America, I’ve  maintained, would suffer a sovereign debt crisis as well, and this would happen sooner than expected.

“The International Monetary Fund recently published estimates of the fiscal adjustments developed economies would need to make to restore fiscal stability over the decade ahead. Worst were Japan and the UK (a fiscal tightening of 13 per cent of GDP). Then came Ireland, Spain and Greece (9 per cent). And in sixth place? Step forward America, which would need to tighten fiscal policy by 8.8 per cent of GDP to satisfy the IMF.”

The catch is that the U.S. does not need to satisfy the IMF . . . .

 “Sovereign Debt” Is an Oxymoron

America cannot actually suffer from a sovereign debt crisis.  Why?  Because it has no sovereign debt.  As Wikipedia  explains:

“A sovereign bond is a bond issued by a national government.  The term usually refers to bonds issued in foreign currencies, while bonds issued by national governments in the country’s own currency are referred to as government bonds.  The total amount owed to the holders of the sovereign bonds is called sovereign debt.”

Damon Vrabel, of the Council on Renewal in Seattle, concludes:

“[T]he sovereign debt crisis . . . is a fabrication of the Ivy League, Wall Street, and erudite periodicals like the Financial Times of London. . . . It seems ridiculous to point this out, but sovereign debt implies sovereignty.  Right?  Well, if countries are sovereign, then how could they be required to be in debt to private banking institutions?  How could they be so easily attacked by the likes of George Soros, JP Morgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs? Why would they be subjugated to the whims of auctions and traders?  A true sovereign is in debt to nobody . . . .”

Before you sit down and enjoy that big turkey dinner with your family this Thanksgiving, you might want to take the time to educate yourself and then share your new-found information with the masses under the sound of your voice. Perhaps you’ll find a new reason to be “thankful”…READ ON:

Excerpted from:

The Truth About Thanksgiving: What They Never Taught You in School

by Richard Schiffman

“Remember what you were taught in grade school? Fleeing religious persecution, the Pilgrims sailed from England, landed on Plymouth rock over two months later, barely survived their first winter. With the help of Squanto and the friendly Wampanoag, who taught them how to exploit the local fish and game, plant corn and squash, and also protected them from other hostile tribes, the band of colonists succeeded in establishing a tenuous foothold at the edge of the North American wilderness. The first Thanksgiving in 1621 was held to celebrate a bountiful harvest with the tribe that helped make it possible.

The real story, it turns out, is neither as simple nor as consoling as this pared down history would suggest…

While Thanksgiving’s enthusiasts view it as a celebration of the boldness, piety and sacrifices of the first European migrants to American shores, the holiday’s critics claim that it whitewashes the genocide and ethnic cleansing of indigenous people.

If you happen to spend Thanksgiving in Plymouth Massachusetts this year, you can choose between two public commemorations. You can watch the official parade, in which townspeople dressed like pilgrims march to Plymouth Rock bearing blunderbusses and beating drums. Or you can stand on the top of Coles Hill with indigenous people and their supporters and fast in observance of what they call a “national day of mourning” in remembrance of the destruction of Indian culture and peoples.

These two events represent radically different visions of American history. The official version, the one we learn in school, essentially starts with the landing of the Mayflower in 1620 in a small bay north of Cape Cod. In the Native version, on the other hand, the appearance of the Pilgrims on American shores marks the beginning of the end.

In fact, the end times began for Massachusetts Indians several years earlier, when British slaving crews inadvertently introduced smallpox– carried by their infected cattle– to coastal New England killing over ninety percent of the local population, who lacked antibodies to fight the disease. (Compare this astonishing figure to the 30 percent death rates at the height of the Black Plague.)

While the decimated Wampanoag helped the British boat people survive their first harrowing year, Native Americans say that the favor was not returned. A group which calls itself “The United American Indians of New England” alleges that in return for Indian generosity, Pilgrims stole their grain stores and robbed Wampanoag graves.

The historical evidence for grave robbing is a bit thin. And perhaps we can forgive the starving Pilgrims for pilfering a little Indian corn. In any event, this petty thieving doubtless ended with their first ample harvest, which was celebrated with a three day feast. It remains an open question, however, whether the Wampanoag were actually invited, or if they crashed the party, as some historians now suggest, when they heard gunfire from the stockaded village and came to check out what the commotion was all about.

There is also the much debated question of what was on the menu. There is no evidence for turkey, it turns out, only some kind of wild fowl– likely geese and duck– venison, corn mush and stewed pumpkin, or traditional Wampanoag succotash. Cranberries, though native to the region, would have been too tart for desert, and sweet potatoes were not yet grown in North America, though grapes and melons would have been available.

The notion that the first Thanksgiving was some kind of cross-cultural love-fest, as it has been portrayed, is also disputed by historians, who say that the settlers and the Indians were brought together less by genuine friendship than by the extremity of their mutual need. The two struggling communities were never more than wary allies against other tribes.

The colonists were contemptuous of the Indians, who they regarded as uncivilized and satanic heathens, and the fragile early peace between Native Americans and the early settlers would soon unravel in a horrific manner in what is now Mystic Connecticut, where the Pequot tribe was celebrating their own Thanksgiving, the green corn festival. In the predawn hours, settlers– not the Pilgrims, but a band of Puritans– descended on their village and shot, clubbed and burned alive over 700 native men, woman and children.

This slaughter, according to Robert Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, was the real origin of Thanksgiving– so proclaimed in 1637 by Massachusetts Bay Governor John Winthrop in gratitude for God’s destruction of the defenseless Pequot village. Thereafter massacres of the Indians were routinely followed by “days of thanksgiving.”

Some blogosphere historians have gone so far as to claim that it was in order to consolidate this plethora of macabre feasts that George Washington made his Thanksgiving Day Proclamation in 1789. In reality, our first president’s aim was not to celebrate the genocide against the Indians, but to pay tribute to the survival of the fledgling but still imperiled nation. Nevertheless, troubling questions about the origins of our national feast remain.

Jane Kamensky, a professor of history at Brandeis University, wondered on the website Common-Place (in 2001) whether it makes sense to stir up the historical pot, “to plumb the bottom of it all – to determine whether the first Thanksgiving was merely a pretext for bloodshed, enslavement, and displacement that would follow in later decades.”

It seems odd for a historian to argue that history doesn’t matter. A Thanksgiving which ignores the systematic destruction of Indian cultures which followed hot on the heels of the Plymouth feast not only does a disservice to indigenous peoples, it falsifies our understanding of ourselves and our history.”

Now, chew on this bit of historical truth while you’re chewing on that turkey, if you can. I know I won’t be…this is why America is experiencing the pangs of decline its feeling today. People should dig and read for themselves, then perhaps, like Jesus said in the Book of John: “When you know the truth, the truth will make you free”….and wouldn’t you like to be free from the bondage of the hooplah surrounding this “Thanksgiving” holiday? Times are tough; imagine the money you could save if you didn’t have to spend hundreds of dollars on traveling to Grandma’s, not to mention how much is spent on the great feast commemorating the slaughter of America’s REAL patriots…the native Pequots and other NATURAL BORN “citizens” of this country.

So, if you see me on the streets, DON”T wish me a “Happy Thanksgiving” because you’ll just reveal to me how much in bondage you are and I don’t feel like rescuing anyone right now!

The Occupiers march against economic disparity and for economic justice…a noble cause but a vain cause. This economic system is rigged against economic justice because America lives by a two-party plutocracy that unfortunately has enabled the rich to place politics in its back pocket, which is why there is a vote of no-confidence in this government looking out for your best interests.

Workers could be paid to dig ditches and fill them back up, and it would stimulate the economy. What a lagging economy needed was simply demand (available purchasing power).  Demand would then stimulate businesses to produce more “supply”, creating more jobs and driving productivity. The key was that demand (money to spend) must come first.

The Chinese have put workers to work building massive malls and apartment buildings, many of which are standing empty for lack of customers and purchasers. It may be a wasteful use of resources, but it has succeeded in putting wages in workers’ pockets, giving them the purchasing power to spend on products and services, stimulating economic growth; and unlike wasteful war spending, the Chinese approach has not involved death and destruction.

“And you all also may remember that early on, I said if you hide a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, if you provide comfort to a terrorist, you’re just as guilty as the terrorist. ” George W. Bush. (Address to US., troops, Alaska, 16th February 2002.)

Given the ferocity of the attack on Libya, the country Tony Blair credited himself with bringing in from the cold and turning in to a new trading partner, Colonel Qadhafi, has been remarkably conciliatory. On 5th., April he wrote to President Obama, more in sorrow than in anger.(i)

The irony of a half African, Nobel Peace Prize winner, initiating bombing in Africa, instead of using his roots to nurture shoots of understanding and co-operation, is a fairly mind stretching irony. But why spoil an unbroken track record and become the only US., President in modern history not to attack a few countries who pose the United States no threat whatsoever.

On April 30th., Libya’s leader proposed a negotiated cease fire with the rebels, as long as NATO; “stop its ‘planes.” NATO and the insurgents, rejected the offer saying it: “lacked credibility.” Don’t bother to: “Give peace a chance.”

America, Woodrow Wilson’s: ” … only idealistic nation in the world.”, responded by participating in a missile attack which killed the Colonel’s second youngest son, Saif Al Arab, and three grandchildren under twelve.

Nato launched the air strike hours after the Libyan leader renewed calls for a ceasefire and negotiations, in an 80-minute televised address. “The door to peace is open,” he declared, adding that while the Libyan government would welcome a ceasefire “it cannot be achieved unilaterally.” “Come, France, Italy, Britain, America, come to negotiate with us – why are you attacking us?”

But it is April, the seemingly open season on the Qadhafi family, month. On April 15th., 1986 his adopted toddler daughter Hanna was killed in a US., bombing; his son Khamis reportedly died of wounds from another bombing, just four days before March this year, became April.

On 11th., April, Delegates from the African Union, also failed to broker a truce, rejected by the former Justice Minister, turned “rebel leader”, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, who had gone on behalf of the government to Benghazi to broker a peace deal – and switched sides. Quaddaffi himself had accepted the plan. In recently released Wikileak-ed US., diplomatic cables, Jalil is described as “open and cooperative.”(ii) Wonder what deal might have been struck.

NATO’s Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard said he is aware of unconfirmed reports that some Qadhafi family members may have been killed: “All NATO’s targets are military in nature … We do not target individuals”, he said. In broken record mode, he “regrets”: “all loss of life, especially the innocent civilians being harmed as a result of the ongoing conflict.” Interestingly all three attacks appear to have been on the same residential area, where the media yesterday found a decimated one story residential house, the television still on, food in the kitchen, fruit on the table and a football game machine in the garden.

NATO have, in time honored fashion, intimated that the home was a military compound. They said the same of the Ameriyah Shelter in Baghdad in 1991, where the still unknown number incinerated inside, upwards of 400, were woman and children. It had, of course, never been a military compound. They intimated the same of the media centre in Belgrade in 1999 – and, with a different slant, of Baghdad’s Palestine Hotel in 2003, where US., troops killed two journalists and wounded three. On that day (April 8th.,) two more buildings housing journalists were attacked, killing a third correspondent.

In 2008, Sgt. Adrienne Kinne, a former Arabic linguist in U.S., Army Intelligence, revealed that she had seen secret documents listing the Palestine Hotel as a possible military target, prior to the 2003 shelling incident. Reports from Kinne suggest that the attack on the hotel was a deliberate attempt to control news coverage of the U.S., invasion of Iraq, as the Palestine Hotel was a popular place for international journalists. The list of such attacks, globally, over decades, with accompanying collateral lies, is a woeful reflection on military integrity. (News, websites, Wikipedia.)

Yesterday’s attack, said a Libyan government spokesman, was: “An assassination attempt.” Hard to argue, since Britain’s Defence Secretary Liam Fox has said the Libyan Leader is: “a legitimate target”, and Prime Minister Cameron insists that he “must go.” (iii)

Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.) is aghast: “NATO’s leaders have blood on their hands. NATO’s airstrike seems to have been intended to carry out an illegal policy of assassination. This is a deep stain which can never fully wash. This grave matter cannot be addressed with empty words. Words will not bring back dead children. Actions must be taken to stop more innocents from getting slaughtered. Today’s attack underscores that the Obama Doctrine of so-called humanitarian intervention appears to be a cover for regime change through assassination and murder.” (iv)

But US., driven attacks have “form” in serial assassinations. In July 2003, Saddam Hussein’s sons, Qusay and Uday and his fifteen year old grandson, were shredded to pieces by US., troops machine gun fire, in a house in the ancient northern Iraqi city of Mosul. No arrests, no trial, simply assassinated, by illegal invaders. Arbitrary executions, unquestioned and unaccountable.

“Historically, America has not sought to impose its will on other countries. The service of our armed forces throughout the world has been uniquely important to the happiness of people everywhere …” stated President Obama in his Nobel Prize Award address. Tell that to the bereaved, bereft, broken, bleeding, bombed, orphaned, displaced. Breathtaking.

In Benghazi and elsewhere in Eastern Libya, the US., and allies are openly advising, backing, funding and arming rebels and insurgents, who have risen up against their own, sovereign government. “Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a (sic) horrific scale”, expanded the President at the Nobel ceremony. Right on, Sir.

Incredibly the US., has already done an oil deal with the rebels. Another day, another ram raid. Also another mirror image of Iraq, who switched out of oil trading in US., dollars in November 2000.

Further, regarding Libya: “The IMF estimates that the bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. It is significant that in the months running up to the UN., resolution that allowed the US., and its allies to send troops into Libya, Muammar al-Qadhafi was openly advocating the creation of a new currency that would rival the dollar and the euro. In fact, he called upon African and Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make this new currency, the gold dinar, their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US., and the rest of the world only for gold dinars.

The US., the other G-8 countries, the World Bank … and multinational corporations do not look kindly on leaders who threaten their dominance over world currency markets or who appear to be moving away from the international banking system that favors the corporatocracy. ” (v)

Amid the politics and the horror of knowing that countries dressed as bastions of legality and democracy now have a policy of assassination, Saturday 30th., brought another tragedy. Also bombed by the “humanitarian interveners”, was a parent-funded school for children with Down’s Syndrome. Ismail Seddigh founded the school seventeen years ago, after his daughter was born with Down’s. Through therapy, crafts, music and inventive teaching methods, they aim to have the children able to cope with a main stream school by the age of six. “I feel really sad. I kept thinking, what are we going to do with these children?” Asks Mr. Seddigh. The strike happened before the children arrived, mercifully. The orphanage on the floors above was also bombed.

“If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocence, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril”, said George W. Bush, as he took that path to Afghanistan.

Shortly after 9/11, General Wesley Clark was, as has been recently re-remembered, told by a Pentagon colleague that the decision had been made to “take out” seven countries in five years. The countries were: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. A little behind schedule, but short of a miracle, the path of greed and inhumanity is hewn.(vi)

Meanwhile, Britain’s little geographically, diplomatically and follicly challenged Foreign Secretary, William Hague has apparently lost the plot. Foreign missions in Libya’s capital have been targeted by crowds angry at a Nato air strike killing Colonel Quaddaffi’s son and grandchildren.. A UK., embassy building had been completely burnt out. Italian, French, US., embassies and the United Nations building – symbol of Security Council Resolution 1973 authorising the plight they find themselves in – were also attacked.

Mr Hague rails that the Quaddaffi regime has: “failed in its duty” to protect it and that Omar Jelban, Libya’s Representative in the UK., had been given 24 hours to leave the country. Hague said: “The Vienna Convention requires the Quaddaffi regime to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli. By failing to do so, that regime has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations. I take the failure to protect such premises very seriously indeed.” Truly jaw dropping.

Between 31 st., March and 24th., April, alone, there were 3,438 sorties over Libya and 1,432 strikes against little over six million people (vii) on a country that poses no threat to any NATO country, and has threatened no other. Fig leaf UNSCR 1973, does not make the decimation or assassinations legal. The Colonel has lost five of his family. Yet he and his government is demanded to prioritise protection of the British Embassy – while Britain is contributing substantially to the bombing – perhaps Libyans should also clutch a copy of the Vienna Convention for reading whilst on UK Embassy guard duty.

Since law experts across the globe are queuing up to see George Bush, Tony Blair, and their former Administrations on war crimes trials, and now Barack Obama, David Cameron, Liam Fox, William Hague and their colleagues would seem to be on equally dodgy ground, now in three countries, perhaps a little reading of international law closer to home might be in order.

“We stand at the threshold. It is time for you and me to move out of the dark void of brutal exploitation and greed into the light of compassion and cooperation”, wrote John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” recently.

Nearly two and a half thousand years ago, Thucydides (460 BC – 395 BC) wrote: “When will there be justice in Athens? There will be justice in Athens when those who are not injured are as outraged as those who are.” When will power learn?

Yesterday, 1st., May, the day of the Libyan assassinations, is the eighth anniversary of George W. Bush landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln in his little flying suit and announcing: “Mission accomplished.” Well, that’s all gone well, then.

Few Americans , however, have closely followed Washington’s 21^st century wars of choice, so a trillion probably sounds right to them, but that amount in 10 years — when the annual cost of air conditioning alone for the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq amounts to $20.2 billion a year — is  way off base.

(It’s difficult to conceive of one trillion, so we’ll repeat a method we’ve used before: Sixty seconds comprise a minute. One million seconds  comes out to be about 11½ days. A billion seconds is 32 years. And a trillion seconds is 32,000 years.)

The latest objective estimate for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, made public June 29, is between $3.7 trillion and $4.4 trillion (140,800 years), according to the research project “Costs of War” by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies.

The university assembled a team of economists, anthropologists, political scientists, legal experts, and a physician to do this analysis, which included future costs for veterans care and interest on war debts to be paid over the next few decades.

The medical costs are huge. “While we know how many U.S. soldiers have died in the wars (just over 6,000),” the report pointed out, “what is startling is what we don’t know about the levels of injury and illness in those who have returned from the wars. New disability claims continue to pour into the VA, with 550,000 just through last fall.” This doesn’t even include the thousands of deaths and injuries among quasi-military contractors. There are about as many contractors as troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s impossible to precisely predict the interest costs on these wars. In 2010, $400 billion of our tax money went toward paying off past war debts as far back as the Korean War of the early 1950s. We’ll pay war debts indefinitely because Washington is always borrowing to plan for or start new wars. So far, the U.S.-led NATO war for regime change in Libya is costing American taxpayers about a billion. The Pentagon has blueprints ready for many different kinds of future wars, from small counter-terrorism escapades, to cyberspace and outer space conflicts, to nuclear war, all the way up to World War III.

The Brown University figures may turn out to be underestimates. A few independent studies over the years have been somewhat higher but were brushed aside by the White House and the mass media. This may happen to the Brown calculations as well.

The respected Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Professor Linda Bilmes wrote a book three years ago estimating the cost of the Iraq war only, based on data collected in 2006. It was titled “The Three Trillion Dollar War.” They based their calculations on the “hidden” costs of the war that include enormous medical care expenses over the next 50 years for tens of thousands of badly wounded soldiers, other benefits, equipment replacement, and interest on war debts.

Stiglitz and Bilmes calculated in 2008 that the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would be between $5 and $7 trillion.  They called these adventures the “credit card wars.” Using a somewhat different methodology a few years ago, the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, estimated the Iraq war ultimately will cost $3.5 trillion. They didn’t include the Afghan war.

Assuming Obama is reelected, the Bush-Obama wars — including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen (and Somalia, where the U.S. is now engaged in drone strikes), plus the wars in Obama’s final years — will certainly top $5 trillion in real costs.

In this connection, we cannot forget that current Pentagon spending of around $700 billion a year represents a huge increase since 2001, when it totaled about $380 billion. (By comparison, during this same time period, military spending by Iran — portrayed by Washington, Tel-Aviv and Saudi Arabia as the greatest danger to peace in the Middle East — dropped from $9 billion in 2001 to $7 billion in 2010.)

But Defense Department expenses are only half the story. Double the Pentagon’s $700 billion for a true estimate of the amount of money the U.S. spent on war-related issues  last year. That’s $1.4 trillion a year for the United States. How is this possible?

Instead of just discussing the Pentagon budget, it is essential to also consider Washington’s various other “national security” budgets. That of course includes the costs of Washington’s 16 different intelligence services, the percentage of the annual national debt to pay for past war expenses, Homeland Security, nuclear weapons, additional annual spending requests for Iraq and Afghan wars, military retiree pay and healthcare for vets, NASA, FBI (for its war-related military work), etc. When it’s all included it comes to $1,398 trillion for fiscal 2010, according to the War Resisters League and other sources.

It’s not enough just to take note of the money Washington spent on stalemated wars of choice. It’s fruitful to contemplate where our $5 trillion Bush-Obama war funding might have been invested instead. It could have paid for a fairly swift transition from fossil fuels to a solar-wind energy system for the entire U.S. — a prospect that will now take many decades longer, if at all, as the world gets warmer from greenhouse gases. And there probably would have been enough left to overhaul America’s decaying and outdated civil infrastructure, among other projects.

But while the big corporations, Wall Street and the wealthy are thriving, global warming and infrastructure repair have been brushed aside. States are cutting back on schools and healthcare. Counties and towns are closing summer swimming pools and public facilities. Jobs and growth are stagnant. The federal government is sharply cutting the social service budget, and Medicare et al. are nearing the chopping block.

Compelling and Thought Provoking, April 30, 2011

By Rachel   Posted on Amazon.com 

This book is a compelling read as it offers a fascinating perspective on the state of our nation. The point of the book is to provide enough information to provoke thought in readers so they can make their own decisions and bring about change. It is written as a call to action for people to join the grassroots movement fighting to keep the United States from what the authors see as a downward spiral of decline and eventual collapse. Whether you agree with the authors or not, it is an interesting read. This is a book for those wanting to protect their families and their country, make their own decisions and feel empowered to do something. The arguments are at times controversial, but they are thought provoking. The book can be overly ambitious as it attempts to encompass many issues occurring in our nation, such as youth, religion, 9/11, the economy, race, politics, and parenting to name a few. A more effective approach would be to focus on fewer key issues. However, I think it would make an outstanding addition to the bookshelf of any lover of the social and political sciences and one who values various perspectives. I look forward to future books by these authors.

This review is from Goodreads.com:

The book blew my mind!! It sums up the thoughts and actions taken to put the USA into the “still current” state of mind. But more to the point, it shows us what we have to do to become UNITED in this great country.

Keep the faith B, there are tons of people just like us out there, that just need an avenue to see and walk down.

The book shows us that we all need to join hands in the saving of our nation. This is not only physically, but spiritually, in our day to day actions. We are all brothers and sisters and this book shows us exactly that.

Well done!!!!
Victoria (aka Tori)

A fast, riveting read you won’t put down! by yvette59  (posted on barnesandnobles.com)

Posted June 15, 2010, 2:27 PM EST: The World is NOT Your Oyster was interesting from the first page. The tone of the book is as if you were sitting down with the authors and having a conversation. I think this is what will make this book appeal to readers of all ages. The reader will learn a lot about what goes on in this country that everyday Americans are not aware of…kind of like a behind the scenes look at how the power brokers, including government leaders and corporate owners, have set up this country to be their personal banking system, leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves. While reading this book, I was taken on an emotional roller coaster as I reacted to things the authors were presenting. I felt angry, I laughed, I felt powerless and I felt compelled to do something to tell people about what is going on and what has happened to this nation over the decades. It was scary to think about America going the way of the Roman empire, but as the authors say, if we don’t do something to change things around we will cease to exist as an international power. The authors present some pretty controversial and provocative points of view that require the reader to have an open mind because afterward, you will say “I never thought about it that way, but it makes sense.” I think that is what I liked most about this book, is the way it is written and that the authors provide a list of other books for the reader to learn more about certain topics in the book. I just wish it were longer and had more detail on some of the events they described, but I guess that’s why they provide the reading list at the end. The authors say that the purpose is to make people think and find out stuff for themselves, and that is what this book has made me do.

What say you?