify their efforts on the full and expeditious implementation of the Joint Statement issued on 19 September 2005 by China, the DPRK, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States, with a view to achieving the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and to maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in north-east Asia;

10. Expresses its desire for a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution to the situation and welcomes efforts by Council members as well as other Member States to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through dialogue and to refrain from any actions that might aggravate tensions;

11. Strongly urges the DPRK to return immediately to the Six-Party Talks without precondition;

12. Affirms that it shall keep the DPRK's actions under continuous review and that it shall be prepared to review the appropriateness of the measures contained in paragraph 8 above, including the strengthening, modification, suspension or lifting of the measures, as may be needed at that time in light of the DPRK's compliance with the provisions of resolution 1718 (2006) and this resolution;

13. Underlines that further decisions will be required, should additional measures be necessary;

14. Resolves to remain actively seized of the matter.

DISCUSSION OPTIONS FOR POTENTIAL INCLUSION IN RESOLUTION
[future op8]- Inner City Press
------------------------------
I am not sure what this will do other than open the door for countries to act on their own to pressure North Korea. After all, this is what the North wanted to happen in response to their nuke test. Who writes this stuff? Do they think the North Koreans are going to read past the first page? And not for anything, calling upon nations to enforce measures/sanctions put in place in 2006 sounds just plain odd. Perhaps if they were enforced in 2006 we would not be dealing with the current set of events!

Be sure to check out my earlier posts on North Korea here, including:

Total BS: "North Korea not an imminent threat to the US"
There is no Place in this World for North Korea
*** The UN Cannot Save the North Koreans (So Stop Trying) ***
NY Times: "South Korea Says U.S. Killed Hundreds of Civilians" - Total BS Story
Forgotten Korean War POW Escapes - 55 Years After Being Captured!


North Korean Snipers Killing Refugees Along the Chinese Border - 24 May 08
Most Disturbing Part of North Korea-Syria Connection - 29 Apr 08
Anchor Countries - 27 Sept 07

Unconditional surrender – The only way to end Military Operations - 1 May 05
Seeing things in Black and white instead of in shades of gray. - 19 Dec 04



--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Total BS: "North Korea not an imminent threat to the US"

So I see this at Hot Air:
President Obama’s national security adviser on Wednesday said that North Korea’s recent nuclear detonation and subsequent missile tests are not “an imminent threat” to the safety and security of the United States.

Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, in his first speech on the administration’s approach to national security, said that the “imminent threat” posed by North Korea is that of the proliferation of nuclear technologies to other countries and terrorist organizations.

North Korea still has “a long way” to “weaponize” and work on the delivery of its nuclear missiles before they pose a threat to U.S. security, Jones said in a discussion hosted by the Atlantic Council.

“Nothing that the North Koreans did surprised us,” Jones said. “We knew that they were going to do this, they said so, so no reason not to believe them.” - Hot Air
I hope that the good General remembers that missiles are not the only way to get a nuke to it's target. The North Koreans could simply drive one down to the border at Panmunjom and detonate it there.

Of course, if they want to strike Seoul, Korea, they could just fly it there in a plane. No missile required. The Capital is not far from the border.

Speaking of planes, all it takes is one flight to Iran, and then they too would have a nuclear bomb.

How much more does North Korea need to do for the US to consider them an imminent threat? My guess is that they will next start taking shots at US troops stationed along the border with North Korea. This is not something far fetched, as the North has attacked along the border, taking around 90 US lives (See this 2003 story noting "We were advised by one speaker to hope and pray that we didn't receive orders for the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) because, on average, about eight American soldiers were killed there every year by North Korean forces by sniper fire or in small skirmishes.").

Hot Air points out this threat:
Pardon me, but I’d say that any nation that threatened the lives of 25,000 American soldiers is by definition an imminent threat to the United States. In fact, that’s exactly the reason we have stationed those troops on the DMZ. We have them set up as a tripwire to keep Kim from overrunning the DMZ and capturing Seoul by making it clear that we consider any such threat as aimed at the US as well as South Korea. - hot Air
I stand by my belief that the North Korean Government needs to be taken down. not only for the safety of all of Asia, but also to end the nightmare that Communism has brought to the North Korean people who are little more than slave laborers and hostages to their Government.

Be sure to check out my earlier posts on North Korea here, including:

There is no Place in this World for North Korea
*** The UN Cannot Save the North Koreans (So Stop Trying) ***
NY Times: "South Korea Says U.S. Killed Hundreds of Civilians" - Total BS Story
Forgotten Korean War POW Escapes - 55 Years After Being Captured!


North Korean Snipers Killing Refugees Along the Chinese Border - 24 May 08
Most Disturbing Part of North Korea-Syria Connection - 29 Apr 08
Anchor Countries - 27 Sept 07

Unconditional surrender – The only way to end Military Operations - 1 May 05
Seeing things in Black and white instead of in shades of gray. - 19 Dec 04


--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Wednesday, May 27

There is no Place in this World for North Korea

Looks like it is a good time for the Government to remember that North Korea is still at war with us (in that the Korean War never ended. It was just put on 'hold'). You can bet that the North Koreans never forgot. Their latest reminder was just this week as they demonstrated that they can build nuclear bombs. One issue not discussed is that not only does North Korea have 'the Bomb' but Iran is now just a cargo flight away from having one themselves.

I would say that now is the time for the rest of the world to act, but too bad for us that the North Koreans know all too well who they are dealing with. For well over a decade, during the Bush and Clinton Presidencies, the US has been pretty soft-armed when it has come to disciplining North Korea and the rest of the world has done nothing about the problem, other than try to blind them into confirming with 'sunshine'.

Another very dangerous problem is that it seems that too many people want to think that the North Koreans actually want a peace deal. That they are negotiating either in good faith, or at least with a goal towards betterment of their people. Well perhaps a review of the 2 minute extract from the Korean War 'Pork Chop Hill' is in order:



Video - Direct Link

The video makes a number of good points that are still relevant today. One of those is the answer to the question: what does North Korea lose by trashing the peace armistice agreement? Apparently nothing by the looks of the lack of pressure on North Korea at the moment in response to their latest nuclear test.

Funny how the world decides what is a problem and what is not. A couple hundred prisoners at GITMO puts the whole world up in arms. A whole population held prisoner and another whole country threatened with annihilation, not so much.

Now the world will be truly sorry and sad if North Korea nukes South Korea. But imagine the rage if the US, Japan or South Korea go into the North and take out the leadership there. Me, I think I would prefer dealing with International Condemnation on that one. That is partly because I see not much value in the opinion of the International Community. It is probably time we stop listening to them, especially given the lack of good it has brought us.

As for North Korea, their latest actions are just one more confirmation that regime Change should be pursued with utmost haste. If it is a war Kim Jong Il wants, it should start at his door.

Be sure to check out my earlier posts on North Korea here, including:

The UN Cannot Save the North Koreans (So Stop Trying)
NY Times: "South Korea Says U.S. Killed Hundreds of Civilians" - Total BS Story
Forgotten Korean War POW Escapes - 55 Years After Being Captured!

North Korean Snipers Killing Refugees Along the Chinese Border - 24 May 08
Most Disturbing Part of North Korea-Syria Connection - 29 Apr 08
Anchor Countries - 27 Sept 07
The UN Cannot Save the North Koreans (So Stop Trying) - 1 Feb 07
Unconditional surrender – The only way to end Military Operations - 1 May 05
Seeing things in Black and white instead of in shades of gray. - 19 Dec 04


**********



--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Tuesday, May 26

ISOVIHA - 'Big Hate' (Photo)

Here is a memorial I ran across while in Finland last summer.

This is where I came across what I consider my favorite Finnish Word:

ISOVIHA

The direct translation is 'Big Hate'. It just sounds cool.

Anyway, here is a summary on that period in time:
The Greater Wrath (Finnish: Isoviha Swedish: Stora ofreden) is a term used in Finnish history for the Russian invasion and subsequent military occupation from 1714 until the treaty of Nystad 1721, which ended the Great Northern War, although sometimes the term is used to denote all of the Great Northern War.

In the war there were Finnish troops fighting in Poland and Russia but they were also deployed in large numbers in the defense of the Baltic territories, where they slowly succumbed to Peter the Great's attacks. After the disaster of Poltava in 1709, the shattered continental army provided very little help. Russia captured Viborg in 1710 and invaded the rest of Finland in 1713, defeating the Finnish army in the battles of Pälkäne in 1713 and Storkyro (Isokyrö) in February, 1714.

After the victory at Isokyrö, Mikhail Golitsyn became governor of Finland. The Finnish peasants were forced to pay large contributions to the occupying Russians (as was the custom in that time). Plundering was widespread, especially in Ostrobothnia and in communities near the major roads. Churches were looted, Isokyrö was burned to the ground. A scorched earth zone several hundred kilometers wide was burned to hinder Swedish counteroffensives. About 5,000 Finns were killed and some 10,000 taken away as slaves, of which a few thousand returned later. Thousands, especially officials, also fled to the (relative) safety of Sweden. The poorer peasants hid in the woods to avoid the ravages of the occupiers and their press-gangs. Atrocities were at their worst between 1714-17 when the infamous Swedish Count Gustaf Otto Douglas, who had defected to the Russian side during the war, was in charge of the occupation.

In addition to the predations of the Russian occupants, Finland was struck – as were most other Baltic countries at the time – by the plague. In Helsinki, 1,185 people died: nearly two thirds of the population.

Even the Swedish western side of the Gulf of Bothnia was ravaged by the Russians. The city of Umeå was burned to the ground by the Russians on September 18, 1714, and after struggling to rebuild was razed again in 1719, 1720, and 1721.

It took several decades for the Finnish population and economy to recover after the peace in 1721, at which point Finland was scourged again during the Lesser Wrath which was however less devastating. - Wikipedia

'ISOVIHA' Memorial, Finland (Click to enlarge)


--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Monday, May 25

The Terrorist Prisoner Not Mentioned in Obama's Speech

On Thursday President Obama made a speech on how to handle the terrorists the US is holding at GITMO, defending his goal of having the prison closed and moving some of the worst prisoners to prisons in the US. As part of his speech he mentioned a number of terrorists that the US is already holding in the US:
First, whenever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts -- courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and our juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists. The record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center. He was convicted in our courts and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prisons. Zacarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker. He was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo. - White House Transcript
This is all good, but it would be good to note that there is a special danger with handling prisoners who are willing to die for their cause. Take the case of a senior aide to Osama Bin Laden, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who is in a US Federal Prison:
The account of the attack on the guard, who was critically injured, came on the second day of a hearing in Federal District Court in Manhattan in which prosecutors are seeking to persuade a jury to impose the death penalty on a terrorist who bombed the American Embassy in Tanzania in 1998, killing 11 people.

The bomber, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, 27, was never charged in the stabbing of the guard, Louis Pepe, but prosecutors told the jury this week that Mr. Mohamed assisted his cellmate, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, in the attack, which they said was an attempt to take hostages and possibly free other terrorism suspects. The attack occurred on Nov. 1.

In eliciting the testimony about Officer Pepe's reference to giving ''them a fight,'' the prosecution appeared to be trying to show that both Mr. Salim and Mr. Mohamed were involved in the attack.

Officer Pepe suffered severe brain damage when a sharpened comb was plunged into his eye, and he is apparently unable to testify. - NY Times
So here are two terrorists in the custody of the Federal Prison System and while there almost killed one of the guards. They were convicted of killing hundreds in the African Embassy bombings. Interestingly enough, the President has decided to bring another terrorist from these same embassy attacks to try in the US. Just because, as the President notes, that no one has escaped from these Federal Prisons, does not mean that they cannot kill while inside prison.

Just to be clear, I have no problem trying these terrorists. My problem is that they want to try them like common criminals. Instead, they should be tried for crimes against humanity, just like the Nazis at the end of WWII.

P.S.
The speech also included this bit of Presidential 'wisdom':

Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.

Look, these terrorists were attacking us well before GITMO was a prison. These terrorists were attacking the US before Bush was President. Terrorists struck a number of times while Clinton was President and he was loved by the rest of the world. (African Embassy bombings, USS COLE, WorlD Trade Center...) The way the US treats it's enemies had nothing to do with it. the reason there are some many to deal with is because we invaded their 'safe haven' and hunted them down across the globe.

Yes, some have used all sorts of excuses to join their cause. However, those who have been recruited are just looking for a reason to back up their behavior, not for a reason to act.

Well here is a secret for our President, if they want to hate you, they will find a reason to do so. Take this study of Terror threats against Finland:

We spoke at some length with the Imam about the worldviews of the Muslim community in Finland. He believed that the views could be divided into three groups.

Firstly there are the Finnish converts who, despite having become Muslim by faith, remain ‘Finnish’ in all other ways, including knowing their rights as citizens.

The second group are immigrants who have escaped bad situations in their countries of birth and as a result feel a sense of gratitude to the country that has given them refuge.

The third group, which he believes to be the majority amongst Muslim immigrants across Europe, feel that it was the activities and policies of ‘the West’ that led to them having to leave their homeland – be that for economic reasons or non-economic reasons such as war. As a result, they feel that they owe no gratitude to the countries where they now live.

This sentiment will only be amplified if they face prejudice or a lack of opportunities once resident in Europe. Importantly, ‘the West’ is seen as a bloc – in many ways a mirror image of how the West tends to view “the Muslim World” in an undifferentiated way. Therefore Finland’s history as a young nation with a past of being a colony itself, makes no difference to it being seen as part of ‘the West’.

Two anecdotal stories Imam Chehab recounted to us suggest that if an individual already has a certain mindset – in this case that of Finland as part of the ‘oppressive West’ – then they will retrospectively find the ‘evidence’ to support this.

The first case concerned a TV documentary shown some years ago about the birth of Israel. One of the elderly Zionists who was interviewed noted that there had been a small number of Finns who had fought with them. Rather than dismissing these as probable mercenaries, adventurers or crackpots, the Imam remembered this was discussed by some as evidence that Finland was supportive of Israel and not sympathetic to the Palestinians.

Another similar anecdote was about a member of the congregation who showed the Imam an article he had discovered in an obscure history journal noting that during the 11th century Crusades, there was a Finnish regiment amongst the Christian armies which was reputed to be particularly blood-thirsty. This again was taken as indicative of Finnish attitudes to Islam a millennium later! Although individually these stories might seem almost comical, they do suggest a particular attitude amongst a few individuals who see Finland as no different from any other Western country.

At the very least they show a lack of understanding of Finnish history and society, again suggesting a failure of integration. Of course it will be only a few individuals who would justify their feelings against Finland in these obscure historical terms, but a failure of integration leading to marginalisation, unemployment, poverty and lack of educational opportunities will provide much more contemporary grounds for some to wish ill on the country. - FIIA Report, Pages 64-65 (Originally posted here)

Given this, GITMO is the least of our problems. Especially considering that the terrorists will use GITMO against the US for generations to come. So we might as well get the benefit from it.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Maritime Monday 163 Posted at gCaptain

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.


You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 113 here. (Published 26 May 2008).

--------------------


--------------------


Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - 61 - 62 - 63 - 64 - 65 - 66 - 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 - 71 - 72 - 73 - 74 - 75 - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - 81 - 82 - 83 - 84 - 85 - 86 - 87 - 88 - 89 - 90 - 91 - 92 - 93 - 94 - 95 - 96 - 97 - 98


gCaptain editions: 99 - 100 - 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 - 107 - 108 - 109 - 110 - 111 - 112 - 113 - 114 - 115 - 116 - 117 - 118 - 119 - 120 - 121 - 122 - 123 - 123a - 124 - 125 - 126 - 127 - 128 - 129 - 130 - 131 - 132 - 133 - 134 - 135 - 136 - 137 - 138 - 139 - 140 - 141 - 142 - 143 - 144 - 145 - 146 - 147 - 148 - 149 - 150 - 151 - 152 - 153 - 154 - 155 - 156 - 157 - 158 - 159 - 160 - 161 - 162 - 163 - 164
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Sunday, May 24

NS SAVANNAH - Photos

Here are some photos that I took during a tour of the NS SAVANNAH during Friday's Maritime Day Program.

This was the world's first nuclear-powered cargo ship.

You can find more on the ship at Wikipedia here and at the Maritime Administration's website here.
--------------------


- Spare Propeller on the stern -


- View of the Bridge windows -


- View of the Bridge from the Bridgewing -


- View forward -


- Main Dining Room -


--------------------


--------------------


- Galley -


- One of the first microwave ovens -

- 'Nuclear-powered' dishwasher -


- Door to the Reactor Room -


- Engine Room -


- Engine Room / Control Room -


--------------------


- Operating Theater -


- Bridge (My daughter sits in every Captain's Chair she comes across) -


- -


- Bridge Control (Expected more?) -


- Lifeboat Radio -


- Radio Room -


- Looking aft from the Bow -


- Anchor Windlass -


--------------------


--------------------


--------------------


--------------------


--------------------


- USMMA Training Vessel T/V LIBERATOR -


--------------------


--------------------


--------------------


--------------------


--------------------


--------------------


--------------------


--------------------


--------------------


--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------