Sabtu, 05 November 2005
Jumat, 04 November 2005
Beltway Intellectuals Are Useless by Leon Hadar
Beltway Intellectuals Are Useless by Leon Hadar: "Beltway Intellectuals Are Useless" Beltway Intellectuals Are Useless
Washington intellectuals seem to have little idea
of how to fix US foreign policy
by Leon Hadar
by Leon Hadar
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site
When he was once asked to define what exactly an "intellectual" was, British writer Aldous Huxley proposed that it was "a person who's found something in life that's more interesting than sex."
Based on Huxley's definition, I'm here to report to you that I had a very, very interesting weekend which I spent with a group of some of Washington's leading policy intellectuals, AKA policy "wonks" in a Big-Ideas retreat outside of the US capital, where one of those wealthy foundations wined and dined us for three days, in what could be described as a mini-Davos.
In return, we were expected to come up with new ideas on how to fix the universe or, more precisely, draw up the outline of a strategy that would permit the Master of the Universe, the United States, to stabilize Iraq, bring peace to the Middle East, re-energize the Western alliance and accommodate the Chinese, among many other things.
I have to admit that most of these wonks are clearly more intelligent, more knowledgeable and more experienced than your humble scribe here. Some of them have Ph.D.s from the most prestigious universities in the land, are fluent in many foreign languages, including Chinese, Persian and Urdu, and have served in top positions in the White House, Pentagon, State Department and Congress, where they provided advice to US officials, lawmakers and generals as they attempted to manage American foreign policy and resolve international crises.
No Big Ideas
Hence the expectation among the conference's organizers that some of these Washington's Best of the Brightest – I'm not including myself in that category – would have one of those eureka! moments and 72 hours of food consumption, beer drinking and long debates into the early morning hours would produce – Boom, Gee Whiz – the Big Idea in the form of, say, an exit strategy from Iraq or a new approach to deal with Iran.
Well, don't hold your breath. The long weekend failed to generate either Big Ideas or even tiny ones. While I'm prohibited by the off-the-record ground rules from revealing the names of the conference's attendees or what exactly was said during that retreat in Virginia, I can convey to you my main and very depressing impression: American foreign policy in Iraq, the Middle East and elsewhere is in a mess, and no one really knows how to get out of it.
Most of the participants suggested that Americans have to "stay the course in Iraq," expressed hope (wishful thinking?) that we will soon "turn the corner" there and things will get better in Mesopotamia, that perhaps the Sunnis will join the political process and that the elections in December will be "successful" (whatever that means).
In short, just continue muddling through and pray for a miracle.
There are some signs of the emergence of a foreign policy debate in Washington – clearly reflected in the discussions at the conference – which pits Kissinger-style Realpolitik types against Wilsonian idealists.
But taking into consideration some of the comments and predictions I heard during the weekend, the idealists – that is, the neoconservative ideologues who had hijacked US foreign policy after 9/11 – have not lost their momentum.
The notion that the US has the right and the obligation to promote American-style freedom and democracy not only in the Middle East but worldwide seems to be a dominant view among many of Washington's policy wonks. In fact, one of the panels during the conference was devoted to a discussion of how America could use its power to "democratize" Southeast Asia, including Singapore.
Even those Democrats participating in the event who have been critical of the neocons have not expressed opposition to the Global Democracy project itself. They just seemed to suggest that unlike the neocons, they would be able to achieve it at less cost especially in military terms, for the US. Call it Neocon Lite.
Interestingly enough, the harshest denunciation of the conduct of the Bushies' foreign policy and the neoconservative Global Democracy agenda that one can hear these days doesn't come from the direction of the Democratic Party but from Republican establishment figures who had served in the administration of President George the First.
Democracy by force
Hence Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser under Bush I, in an interview he gave to New Yorker magazine, criticized Vice-President Dick Cheney for siding with the militant neocons who wanted to reform the Middle East by force.
Scowcroft said in the interview that he believed that Paul Wolfowitz and other neocons "got a Utopia out there." Democracy cannot be imposed by force, and not everyone values freedom above all, Scowcroft argued.
As a realist, Scowcroft expressed in the interview the necessity of considering the consequences of action, or "outcomes." For Scowcroft, "the second Gulf War is a reminder of the unwelcome consequences of radical intervention, especially when it is attempted without sufficient understanding of America's limitations or of the history of the region," concluded the New Yorker article.
But it's important to remember that one of the main reasons that Scowcroft feels comfortable expressing such views that run contrary to the policy paradigm dominating in Washington is that this elder statesman is not looking for a job in the administration, Congress or the other centers of power in Washington.
Most of the policy intellectuals I met over the weekend are still relatively young and are marketing their ideas as part of a strategy to win professional benefits, and challenging the conventional wisdom on Iraq ("stay the course") and other issues wouldn't help advance that goal.
They might have found something more interesting in life than sex – but it's not an exit strategy from Iraq.
November 4, 2005
Washington intellectuals seem to have little idea
of how to fix US foreign policy
by Leon Hadar
by Leon Hadar
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site
When he was once asked to define what exactly an "intellectual" was, British writer Aldous Huxley proposed that it was "a person who's found something in life that's more interesting than sex."
Based on Huxley's definition, I'm here to report to you that I had a very, very interesting weekend which I spent with a group of some of Washington's leading policy intellectuals, AKA policy "wonks" in a Big-Ideas retreat outside of the US capital, where one of those wealthy foundations wined and dined us for three days, in what could be described as a mini-Davos.
In return, we were expected to come up with new ideas on how to fix the universe or, more precisely, draw up the outline of a strategy that would permit the Master of the Universe, the United States, to stabilize Iraq, bring peace to the Middle East, re-energize the Western alliance and accommodate the Chinese, among many other things.
I have to admit that most of these wonks are clearly more intelligent, more knowledgeable and more experienced than your humble scribe here. Some of them have Ph.D.s from the most prestigious universities in the land, are fluent in many foreign languages, including Chinese, Persian and Urdu, and have served in top positions in the White House, Pentagon, State Department and Congress, where they provided advice to US officials, lawmakers and generals as they attempted to manage American foreign policy and resolve international crises.
No Big Ideas
Hence the expectation among the conference's organizers that some of these Washington's Best of the Brightest – I'm not including myself in that category – would have one of those eureka! moments and 72 hours of food consumption, beer drinking and long debates into the early morning hours would produce – Boom, Gee Whiz – the Big Idea in the form of, say, an exit strategy from Iraq or a new approach to deal with Iran.
Well, don't hold your breath. The long weekend failed to generate either Big Ideas or even tiny ones. While I'm prohibited by the off-the-record ground rules from revealing the names of the conference's attendees or what exactly was said during that retreat in Virginia, I can convey to you my main and very depressing impression: American foreign policy in Iraq, the Middle East and elsewhere is in a mess, and no one really knows how to get out of it.
Most of the participants suggested that Americans have to "stay the course in Iraq," expressed hope (wishful thinking?) that we will soon "turn the corner" there and things will get better in Mesopotamia, that perhaps the Sunnis will join the political process and that the elections in December will be "successful" (whatever that means).
In short, just continue muddling through and pray for a miracle.
There are some signs of the emergence of a foreign policy debate in Washington – clearly reflected in the discussions at the conference – which pits Kissinger-style Realpolitik types against Wilsonian idealists.
But taking into consideration some of the comments and predictions I heard during the weekend, the idealists – that is, the neoconservative ideologues who had hijacked US foreign policy after 9/11 – have not lost their momentum.
The notion that the US has the right and the obligation to promote American-style freedom and democracy not only in the Middle East but worldwide seems to be a dominant view among many of Washington's policy wonks. In fact, one of the panels during the conference was devoted to a discussion of how America could use its power to "democratize" Southeast Asia, including Singapore.
Even those Democrats participating in the event who have been critical of the neocons have not expressed opposition to the Global Democracy project itself. They just seemed to suggest that unlike the neocons, they would be able to achieve it at less cost especially in military terms, for the US. Call it Neocon Lite.
Interestingly enough, the harshest denunciation of the conduct of the Bushies' foreign policy and the neoconservative Global Democracy agenda that one can hear these days doesn't come from the direction of the Democratic Party but from Republican establishment figures who had served in the administration of President George the First.
Democracy by force
Hence Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser under Bush I, in an interview he gave to New Yorker magazine, criticized Vice-President Dick Cheney for siding with the militant neocons who wanted to reform the Middle East by force.
Scowcroft said in the interview that he believed that Paul Wolfowitz and other neocons "got a Utopia out there." Democracy cannot be imposed by force, and not everyone values freedom above all, Scowcroft argued.
As a realist, Scowcroft expressed in the interview the necessity of considering the consequences of action, or "outcomes." For Scowcroft, "the second Gulf War is a reminder of the unwelcome consequences of radical intervention, especially when it is attempted without sufficient understanding of America's limitations or of the history of the region," concluded the New Yorker article.
But it's important to remember that one of the main reasons that Scowcroft feels comfortable expressing such views that run contrary to the policy paradigm dominating in Washington is that this elder statesman is not looking for a job in the administration, Congress or the other centers of power in Washington.
Most of the policy intellectuals I met over the weekend are still relatively young and are marketing their ideas as part of a strategy to win professional benefits, and challenging the conventional wisdom on Iraq ("stay the course") and other issues wouldn't help advance that goal.
They might have found something more interesting in life than sex – but it's not an exit strategy from Iraq.
November 4, 2005
When Will America’s Housing Bubble Burst? by Eric Englund
When Will America’s Housing Bubble Burst? by Eric Englund
When Will America�s Housing Bubble Burst?
by Eric Englund
by Eric Englund
Throughout 2005, my clients � contractors of all trades, fabricators, and suppliers � have watched housing continue on its tear. Housing demand seems insatiable. Residential, commercial, and public works contractors are busy all across the U.S. When housing subdivisions and condominium complexes are built out, commercial and public works projects often follow. Strip malls, supermarkets, restaurants, and department stores are constructed to serve these new population centers � much to the delight of the commercial construction trades. With these new population centers comes the "need" for new public schools and other public infrastructure. Public works contractors get a piece of the action as well. Most of my clients are quite busy and turning nice profits. However, during a recent business trip, a common theme emerged in meeting after meeting. My customers are seeing severe shortages in building materials and quality labor. Many are outright stating that the heady pace of construction is simply unsustainable. In turn, some of the more seasoned contractors are predicting a bust � but they just don�t know when; yet I will hazard a guess.
In my meeting notes, I found that contractors were running into shortages of the following (pre and post-Hurricane Katrina):
* Certain dimensional lumbers
* Concrete
* Labor
* Oriented strand board
* Plumbing supplies
* Plywood
* PVC pipe
* Quality architectural designs and plans (indicating a strained architectural labor pool)
* Roofing materials
* Steel
Of these shortages, the one causing the most frustration pertains to a dearth of quality labor. Contractors, frequently, have little choice but to load their construction budgets with ample overtime pay in order to keep quality (and often shorthanded) crews together for the duration of a project. One client quipped: "This constant battle for labor and materials can�t go on forever. Things have to cool down sooner or later. But when?"
As to precisely when the bust will occur, this is not knowable. As to why boom turns into bust, only the Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle provides the intellectual framework allowing one to understand the boom-bust cycle. What we will find, as explained by Roger Garrison, is that central banking is at the epicenter of the business cycle. Dr. Garrison provides the following explanation in the Mises Institute�s fabulous book The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle:
The Austrian theory of the business cycle emerges straightforwardly from a simple comparison of savings-induced growth, which is sustainable, with a credit-induced boom, which is not. An increase in saving by individuals and a credit expansion orchestrated by the central bank set into motion market processes whose initial allocational effects on the economy's capital structure are similar. But the ultimate consequences of the two processes stand in stark contrast: Saving gets us genuine growth; credit expansion gets us boom and bust.
Undoubtedly, the current American housing boom has not been built upon a foundation of savings � keeping in mind that, presently, America has a negative savings rate. This boom has been fueled by the Federal Reserve�s aggressive creation of money and credit. Correspondingly, the federal funds rate hit a low of 1% in June of 2003 � about the same time the housing boom began to accelerate.
Since money and credit can be created out of thin air, yet building materials and other resources cannot, does it not stand to reason that relentless credit creation would lead to resource shortages? Of course, the answer is "yes" � and Austrian economists know this. Accordingly, Roger Garrison covers this issue in his excellent book Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure:
In sum, credit expansion sets into motion a process of capital restructuring that is at odds with the unchanged preferences and hence is ill-fated. The relative changes within the capital structure were appropriately termed malinvestment by Mises�The boom is unsustainable; the changes in the intertemporal structure of production are self-defeating. Resource scarcities and a continuing high demand for current consumption eventually turn boom into bust.
It is not often one finds an economic theory that describes reality � and Austrian theory does so magnificently. In fact, from the labor and materials shortages my clients have described, it would seem the bust phase of the business cycle is nearly upon us.
Tom Barrack, widely considered to be among the world�s greatest real estate investors, wittingly or not, has an Austrian perspective as to why the United States� real estate/housing boom will soon come to an end. He stated the following, about real estate, in a recent Fortune article: "There�s too much money chasing too few good deals, with too much debt and too few brains�. That�s why I�m getting out." Tom Barrack certainly understands the dangers of high-octane credit expansion. Yet, what about the inevitable resource scarcities caused by the Federal Reserve�s accommodative credit policy and how will this affect the housing bubble? In the following excerpt, from this article, Mr. Barrack hits the ball out of the park:
�he sees the bubble deflating soon. Barrack thinks the catalyst will be a trend that few others are talking about, a steep rise in the price of building materials and labor. "Construction costs have spiked 30% in the past nine months," he says. The reasons: shortages of labor and materials like lumber because of the building boom, and increases in the price of oil, needed to produce everything from plastic piping to insulation to shingles.
The slump will show up first in speculative hot spots like Miami and Las Vegas, he says, where condo developers are preselling their projects for what look like big profits. When they actually build the units over the next year or two, he predicts, they will end up spending more than the units are now selling for. At that point, says Barrack, the developers will try to raise prices. "But most of these buyers are speculators," he says. "They will either sue the developers to get the original prices or get their deposits back and walk away." The developers will then put the units back on the market, and the glut of vacant condos will drive prices down. "It's the busted deals caused by construction costs that will cause a turn in the market," he predicts.
To be sure, the severe construction labor and materials shortages, seen throughout the U.S., signify the housing boom is nearing its end. Not surprisingly, Austrian economic theory predicted such shortages would emerge before boom turns to bust.
For good measure, let�s throw in the following housing affordability and financial-stress factors into the fray � which also point to the impending demise of the housing bubble:
* The average American household has $10,000 of credit card debt and, due to pressures brought to bear by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, minimum payments are now doubling.
* Soaring energy prices are going to make for financially punishing heating bills this winter � McMansions are energy hogs.
* The Federal Reserve just raised the fed funds rate to 4%. Hence, there should be no surprise that mortgage interest rates are at 15-month highs.
* Price inflation is much higher than Uncle Sam�s Consumer Price Index suggests � just go to the gas station and to the grocery store.
* The ratio of house prices to rental values is at an all-time high.
* The ratio of house prices to disposable income is highly elevated.
But what about my promise to hazard a guess as to the timing of the bust? After all, Tom Barrack indicated that he sees enough busted deals materializing, over the next year or two, to bring about a downturn in the real estate market.
In order to make a reasonable prediction, I am going to bring into the mix a September 2005 Federal Reserve discussion paper titled House Prices and Monetary Policy: A Cross-Country Study. Per this discussion paper�s abstract: "This paper examines periods of pronounced rises and falls of real house prices since 1970 in eighteen major industrial countries, with particular focus on the lessons for monetary policy." Here is what I found to be most interesting: "House price booms are typically preceded by a period of easing monetary policy, with policy rates bottoming out about the same time that house prices take off, about three years before house prices peak." Considering the fed funds rate did not bottom out, at 1%, until June of 2003 (and remained at 1%, until June of 2004, before being ratcheted upwards) one could reasonably surmise house prices will peak somewhere between June of 2006 and June of 2007 � and then, of course, will break downwards (for the reasons mentioned above).
With a plausible timeframe in hand, I am predicting the housing bubble will begin to burst within the next 14 months � perhaps by around December of 2006. Ultimately, we have a housing boom built on credit (and not savings) which has lead to labor and materials shortages and has lead to overleveraged consumers. This is why I see a bust � as indicated by accelerating mortgage defaults and a general decline in housing prices � commencing well before June of 2007. To close, always remember Austrian theory allows us to know there will be a central bank-induced bust. As to timing, I am only providing an educated guess.
November 4, 2005
When Will America�s Housing Bubble Burst?
by Eric Englund
by Eric Englund
Throughout 2005, my clients � contractors of all trades, fabricators, and suppliers � have watched housing continue on its tear. Housing demand seems insatiable. Residential, commercial, and public works contractors are busy all across the U.S. When housing subdivisions and condominium complexes are built out, commercial and public works projects often follow. Strip malls, supermarkets, restaurants, and department stores are constructed to serve these new population centers � much to the delight of the commercial construction trades. With these new population centers comes the "need" for new public schools and other public infrastructure. Public works contractors get a piece of the action as well. Most of my clients are quite busy and turning nice profits. However, during a recent business trip, a common theme emerged in meeting after meeting. My customers are seeing severe shortages in building materials and quality labor. Many are outright stating that the heady pace of construction is simply unsustainable. In turn, some of the more seasoned contractors are predicting a bust � but they just don�t know when; yet I will hazard a guess.
In my meeting notes, I found that contractors were running into shortages of the following (pre and post-Hurricane Katrina):
* Certain dimensional lumbers
* Concrete
* Labor
* Oriented strand board
* Plumbing supplies
* Plywood
* PVC pipe
* Quality architectural designs and plans (indicating a strained architectural labor pool)
* Roofing materials
* Steel
Of these shortages, the one causing the most frustration pertains to a dearth of quality labor. Contractors, frequently, have little choice but to load their construction budgets with ample overtime pay in order to keep quality (and often shorthanded) crews together for the duration of a project. One client quipped: "This constant battle for labor and materials can�t go on forever. Things have to cool down sooner or later. But when?"
As to precisely when the bust will occur, this is not knowable. As to why boom turns into bust, only the Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle provides the intellectual framework allowing one to understand the boom-bust cycle. What we will find, as explained by Roger Garrison, is that central banking is at the epicenter of the business cycle. Dr. Garrison provides the following explanation in the Mises Institute�s fabulous book The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle:
The Austrian theory of the business cycle emerges straightforwardly from a simple comparison of savings-induced growth, which is sustainable, with a credit-induced boom, which is not. An increase in saving by individuals and a credit expansion orchestrated by the central bank set into motion market processes whose initial allocational effects on the economy's capital structure are similar. But the ultimate consequences of the two processes stand in stark contrast: Saving gets us genuine growth; credit expansion gets us boom and bust.
Undoubtedly, the current American housing boom has not been built upon a foundation of savings � keeping in mind that, presently, America has a negative savings rate. This boom has been fueled by the Federal Reserve�s aggressive creation of money and credit. Correspondingly, the federal funds rate hit a low of 1% in June of 2003 � about the same time the housing boom began to accelerate.
Since money and credit can be created out of thin air, yet building materials and other resources cannot, does it not stand to reason that relentless credit creation would lead to resource shortages? Of course, the answer is "yes" � and Austrian economists know this. Accordingly, Roger Garrison covers this issue in his excellent book Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure:
In sum, credit expansion sets into motion a process of capital restructuring that is at odds with the unchanged preferences and hence is ill-fated. The relative changes within the capital structure were appropriately termed malinvestment by Mises�The boom is unsustainable; the changes in the intertemporal structure of production are self-defeating. Resource scarcities and a continuing high demand for current consumption eventually turn boom into bust.
It is not often one finds an economic theory that describes reality � and Austrian theory does so magnificently. In fact, from the labor and materials shortages my clients have described, it would seem the bust phase of the business cycle is nearly upon us.
Tom Barrack, widely considered to be among the world�s greatest real estate investors, wittingly or not, has an Austrian perspective as to why the United States� real estate/housing boom will soon come to an end. He stated the following, about real estate, in a recent Fortune article: "There�s too much money chasing too few good deals, with too much debt and too few brains�. That�s why I�m getting out." Tom Barrack certainly understands the dangers of high-octane credit expansion. Yet, what about the inevitable resource scarcities caused by the Federal Reserve�s accommodative credit policy and how will this affect the housing bubble? In the following excerpt, from this article, Mr. Barrack hits the ball out of the park:
�he sees the bubble deflating soon. Barrack thinks the catalyst will be a trend that few others are talking about, a steep rise in the price of building materials and labor. "Construction costs have spiked 30% in the past nine months," he says. The reasons: shortages of labor and materials like lumber because of the building boom, and increases in the price of oil, needed to produce everything from plastic piping to insulation to shingles.
The slump will show up first in speculative hot spots like Miami and Las Vegas, he says, where condo developers are preselling their projects for what look like big profits. When they actually build the units over the next year or two, he predicts, they will end up spending more than the units are now selling for. At that point, says Barrack, the developers will try to raise prices. "But most of these buyers are speculators," he says. "They will either sue the developers to get the original prices or get their deposits back and walk away." The developers will then put the units back on the market, and the glut of vacant condos will drive prices down. "It's the busted deals caused by construction costs that will cause a turn in the market," he predicts.
To be sure, the severe construction labor and materials shortages, seen throughout the U.S., signify the housing boom is nearing its end. Not surprisingly, Austrian economic theory predicted such shortages would emerge before boom turns to bust.
For good measure, let�s throw in the following housing affordability and financial-stress factors into the fray � which also point to the impending demise of the housing bubble:
* The average American household has $10,000 of credit card debt and, due to pressures brought to bear by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, minimum payments are now doubling.
* Soaring energy prices are going to make for financially punishing heating bills this winter � McMansions are energy hogs.
* The Federal Reserve just raised the fed funds rate to 4%. Hence, there should be no surprise that mortgage interest rates are at 15-month highs.
* Price inflation is much higher than Uncle Sam�s Consumer Price Index suggests � just go to the gas station and to the grocery store.
* The ratio of house prices to rental values is at an all-time high.
* The ratio of house prices to disposable income is highly elevated.
But what about my promise to hazard a guess as to the timing of the bust? After all, Tom Barrack indicated that he sees enough busted deals materializing, over the next year or two, to bring about a downturn in the real estate market.
In order to make a reasonable prediction, I am going to bring into the mix a September 2005 Federal Reserve discussion paper titled House Prices and Monetary Policy: A Cross-Country Study. Per this discussion paper�s abstract: "This paper examines periods of pronounced rises and falls of real house prices since 1970 in eighteen major industrial countries, with particular focus on the lessons for monetary policy." Here is what I found to be most interesting: "House price booms are typically preceded by a period of easing monetary policy, with policy rates bottoming out about the same time that house prices take off, about three years before house prices peak." Considering the fed funds rate did not bottom out, at 1%, until June of 2003 (and remained at 1%, until June of 2004, before being ratcheted upwards) one could reasonably surmise house prices will peak somewhere between June of 2006 and June of 2007 � and then, of course, will break downwards (for the reasons mentioned above).
With a plausible timeframe in hand, I am predicting the housing bubble will begin to burst within the next 14 months � perhaps by around December of 2006. Ultimately, we have a housing boom built on credit (and not savings) which has lead to labor and materials shortages and has lead to overleveraged consumers. This is why I see a bust � as indicated by accelerating mortgage defaults and a general decline in housing prices � commencing well before June of 2007. To close, always remember Austrian theory allows us to know there will be a central bank-induced bust. As to timing, I am only providing an educated guess.
November 4, 2005
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/americanhistory.html
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Regnery Publishing, 2004
xv + 270 pgs.
Thomas Woods’s superb new book delivers much more than it promises. Woods offers his book as a guide to "those who find the standard narrative or the typical textbook unpersuasive or ideologically biased" (p. xiv). This suggests that Woods has principally students in mind as his audience; but many others will benefit from reading the book. Woods displays a remarkably broad knowledge of the latest specialized research on various episodes of American history. This permits him, again and again, to raise illuminating points that will instruct even knowledgeable readers.
The book is no mere compilation of surprising facts. Woods has rather organized his account around a central theme. Americans have, from the colonial period to the present, flourished so long as they lived in a free economy, accompanied by a government strictly limited in powers. But throughout much of our history, the efforts of Americans to live freely have confronted a formidable enemy: the Leviathan state. Woods shows that the federal government, far from being the protector of the rights of minorities, has been the main obstacle on the path to liberty.
But, one might object to this account, was not the American settlement conceived in sin? How can one say that Americans always sought to live freely when the earliest Puritan settlers began their "free" society by theft of Indian lands?
Woods meets this initial challenge head on. The Puritans did not steal from the Indians: they bought land from various tribes, in willing and beneficial exchange. "[W]hile the king had issued colonial land grants, the Puritan consensus . . . was that the king’s charter conferred political and not property rights to the land, which Puritan settlers sought by means of voluntary cession from the Indians. The colonial government actually punished individuals who made unauthorized acquisitions of Indian lands" (p. 8, emphasis in original).
The American colonists, as they developed a free society, realized that a strong central government threatened their achievements. Once they gained independence, they were not about to surrender the freedom that they had won from the British to a new despotism. Woods ably brings out that although the supporters of the Constitution were the centralizing party, as opposed to the more prescient Antifederalists who warned of the possible dangers of the new regime, even they sought to restrain national authority.
In this connection, Woods emphasizes the Tenth Amendment, which "guaranteed the states’ rights to self-government. . . . Since the states existed prior to the federal government, they were the source of whatever power the federal government had" (p. 26).
All well and good in theory: but how could the federal government be kept within strict limits? To rely on "checks and balances," Woods insightfully comments, does not suffice: to think otherwise is to rely on the federal government to police itself. Jefferson and his followers argued that the states had the right to nullify laws they deemed unconstitutional. If a state resisted in this way, the operation of the disputed law would be suspended in the state, pending a resolution of the matter by a conference of the states. By no means was this theory an invention of Southern firebrands, anxious at all costs to cement slavery in place. Though the nullifications of 1798 did not find favor with the Northern states at the time, "they used the unmistakable language of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 when nullifying the fugitive slave laws" (p. 39).
The politically correct historians who are the objects of Woods’s assault would here interpose an objection. Were not states’ rights the key to the defense of slavery? How without a strong central government could slavery have been ended?
Woods easily turns aside this counterargument. The Civil War—as he points out, not a genuine civil war since the South did not wish to replace the national government—was not fought to end slavery: Lincoln rather aimed to consolidate national power. In opposing Lincoln’s dictatorship, the South defended the cause of liberty, a fact that was not lost on the great classical liberal Lord Acton. In a letter of 1866 to Robert E. Lee, Acton said that he "saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy" (p. 74).
In the pursuit of their centralizing mission, the Northern armies shocked European historians by their assaults on civilians. Woods, illustrating his excellent command of the historical literature, cites in this connection the seldom-mentioned classic of F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism. He argued that the Northern forces "broke deliberately and dramatically from the European code of warfare that had developed since the seventeenth century and that had forbidden targeting the civilian population" (p. 71).
Given what has already been said, it will come as no surprise that Woods does not view Reconstruction with favor. He maintains, here following Forrest McDonald, that the Fourteenth Amendment, a key element both in the plans of the Radical Republicans and the machinations of their centralizing successors down to the present, was never legally ratified. His argument is straightforward: the Southern states were required to ratify the Amendment before their governments were legally recognized. If so, their acts of ratification had no legal force, since they were made by legislatures not part of the union.
Despite the horrendous destruction of the Civil War, America recovered and prospered, owing to a largely free economy. But the centralizers and proponents of government never learn the lesson that freedom works better than coercion. When the Great Depression struck in 1929, Herbert Hoover responded with the supreme inanity of trying to keep wages up. In doing so, he ensured massive unemployment. (For the causes of the depression, Woods refers readers to Murray Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression.)
Franklin Roosevelt of course continued and greatly extended Hoover’s interventionist policies. In doing so, he prolonged the depression throughout the 1930s, and prosperity did not return until after World War II. Woods is careful to note, here following Robert Higgs, that the war itself, with its vast conscription of men and resources, was not a period of economic good times.
With much of this economic story, readers of the Mises Review will be familiar. But once more showing his ability to find the little known but significant fact, Woods comes up with something remarkable. The New Deal made constant efforts to increase the power of labor unions, and "progressives" often cite the Wagner Act and similar measures as among Roosevelt’s greatest triumphs. Woods remarks: "The ways in which labor unions impoverish the economy are legion, from distortions in the labor market to work rules that discourage efficiency. In a study published . . . in late 2002 . . . economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor unions have cost the American economy a whopping $50 trillion over the past fifty years alone" (p. 150, emphasis in original).
Despite the manifold failures of interventionism, some of the self-styled intellectual elite thought that interference with the market had not gone far enough. Until the onset of the Cold War, sympathy with the Soviet "experiment" was widespread among academics, journalists, and government employees. Some of the sympathizers went beyond intellectual flirtation; Alger Hiss, among many others, aided Soviet Russia through espionage. Woods suggests that the much-maligned Senator Joseph McCarthy was in substance correct in his claims about Communist penetration of the U.S. government.
Much of this is relatively well known, but Woods has once again highlighted a surprising fact. Thanks in large measure to the assiduous efforts of his disciple Sidney Hook, John Dewey has acquired a reputation as a leading anti-Communist. Woods reminds us that Dewey once held entirely different views. "Progressive educator John Dewey, in a series of articles for The New Republic in 1928, could hardly contain his enthusiasm for Soviet Russia. ‘I have never seen anywhere in the world such a large proportion of intelligent, happy and intelligently occupied children,’ he recalled" (pp. 159–60).
Dewey had earlier supported American entry into World War I; and, as Woods makes clear, support for intervention at home goes hand-in-hand with an aggressive foreign policy. Woodrow Wilson, the economic interventionist, influenced by partiality toward England and by his desire to reshape the world, abandoned America’s traditional policy of noninvolvement in European power politics. Woods stresses Wilson’s blatantly unfair prewar diplomacy. Wilson insisted that Americans had the right to travel on armed belligerent ships, holding the Germans to "strict accountability" for American lives lost in submarine attacks. At the same time, he accepted the British hunger blockade of Germany, though this cost many times more lives than the German policy.
Franklin Roosevelt proved an apt pupil of Wilson in the events leading to America’s entry into World War II. Roosevelt’s "destroyers for bases" agreement with the British in September 1940 might have provoked a German declaration of war: nevertheless, Roosevelt saw no need to secure the approval of Congress. Woods as always has found a telling quotation. Edward Corwin, one of the foremost Constitutional scholars of the time and by no means an opponent of the New Deal, commented: "Why not any and all of Congress’s specifically delegated powers be set aside by the President’s ‘executive power’ and the country be put on a totalitarian basis without further ado?" (p. 176). Roosevelt’s efforts to provoke a German declaration of war failed, but he succeeded in getting America into the war through the "back door." His aggressive policy toward Japan provoked the Japanese attack: as Secretary of War Stimson noted in his diary on November 25, 1941, the question was how "to maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot" (p. 181).
I shall conclude with one more surprising fact that Woods has brought to light. He calls attention to the vital work of Julius Epstein, a longtime researcher at the Hoover Institution, on Operation Keelhaul. In this nefarious program, at least one million Russian prisoners of war were forcibly returned to Russia. In one incident, "About 200 Soviet nationals were among the prisoners of war in Fort Dix, New Jersey. . . . They were taken prisoner with the solemn promise that under no circumstances would they be repatriated to the Soviet Union, where they faced certain death. That promise was betrayed so that the American president might be faithful to Uncle Joe [Stalin]" (p. 188).
I have been able to offer only a sample of the many topics that Woods discusses. His account of civil rights legislation and his discussion of the fallacy that Marshall Plan aid brought about European recovery after World War II should not be missed. His stimulating book helps to correct the many myths that today pass for American history. n MR
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Regnery Publishing, 2004
xv + 270 pgs.
Thomas Woods’s superb new book delivers much more than it promises. Woods offers his book as a guide to "those who find the standard narrative or the typical textbook unpersuasive or ideologically biased" (p. xiv). This suggests that Woods has principally students in mind as his audience; but many others will benefit from reading the book. Woods displays a remarkably broad knowledge of the latest specialized research on various episodes of American history. This permits him, again and again, to raise illuminating points that will instruct even knowledgeable readers.
The book is no mere compilation of surprising facts. Woods has rather organized his account around a central theme. Americans have, from the colonial period to the present, flourished so long as they lived in a free economy, accompanied by a government strictly limited in powers. But throughout much of our history, the efforts of Americans to live freely have confronted a formidable enemy: the Leviathan state. Woods shows that the federal government, far from being the protector of the rights of minorities, has been the main obstacle on the path to liberty.
But, one might object to this account, was not the American settlement conceived in sin? How can one say that Americans always sought to live freely when the earliest Puritan settlers began their "free" society by theft of Indian lands?
Woods meets this initial challenge head on. The Puritans did not steal from the Indians: they bought land from various tribes, in willing and beneficial exchange. "[W]hile the king had issued colonial land grants, the Puritan consensus . . . was that the king’s charter conferred political and not property rights to the land, which Puritan settlers sought by means of voluntary cession from the Indians. The colonial government actually punished individuals who made unauthorized acquisitions of Indian lands" (p. 8, emphasis in original).
The American colonists, as they developed a free society, realized that a strong central government threatened their achievements. Once they gained independence, they were not about to surrender the freedom that they had won from the British to a new despotism. Woods ably brings out that although the supporters of the Constitution were the centralizing party, as opposed to the more prescient Antifederalists who warned of the possible dangers of the new regime, even they sought to restrain national authority.
In this connection, Woods emphasizes the Tenth Amendment, which "guaranteed the states’ rights to self-government. . . . Since the states existed prior to the federal government, they were the source of whatever power the federal government had" (p. 26).
All well and good in theory: but how could the federal government be kept within strict limits? To rely on "checks and balances," Woods insightfully comments, does not suffice: to think otherwise is to rely on the federal government to police itself. Jefferson and his followers argued that the states had the right to nullify laws they deemed unconstitutional. If a state resisted in this way, the operation of the disputed law would be suspended in the state, pending a resolution of the matter by a conference of the states. By no means was this theory an invention of Southern firebrands, anxious at all costs to cement slavery in place. Though the nullifications of 1798 did not find favor with the Northern states at the time, "they used the unmistakable language of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 when nullifying the fugitive slave laws" (p. 39).
The politically correct historians who are the objects of Woods’s assault would here interpose an objection. Were not states’ rights the key to the defense of slavery? How without a strong central government could slavery have been ended?
Woods easily turns aside this counterargument. The Civil War—as he points out, not a genuine civil war since the South did not wish to replace the national government—was not fought to end slavery: Lincoln rather aimed to consolidate national power. In opposing Lincoln’s dictatorship, the South defended the cause of liberty, a fact that was not lost on the great classical liberal Lord Acton. In a letter of 1866 to Robert E. Lee, Acton said that he "saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy" (p. 74).
In the pursuit of their centralizing mission, the Northern armies shocked European historians by their assaults on civilians. Woods, illustrating his excellent command of the historical literature, cites in this connection the seldom-mentioned classic of F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism. He argued that the Northern forces "broke deliberately and dramatically from the European code of warfare that had developed since the seventeenth century and that had forbidden targeting the civilian population" (p. 71).
Given what has already been said, it will come as no surprise that Woods does not view Reconstruction with favor. He maintains, here following Forrest McDonald, that the Fourteenth Amendment, a key element both in the plans of the Radical Republicans and the machinations of their centralizing successors down to the present, was never legally ratified. His argument is straightforward: the Southern states were required to ratify the Amendment before their governments were legally recognized. If so, their acts of ratification had no legal force, since they were made by legislatures not part of the union.
Despite the horrendous destruction of the Civil War, America recovered and prospered, owing to a largely free economy. But the centralizers and proponents of government never learn the lesson that freedom works better than coercion. When the Great Depression struck in 1929, Herbert Hoover responded with the supreme inanity of trying to keep wages up. In doing so, he ensured massive unemployment. (For the causes of the depression, Woods refers readers to Murray Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression.)
Franklin Roosevelt of course continued and greatly extended Hoover’s interventionist policies. In doing so, he prolonged the depression throughout the 1930s, and prosperity did not return until after World War II. Woods is careful to note, here following Robert Higgs, that the war itself, with its vast conscription of men and resources, was not a period of economic good times.
With much of this economic story, readers of the Mises Review will be familiar. But once more showing his ability to find the little known but significant fact, Woods comes up with something remarkable. The New Deal made constant efforts to increase the power of labor unions, and "progressives" often cite the Wagner Act and similar measures as among Roosevelt’s greatest triumphs. Woods remarks: "The ways in which labor unions impoverish the economy are legion, from distortions in the labor market to work rules that discourage efficiency. In a study published . . . in late 2002 . . . economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor unions have cost the American economy a whopping $50 trillion over the past fifty years alone" (p. 150, emphasis in original).
Despite the manifold failures of interventionism, some of the self-styled intellectual elite thought that interference with the market had not gone far enough. Until the onset of the Cold War, sympathy with the Soviet "experiment" was widespread among academics, journalists, and government employees. Some of the sympathizers went beyond intellectual flirtation; Alger Hiss, among many others, aided Soviet Russia through espionage. Woods suggests that the much-maligned Senator Joseph McCarthy was in substance correct in his claims about Communist penetration of the U.S. government.
Much of this is relatively well known, but Woods has once again highlighted a surprising fact. Thanks in large measure to the assiduous efforts of his disciple Sidney Hook, John Dewey has acquired a reputation as a leading anti-Communist. Woods reminds us that Dewey once held entirely different views. "Progressive educator John Dewey, in a series of articles for The New Republic in 1928, could hardly contain his enthusiasm for Soviet Russia. ‘I have never seen anywhere in the world such a large proportion of intelligent, happy and intelligently occupied children,’ he recalled" (pp. 159–60).
Dewey had earlier supported American entry into World War I; and, as Woods makes clear, support for intervention at home goes hand-in-hand with an aggressive foreign policy. Woodrow Wilson, the economic interventionist, influenced by partiality toward England and by his desire to reshape the world, abandoned America’s traditional policy of noninvolvement in European power politics. Woods stresses Wilson’s blatantly unfair prewar diplomacy. Wilson insisted that Americans had the right to travel on armed belligerent ships, holding the Germans to "strict accountability" for American lives lost in submarine attacks. At the same time, he accepted the British hunger blockade of Germany, though this cost many times more lives than the German policy.
Franklin Roosevelt proved an apt pupil of Wilson in the events leading to America’s entry into World War II. Roosevelt’s "destroyers for bases" agreement with the British in September 1940 might have provoked a German declaration of war: nevertheless, Roosevelt saw no need to secure the approval of Congress. Woods as always has found a telling quotation. Edward Corwin, one of the foremost Constitutional scholars of the time and by no means an opponent of the New Deal, commented: "Why not any and all of Congress’s specifically delegated powers be set aside by the President’s ‘executive power’ and the country be put on a totalitarian basis without further ado?" (p. 176). Roosevelt’s efforts to provoke a German declaration of war failed, but he succeeded in getting America into the war through the "back door." His aggressive policy toward Japan provoked the Japanese attack: as Secretary of War Stimson noted in his diary on November 25, 1941, the question was how "to maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot" (p. 181).
I shall conclude with one more surprising fact that Woods has brought to light. He calls attention to the vital work of Julius Epstein, a longtime researcher at the Hoover Institution, on Operation Keelhaul. In this nefarious program, at least one million Russian prisoners of war were forcibly returned to Russia. In one incident, "About 200 Soviet nationals were among the prisoners of war in Fort Dix, New Jersey. . . . They were taken prisoner with the solemn promise that under no circumstances would they be repatriated to the Soviet Union, where they faced certain death. That promise was betrayed so that the American president might be faithful to Uncle Joe [Stalin]" (p. 188).
I have been able to offer only a sample of the many topics that Woods discusses. His account of civil rights legislation and his discussion of the fallacy that Marshall Plan aid brought about European recovery after World War II should not be missed. His stimulating book helps to correct the many myths that today pass for American history. n MR
Rabu, 02 November 2005
Selasa, 01 November 2005
One Hand Clapping � Blog Archive � Senate goes to closed session
One Hand Clapping � Blog Archive � Senate goes to closed session: "Senate goes to closed session
by Donald Sensing
CBS News reports, �Dems Force Closed Senate Session.�"
by Donald Sensing
CBS News reports, �Dems Force Closed Senate Session.�"
Senin, 31 Oktober 2005
Michael Fumento: Fill 'er Up with Oil Sands!
Michael Fumento: Fill 'er Up with Oil Sands!: "Fill 'er Up with Oil Sands!"
TCS: Tech Central Station - Fill 'er Up with Oils Sands!
TCS: Tech Central Station - Fill 'er Up with Oils Sands!: "Fill 'er Up with Oils Sands!
By Michael Fumento Published 10/31/2005
E-Mail Bookmark Print Save
TCS
It was a tenet of the late great economist Julian Simon that we'll never run out of any commodity. That's because before we do the increasing scarcity of that resource will drive up the price and force us to adopt alternatives. For example, as firewood grew scarce people turned to coal, and as the whale oil supply dwindled 'twas petroleum that saved the whales.
Now we're told we're running out of petroleum. The 'proof' is the high prices at the pump. In fact, oil cost about 50% more per barrel in 1979-80 than now when adjusted for inflation. Yet it's also true that industrializing nations like China and India are making serious demands on the world's ability to provide oil and are driving prices up. So is this the beginning of the end?
Nope. The Julian Simon effect is already occurring."
(Full Story)
By Michael Fumento Published 10/31/2005
E-Mail Bookmark Print Save
TCS
It was a tenet of the late great economist Julian Simon that we'll never run out of any commodity. That's because before we do the increasing scarcity of that resource will drive up the price and force us to adopt alternatives. For example, as firewood grew scarce people turned to coal, and as the whale oil supply dwindled 'twas petroleum that saved the whales.
Now we're told we're running out of petroleum. The 'proof' is the high prices at the pump. In fact, oil cost about 50% more per barrel in 1979-80 than now when adjusted for inflation. Yet it's also true that industrializing nations like China and India are making serious demands on the world's ability to provide oil and are driving prices up. So is this the beginning of the end?
Nope. The Julian Simon effect is already occurring."
(Full Story)
Suitcase Bombs- No Way!!
"I have known since being trained as a nuclear target analyst in 1983 (and remaining current through my 1995 retirement from the Army) that there is no such thing as “suitcase nuke.” The term refers to an atomic bomb that is small enough to fit in the space of a suitcase and is therefore presumably approximately as portable as a suitcase.
There was such a thing as atomic demolition munitions and I was trained in how to compute their use against targets such as bridgeheads or to create obstacles by filling a valley with displaced earth. ADMs were indeed man portable, but not easily and certainly not by only one man. Their utility (such as it might have been) was obviated with the invention of terminal-guided missiles such as a late variant of Lance, cruise missiles and GPS-guided weapons.
So I am glad to see today’s piece in OpinonJournal busting the myths about so-called “suitcase nukes.” Not a short read, it is thorough at explaining why suitcase nukes don’t exist. It isn’t simply a matter of engineering challenges, which given enough time and money could be overcome. Read it all!
There was such a thing as atomic demolition munitions and I was trained in how to compute their use against targets such as bridgeheads or to create obstacles by filling a valley with displaced earth. ADMs were indeed man portable, but not easily and certainly not by only one man. Their utility (such as it might have been) was obviated with the invention of terminal-guided missiles such as a late variant of Lance, cruise missiles and GPS-guided weapons.
So I am glad to see today’s piece in OpinonJournal busting the myths about so-called “suitcase nukes.” Not a short read, it is thorough at explaining why suitcase nukes don’t exist. It isn’t simply a matter of engineering challenges, which given enough time and money could be overcome. Read it all!
Jumat, 28 Oktober 2005
Power Line: Continental drift
Power Line: Continental drift: "Continental drift
Every three months I announce that the Claremont Review of Books is my favorite magazine -- every three months because the magazine is a quarterly. CRB is the flagship publication of the Claremont Institute, the organization whose mission it is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. See, for example, today's astringent column by CRB editor Charles Kesler on the matter of Harriet Miers: 'Bush's philosophy.'
The magazine is also popular in the White House and the Pentagon; 30 copies of each new issue are shipped out by overnight mail to the White House upon publication, and a dozen to the Pentagon. If you don't subscribe, you should.
The institute has just announced that Mark Steyn will receive the 2005 Henry Salvatori Prize at its annual dinner in honor of Sir Winston S. Churchill. The event will be held on Friday, December 2, 2005 at the Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills, California.
The fall issue of the CRB is in the mail. As usual, it is packed full of outstanding essays and thoughtful reviews of books on mostly political subjects. Among the rewards of my enthususiasm for the magazine is the privilege of debuting a few of the items from the issue exclusively on Power Line.
Cornell University Government Professor Jeremy Rabkin has become a unique resource on issues of national sovereignty, international law and the related constellation of issues implicit in the 'We Are The World' thrust of the modern Democratic Party. Professor Rabkin is the author most recently of Law Without Nations? Why Constitutional Government Requires Sovereign States. Among the featured essays in the current CRB issue is Professor Rabkin's essay on the European Union: 'Continental drift.'
Imagine if our agricultural policy were made in Ecuador with agricultural ministers from all over the Hemisphere, our taxes paid for housing in Canada, and Paraguayan judges ruled on our immigration policy —- oh, and the American voter really had no say about any of it. Then you’d have something like the New World counterpart to the European Union. It wouldn’t work very well. It doesn’t for Europe. So what is Europe’s fate? Why did the European constitution fail? What does a constitution do, anyway? These are the questions to which Professor Rabkin addresses himself in this invigorating essay."
Every three months I announce that the Claremont Review of Books is my favorite magazine -- every three months because the magazine is a quarterly. CRB is the flagship publication of the Claremont Institute, the organization whose mission it is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. See, for example, today's astringent column by CRB editor Charles Kesler on the matter of Harriet Miers: 'Bush's philosophy.'
The magazine is also popular in the White House and the Pentagon; 30 copies of each new issue are shipped out by overnight mail to the White House upon publication, and a dozen to the Pentagon. If you don't subscribe, you should.
The institute has just announced that Mark Steyn will receive the 2005 Henry Salvatori Prize at its annual dinner in honor of Sir Winston S. Churchill. The event will be held on Friday, December 2, 2005 at the Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills, California.
The fall issue of the CRB is in the mail. As usual, it is packed full of outstanding essays and thoughtful reviews of books on mostly political subjects. Among the rewards of my enthususiasm for the magazine is the privilege of debuting a few of the items from the issue exclusively on Power Line.
Cornell University Government Professor Jeremy Rabkin has become a unique resource on issues of national sovereignty, international law and the related constellation of issues implicit in the 'We Are The World' thrust of the modern Democratic Party. Professor Rabkin is the author most recently of Law Without Nations? Why Constitutional Government Requires Sovereign States. Among the featured essays in the current CRB issue is Professor Rabkin's essay on the European Union: 'Continental drift.'
Imagine if our agricultural policy were made in Ecuador with agricultural ministers from all over the Hemisphere, our taxes paid for housing in Canada, and Paraguayan judges ruled on our immigration policy —- oh, and the American voter really had no say about any of it. Then you’d have something like the New World counterpart to the European Union. It wouldn’t work very well. It doesn’t for Europe. So what is Europe’s fate? Why did the European constitution fail? What does a constitution do, anyway? These are the questions to which Professor Rabkin addresses himself in this invigorating essay."
Americans won't let Democrats lose Iraq - Los Angeles Times
Americans won't let Democrats lose Iraq - Los Angeles Times: "A FEW DAYS AGO, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) made a speech urging the U.S., in effect, to get out of Iraq the way we got out of Vietnam.
Leahy told the Senate that we cannot win in Iraq. 'It has become increasingly apparent that the most powerful army in the world cannot stop a determined insurgency.' (U.S. troops, Iraqi troops, long-suffering Iraqi civilians to Leahy: Thanks, senator, we needed that.) And Leahy announced that the president must lay out a public formula to tell the world just when U.S. troops will leave Iraq. Otherwise, Leahy said, he will urge the Senate to choke off the war by refusing to fund it. That's how the U.S. finally lost Vietnam: Congress snuffed out the money.
"
Leahy told the Senate that we cannot win in Iraq. 'It has become increasingly apparent that the most powerful army in the world cannot stop a determined insurgency.' (U.S. troops, Iraqi troops, long-suffering Iraqi civilians to Leahy: Thanks, senator, we needed that.) And Leahy announced that the president must lay out a public formula to tell the world just when U.S. troops will leave Iraq. Otherwise, Leahy said, he will urge the Senate to choke off the war by refusing to fund it. That's how the U.S. finally lost Vietnam: Congress snuffed out the money.
"
Kamis, 27 Oktober 2005
EconoPundit
EconoPundit: "New Orleans: A Geopolitical Prize
By George Friedman
...
During the Cold War, a macabre topic of discussion among bored graduate students who studied such things was this: If the Soviets could destroy one city with a large nuclear device, which would it be? The usual answers were Washington or New York. For me, the answer was simple: New Orleans. If the Mississippi River was shut to traffic, then the foundations of the economy would be shattered. The industrial minerals needed in the factories wouldn't come in, and the agricultural wealth wouldn't flow out. Alternative routes really weren't available. The Germans knew it too: A U-boat campaign occurred near the mouth of the Mississippi during World War II. Both the Germans and Stratfor have stood with Andy Jackson: New Orleans was the prize.
Last Sunday, nature took out New Orleans almost as surely as a nuclear strike. Hurricane Katrina's geopolitical effect was not, in many ways, distinguishable from a mushroom cloud. The key exit from North America was closed. The petrochemical industry, which has become an added value to the region since Jackson's days, was at risk. The navigability of the Mississippi south of New Orleans was a question mark. New Orleans as a city and as a port complex had ceased to exist, and it was not clear that it could recover.
The Ports of South Louisiana and New Orleans, which run north and south of the city, are as important today as at any point during the history of the republic. On its own merit, POSL is the largest port in the United States by tonnage and the fifth-largest in the world. It exports more than 52 million tons a year, of which more than half are agricultural products -- corn, soybeans and so on. A large proportion of U.S. agriculture flows out of the port. Almost as much cargo, nearly 17 million tons, comes in through the port -- including not only crude oil, but chemicals and fertilizers, coal, concrete and so on...
The oil fields, pipelines and ports required a skilled workforce in order to operate. That workforce requires homes. They require stores to buy food and other supplies. Hospitals and doctors. Schools for their children. In other words, in order to operate the facilities critical to the United States, you need a workforce to do it -- and that workforce is gone. Unlike in other disasters, that workforce cannot return to the region because they have no place to live. New Orleans is gone, and the metropolitan area surrounding New Orleans is either gone or so badly damaged that it will not be inhabitable for a long time...
The displacement of population is the crisis that New Orleans faces. It is also a national crisis, because the largest port in the United States cannot function without a city around it. The physical and business processes of a port cannot occur in a ghost town, and right now, that is what New Orleans is. It is not about the facilities, and it is not about the oil. It is about the loss of a city's population and the paralysis of the largest port in the United States...
To summarize: this is very likely much more than a massive human refugee crisis. It may be the first stage of an international economic crisis as well."
By George Friedman
...
During the Cold War, a macabre topic of discussion among bored graduate students who studied such things was this: If the Soviets could destroy one city with a large nuclear device, which would it be? The usual answers were Washington or New York. For me, the answer was simple: New Orleans. If the Mississippi River was shut to traffic, then the foundations of the economy would be shattered. The industrial minerals needed in the factories wouldn't come in, and the agricultural wealth wouldn't flow out. Alternative routes really weren't available. The Germans knew it too: A U-boat campaign occurred near the mouth of the Mississippi during World War II. Both the Germans and Stratfor have stood with Andy Jackson: New Orleans was the prize.
Last Sunday, nature took out New Orleans almost as surely as a nuclear strike. Hurricane Katrina's geopolitical effect was not, in many ways, distinguishable from a mushroom cloud. The key exit from North America was closed. The petrochemical industry, which has become an added value to the region since Jackson's days, was at risk. The navigability of the Mississippi south of New Orleans was a question mark. New Orleans as a city and as a port complex had ceased to exist, and it was not clear that it could recover.
The Ports of South Louisiana and New Orleans, which run north and south of the city, are as important today as at any point during the history of the republic. On its own merit, POSL is the largest port in the United States by tonnage and the fifth-largest in the world. It exports more than 52 million tons a year, of which more than half are agricultural products -- corn, soybeans and so on. A large proportion of U.S. agriculture flows out of the port. Almost as much cargo, nearly 17 million tons, comes in through the port -- including not only crude oil, but chemicals and fertilizers, coal, concrete and so on...
The oil fields, pipelines and ports required a skilled workforce in order to operate. That workforce requires homes. They require stores to buy food and other supplies. Hospitals and doctors. Schools for their children. In other words, in order to operate the facilities critical to the United States, you need a workforce to do it -- and that workforce is gone. Unlike in other disasters, that workforce cannot return to the region because they have no place to live. New Orleans is gone, and the metropolitan area surrounding New Orleans is either gone or so badly damaged that it will not be inhabitable for a long time...
The displacement of population is the crisis that New Orleans faces. It is also a national crisis, because the largest port in the United States cannot function without a city around it. The physical and business processes of a port cannot occur in a ghost town, and right now, that is what New Orleans is. It is not about the facilities, and it is not about the oil. It is about the loss of a city's population and the paralysis of the largest port in the United States...
To summarize: this is very likely much more than a massive human refugee crisis. It may be the first stage of an international economic crisis as well."
Rabu, 26 Oktober 2005
Hammorabi on Syria
Syria on the verge of new era
The death of the interior Minister of Syria who was the main Syrian figure directly involved in Lebanon for long time is of no doubt related to the ongoing investigations about the Syrian role in the death of Rafiq Hariri.
Irrespective of whether the death was by suicide or some one kills him the investigations of Hariri’s death should be extended to include the death of the Syrian Interior Minister.
It has been shown for long time now that Syria knows only one language which is to kill its opponents and to create a scene of bloodshed both in Iraq and Lebanon as well as against its own people. In Iraq they train, support, recruit and help the terrorists. They set out camps for such training and provide multiple logistic supports. The evidence given by those who were captured including Syrian officers needs no explanation. However they deny it on the highest level and blamed the Americans of not cooperating with them like in discussion or in providing equipments to facilitate observation of the borders.
In Lebanon there were many deaths among Syrian opposition figures since the murder of Hariri. Many Lebanese were forced to leave for more safe regions like Paris including the sons of Hariri himself.
It is so surprising that the Syrian Baath regime digging for itself a big and deep hole. On the other hand the Syrian people are now awaiting the moment to escape from the long-lasting dictatorship regime.
The above article was written about few days ago and not published due to a priorty for other matters. Today the report of Detlev Mehlis the chief investigator in Rafiq Hariri assassination was handed over to the UN. Not surprisingly at all that the report strongly indicated that top ranking Syrian officials were involved in the assassination. But surprisingly that among those involved were the brother and brother in law of Bashar Al-Asad the president of Syria. He denied in a CNN interview any personal or even low level links. It is very unlikely that if his two brothers were involved that he didn’t knew about it.
If the report is true and proved correct, what will be the position of such a regime in the world and who would be able to sit and make deals with it unless they are alike.
The death of the interior Minister of Syria who was the main Syrian figure directly involved in Lebanon for long time is of no doubt related to the ongoing investigations about the Syrian role in the death of Rafiq Hariri.
Irrespective of whether the death was by suicide or some one kills him the investigations of Hariri’s death should be extended to include the death of the Syrian Interior Minister.
It has been shown for long time now that Syria knows only one language which is to kill its opponents and to create a scene of bloodshed both in Iraq and Lebanon as well as against its own people. In Iraq they train, support, recruit and help the terrorists. They set out camps for such training and provide multiple logistic supports. The evidence given by those who were captured including Syrian officers needs no explanation. However they deny it on the highest level and blamed the Americans of not cooperating with them like in discussion or in providing equipments to facilitate observation of the borders.
In Lebanon there were many deaths among Syrian opposition figures since the murder of Hariri. Many Lebanese were forced to leave for more safe regions like Paris including the sons of Hariri himself.
It is so surprising that the Syrian Baath regime digging for itself a big and deep hole. On the other hand the Syrian people are now awaiting the moment to escape from the long-lasting dictatorship regime.
The above article was written about few days ago and not published due to a priorty for other matters. Today the report of Detlev Mehlis the chief investigator in Rafiq Hariri assassination was handed over to the UN. Not surprisingly at all that the report strongly indicated that top ranking Syrian officials were involved in the assassination. But surprisingly that among those involved were the brother and brother in law of Bashar Al-Asad the president of Syria. He denied in a CNN interview any personal or even low level links. It is very unlikely that if his two brothers were involved that he didn’t knew about it.
If the report is true and proved correct, what will be the position of such a regime in the world and who would be able to sit and make deals with it unless they are alike.
Selasa, 25 Oktober 2005
Anthony de Jasay, Are High Oil Prices a Form of Exploitation: Library of Economics and Liberty
Anthony de Jasay, Are High Oil Prices a Form of Exploitation: Library of Economics and Liberty: "Are High Oil Prices a Form of Exploitation?" That is the question!
Russell Roberts, The Reality of Markets: Library of Economics and Liberty
Russell Roberts, The Reality of Markets: Library of Economics and Liberty: "The Reality of Markets" EXCELLENT READ RE WALLMART and OIL PRICES!
Sabtu, 22 Oktober 2005
Minggu, 16 Oktober 2005
The White House, the CIA, and the Wilsons (theFull Story)
The White House, the CIA, and the Wilsons: "The White House, the CIA, and the Wilsons
The chain of events that gave rise to a grand jury investigation.
by Stephen F. Hayes
10/24/2005, Volume 011, Issue 06 "
The chain of events that gave rise to a grand jury investigation.
by Stephen F. Hayes
10/24/2005, Volume 011, Issue 06 "
The White House, the CIA, and the Wilsons (theFull Story)
The White House, the CIA, and the Wilsons: "The White House, the CIA, and the Wilsons
The chain of events that gave rise to a grand jury investigation.
by Stephen F. Hayes
10/24/2005, Volume 011, Issue 06 "
The chain of events that gave rise to a grand jury investigation.
by Stephen F. Hayes
10/24/2005, Volume 011, Issue 06 "
Sabtu, 15 Oktober 2005
THE MESOPOTAMIAN: Comments!!
THE MESOPOTAMIAN: 10/01/2005 - 10/31/2005: "Here we have the U.S.A. and Great Britain and their smaller friends, an alliance that has defeated Nazi Germany and the mighty Reich, and have had the stomach to obliterate Japanese cities with atomic bombs. Here we have the Americans, the descendants of those who wrested a whole continent by shear obstinacy and fought for every inch of land with blood and sweat. Here we have nations that have waded through rivers of blood and mud and marched through entire continents to become symbols of human perseverance and enterprise. Yes all this history and yet we have some who think that our miserable 'Sunni Triangle' poses an insurmountable problem and that one should 'cut and run' and 'bring home troops immediately' etc. etc.
I salute President Bush who does not care much for this kind of defeatism and treats it with the contempt it deserves."
I salute President Bush who does not care much for this kind of defeatism and treats it with the contempt it deserves."
Jumat, 14 Oktober 2005
Hog On Ice
n top of that, truly brilliant lawyers don't necessarily make good judges. Brilliant people often have poor judgment, and they're often out of touch with society and unable to relate to normal human beings. People like that have no business working as judges. They are basically idiot-savants, and society has generously created havens for them. I am referring to law schools, where they go to serve as professors. Without tenure, they’d be pushing grocery carts up and down the streets, muttering about ERISA.
I would much rather have a 150-IQ justice with common sense than a 180-IQ justice who can't find his way out of his office. Not every job requires genius. Jimmy Carter was almost certainly smarter than Ronald Reagan, but he was a complete buffoon who turned out to be utterly impotent as a leader. I’m a pretty smart guy, and I freely admit I would rather live in Somalia than an American city where I was mayor for life.
I would much rather have a 150-IQ justice with common sense than a 180-IQ justice who can't find his way out of his office. Not every job requires genius. Jimmy Carter was almost certainly smarter than Ronald Reagan, but he was a complete buffoon who turned out to be utterly impotent as a leader. I’m a pretty smart guy, and I freely admit I would rather live in Somalia than an American city where I was mayor for life.
Kamis, 13 Oktober 2005
Hog On Ice
Hog On IceFar and away, the most likely outcome is that Harriet Miers will prove to be extremely intelligent, extraordinarily capable, and well able to equal the feats of geniuses like Ruth Ginsburg and Sandra O'Connor. In my opinion, she has already proven that by making a powerful impression on the highly knowledgeable people who help George Bush pick nominees. If they're wrong, we'll find out during the confirmation hearings. But if she turns out to be incapable of doing the job, believe me, not going to Yale will have nothing to do with it.
More on Lawyers/Har. Miers
Hog On Ice: "I went to an Ivy League school, at least until they threw me out for firing rockets into Morningside Park and setting fire to a dorm room, and I also went to a non-Ivy-League law school. I'm here to tell you, it makes absolutely no difference where a judge goes to college. In fact, it makes no difference where ANYONE goes to college. As a shrewd man once told me, where you went to college matters for two years after you graduate, and after that, nobody asks.
If you went to Harvard Law School, I hate to burst the giant, throbbing bubble which is your ego, but there are two or three people in virtually every law school class who are as smart as you are, or smarter. Every reputable law school admits students--every year--who will prove bright enough and mature enough to sit on the Supreme Court.
Law is just not that hard. Lawyers hate it when I say that, because they want people to think we're as smart as doctors (we are not) but it's true. I did the vast bulk of my work between classes, and I ended up in the top third of my class. In undergraduate physics, for any given course, I did more work in two weeks than I did in ANY law school course for an entire semester. I'm not including brainless work, like hanging around the Legal Aid office, waiting to help with an uncontested divorce. I mean studying."
If you went to Harvard Law School, I hate to burst the giant, throbbing bubble which is your ego, but there are two or three people in virtually every law school class who are as smart as you are, or smarter. Every reputable law school admits students--every year--who will prove bright enough and mature enough to sit on the Supreme Court.
Law is just not that hard. Lawyers hate it when I say that, because they want people to think we're as smart as doctors (we are not) but it's true. I did the vast bulk of my work between classes, and I ended up in the top third of my class. In undergraduate physics, for any given course, I did more work in two weeks than I did in ANY law school course for an entire semester. I'm not including brainless work, like hanging around the Legal Aid office, waiting to help with an uncontested divorce. I mean studying."
Earthquakes etc Poor countries
EconoPundit: "Tens of thousands are killed when earthquakes strike poor countries. Only dozens are killed when the same quakes hit richer countries. We grieve for the dead and injured in Pakistan, but one needs to remember Pakistan is a nation that has spent, for every dollar on poor peoples' earthquake-proof housing, untold thousands or more on nuclear arms.
As anyone can confirm from this web site each year we buy about $2.9 billion from Pakistan -- most of it textiles we could easily produce right here at home -- while Pakistan reciprocates by importing only $1.8 billion in US goods. The deficit is minor compared with total GDP (less than 0.01%) but in real life terms it translates into thousands of lost US jobs.
Some of the taxes going to earthquake relief come right out of the pockets of workers displaced by globalization. Exactly how guilty are they and their families supposed to feel?"
As anyone can confirm from this web site each year we buy about $2.9 billion from Pakistan -- most of it textiles we could easily produce right here at home -- while Pakistan reciprocates by importing only $1.8 billion in US goods. The deficit is minor compared with total GDP (less than 0.01%) but in real life terms it translates into thousands of lost US jobs.
Some of the taxes going to earthquake relief come right out of the pockets of workers displaced by globalization. Exactly how guilty are they and their families supposed to feel?"
Senin, 10 Oktober 2005
Minggu, 09 Oktober 2005
Sabtu, 08 Oktober 2005
A Look at Major Earthquakes Last 50 Years
A Look at Major Earthquakes Last 50 Years: "A Look at Major Earthquakes Last 50 Years
By The Associated Press
The Associated Press
Saturday, October 8, 2005; 9:04 AM
-- Major earthquakes around the world since early last century:
_ Oct. 8, 2005: Pakistani Kashmir; magnitude 7.6; hundreds killed.
_ March 28, 2005: Sumatra, Indonesia; magnitude 8.7; up to 1,000 killed.
_ Dec. 26, 2004: Sumatra, Indonesia; magnitude 9.0; more than 176,000 people killed in 11 countries from earthquake and subsequent tsunami.
_ Dec. 26, 2003: Bam, Iran; magnitude 6.5; more than 26,000 killed.
_ May 21, 2003: Northern Algeria; magnitude 6.8; nearly 2,300 killed.
_ March 25, 2002: Northern Afghanistan; magnitude 5.8; up to 1,000 killed.
_ Jan. 26, 2001: India; magnitude 7.9; at least 2,500 killed. Estimates put death toll as high as 13,000.
_ Sept. 21, 1999: Taiwan; magnitude 7.6; 2,400 killed.
_ Aug. 17, 1999: Western Turkey; magnitude 7.4; 17,000 killed.
_ Jan. 25, 1999: Western Colombia; magnitude 6; 1,171 killed.
_ May 30, 1998: Northern Afghanistan and Tajikistan; magnitude 6.9; as many as 5,000 killed.
_ Jan. 17, 1995: Kobe, Japan; magnitude 7.2; more than 6,000 killed.
_ Sept. 30, 1993: Latur, India; magnitude 6.0; as many as 10,000 killed.
_ June 21, 1990: Northwest Iran; magnitude 7.3-7.7; 50,000 killed.
_ Dec. 7, 1988: Northwest Armenia; magnitude 6.9; 25,000 killed.
_ Sept. 19, 1985: Central Mexico; magnitude 8.1; more than 9,500 killed.
_ Sept. 16, 1978: Northeast Iran; magnitude 7.7; 25,000 killed.
_ July 28, 1976: Tangshan, China; magnitude 7.8-8.2; 240,000 killed.
_ Feb. 4, 1976: Guatemala; magnitude 7.5; 22,778 killed.
_ Feb. 29, 1960: Southwest Atlantic coast in Morocco; magnitude 5.7; some 12,000 killed, town of Agadir destroyed."
By The Associated Press
The Associated Press
Saturday, October 8, 2005; 9:04 AM
-- Major earthquakes around the world since early last century:
_ Oct. 8, 2005: Pakistani Kashmir; magnitude 7.6; hundreds killed.
_ March 28, 2005: Sumatra, Indonesia; magnitude 8.7; up to 1,000 killed.
_ Dec. 26, 2004: Sumatra, Indonesia; magnitude 9.0; more than 176,000 people killed in 11 countries from earthquake and subsequent tsunami.
_ Dec. 26, 2003: Bam, Iran; magnitude 6.5; more than 26,000 killed.
_ May 21, 2003: Northern Algeria; magnitude 6.8; nearly 2,300 killed.
_ March 25, 2002: Northern Afghanistan; magnitude 5.8; up to 1,000 killed.
_ Jan. 26, 2001: India; magnitude 7.9; at least 2,500 killed. Estimates put death toll as high as 13,000.
_ Sept. 21, 1999: Taiwan; magnitude 7.6; 2,400 killed.
_ Aug. 17, 1999: Western Turkey; magnitude 7.4; 17,000 killed.
_ Jan. 25, 1999: Western Colombia; magnitude 6; 1,171 killed.
_ May 30, 1998: Northern Afghanistan and Tajikistan; magnitude 6.9; as many as 5,000 killed.
_ Jan. 17, 1995: Kobe, Japan; magnitude 7.2; more than 6,000 killed.
_ Sept. 30, 1993: Latur, India; magnitude 6.0; as many as 10,000 killed.
_ June 21, 1990: Northwest Iran; magnitude 7.3-7.7; 50,000 killed.
_ Dec. 7, 1988: Northwest Armenia; magnitude 6.9; 25,000 killed.
_ Sept. 19, 1985: Central Mexico; magnitude 8.1; more than 9,500 killed.
_ Sept. 16, 1978: Northeast Iran; magnitude 7.7; 25,000 killed.
_ July 28, 1976: Tangshan, China; magnitude 7.8-8.2; 240,000 killed.
_ Feb. 4, 1976: Guatemala; magnitude 7.5; 22,778 killed.
_ Feb. 29, 1960: Southwest Atlantic coast in Morocco; magnitude 5.7; some 12,000 killed, town of Agadir destroyed."
Kamis, 06 Oktober 2005
Term Limits for Supreme Justices?
Power Line: Reaching our limits: "Reaching our limits
Peggy Noonan has a long, insightful column about the Miers nomination. She concludes by advocating term limits for Supreme Court Justices.
I've supported such term limits, and the Roberts confirmation process coupled with the Miers nomination throws the case for them into sharper relief. Under the current rules of engagement (the Ginsburg precedent), nominees refuse to tell the Senate and the public much about what they are likely to do on the bench. And the large number of Democrats willing to vote against Roberts on ideological grounds increases the incentive for presidents to nominate individuals who haven't publicly said much about constitutional issues. Finally, Miers notwithstanding, we can expect relatively young nominees going forward.
In short, we are getting less and less information about individuals who are likely to serve on the Court for longer and longer periods of time in an era when the Court has never been more important. In this perfect storm, the case for term limits seems overwhelming, and my skepticism about the possibility of enacting them is diminishing a bit. Whatever happens to Miers (and I'm pretty sure she will be confirmed), the process will leave a bad taste in the mouth of many Senators on both sides."
Peggy Noonan has a long, insightful column about the Miers nomination. She concludes by advocating term limits for Supreme Court Justices.
I've supported such term limits, and the Roberts confirmation process coupled with the Miers nomination throws the case for them into sharper relief. Under the current rules of engagement (the Ginsburg precedent), nominees refuse to tell the Senate and the public much about what they are likely to do on the bench. And the large number of Democrats willing to vote against Roberts on ideological grounds increases the incentive for presidents to nominate individuals who haven't publicly said much about constitutional issues. Finally, Miers notwithstanding, we can expect relatively young nominees going forward.
In short, we are getting less and less information about individuals who are likely to serve on the Court for longer and longer periods of time in an era when the Court has never been more important. In this perfect storm, the case for term limits seems overwhelming, and my skepticism about the possibility of enacting them is diminishing a bit. Whatever happens to Miers (and I'm pretty sure she will be confirmed), the process will leave a bad taste in the mouth of many Senators on both sides."
Guardian Unlimited Technology | Technology | Breaking America's grip on the net
Guardian Unlimited Technology | Technology | Breaking America's grip on the net: "After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments "
READ IT HERE!
READ IT HERE!
BREITBART.COM - Just The News
BREITBART.COM - Just The News: "Here is the text of former Vice President Al Gore's remarks at the We"
Good speach !
Good speach !
Rabu, 05 Oktober 2005
Energy Prob Solved
EconoPundit
How to achieve full energy independence in fifteen years...
Here's the EconoPundit national energy policy.
1. Impose an immediate and permanent oil import tax set on a sliding scale between $95/bbl and current world price. If world price is $70, the tax is $25/bbl. If world price sinks to $35, the tax automatically rises to $60/bbl.
This tax is permanent. Energy costs as seen by households and businesses will initially rise substantially but will quickly stabilize and won't fluctuate even one tiny bit from year to year. What now goes "up and down" is import tax revenue, not domestic energy costs. It is possible there are massive cost reductions in many if not all areas of production to be realized if energy costs are permanently and credibly stabilized.
2. Spend some of the new massive revenue on whatever redistribution is necessary to ease the transition to the new economy. Spend some of it on alternative energy and conservation. Spend some of it on lowering other taxes here and there. Heck, I don't care.
3. Spend the rest on speeding the development of domestic recoverable oil shale. James Perry, who provided this link, describes the situation as follows:
The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
At current rates of consumption these deposits would keep a U.S. petroleum-based economy going for another 100 years with no oil imports.
How to achieve full energy independence in fifteen years...
Here's the EconoPundit national energy policy.
1. Impose an immediate and permanent oil import tax set on a sliding scale between $95/bbl and current world price. If world price is $70, the tax is $25/bbl. If world price sinks to $35, the tax automatically rises to $60/bbl.
This tax is permanent. Energy costs as seen by households and businesses will initially rise substantially but will quickly stabilize and won't fluctuate even one tiny bit from year to year. What now goes "up and down" is import tax revenue, not domestic energy costs. It is possible there are massive cost reductions in many if not all areas of production to be realized if energy costs are permanently and credibly stabilized.
2. Spend some of the new massive revenue on whatever redistribution is necessary to ease the transition to the new economy. Spend some of it on alternative energy and conservation. Spend some of it on lowering other taxes here and there. Heck, I don't care.
3. Spend the rest on speeding the development of domestic recoverable oil shale. James Perry, who provided this link, describes the situation as follows:
The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
At current rates of consumption these deposits would keep a U.S. petroleum-based economy going for another 100 years with no oil imports.
Sabtu, 01 Oktober 2005
Study: Sun's Changes to Blame for Part of Global Warming
Study: Sun's Changes to Blame for Part of Global Warming: "Sun's Changes to Blame for Part of Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt"
By Robert Roy Britt"
Jumat, 30 September 2005
Weird Words: Tontine
Weird Words: Tontine: "A system of annuities in which the benefits pass to the surviving subscribers until only one is left.
Rabu, 28 September 2005
protein wisdom
protein wisdom: "It was the luck of the imperial draw that the American project in Iraq came to the rescue of the Shiites--and of the Kurds. We may not fully appreciate the historical change we unleashed on the Arab world, but we have given liberty to the stepchildren of the Arab world. We have overturned an edifice of material and moral power that dates back centuries. The Arabs railing against U.S. imperialism and arrogance in Iraq will never let us in on the real sources of their resentments. In the way of “modern” men and women with some familiarity with the doctrines of political correctness, they can’t tell us that they are aggrieved that we have given a measure of self-worth to the seminarians of Najaf and the highlanders of Kurdistan. But that is precisely what gnaws at them.
An edifice of Arab nationalism built by strange bedfellows--the Sunni political and bureaucratic elites, and the Christian Arab pundits who abetted them in the idle hope that they would be spared the wrath of the street and of the mob--was overturned in Iraq. And America, at times ambivalent about its mission, brought along with its military gear a suspicion of the Shiites, a belief that the Iraqi Shiites were an extension of Iran, a community destined to build a sister-republic of the Iranian theocracy. Washington has its cadre of Arabists reared on Arab nationalist historiography. This camp had a seat at the table, but the very scale of what was at play in Iraq, and the redemptionism at the heart of George Bush’s ideology, dwarfed them."
An edifice of Arab nationalism built by strange bedfellows--the Sunni political and bureaucratic elites, and the Christian Arab pundits who abetted them in the idle hope that they would be spared the wrath of the street and of the mob--was overturned in Iraq. And America, at times ambivalent about its mission, brought along with its military gear a suspicion of the Shiites, a belief that the Iraqi Shiites were an extension of Iran, a community destined to build a sister-republic of the Iranian theocracy. Washington has its cadre of Arabists reared on Arab nationalist historiography. This camp had a seat at the table, but the very scale of what was at play in Iraq, and the redemptionism at the heart of George Bush’s ideology, dwarfed them."
Minggu, 25 September 2005
"Real Racism" by Sharon�Hughes
"Real Racism" by Sharon�Hughes: "Driessen also mentions the European Union, World Health Organization, World Bank, UNICEF, and environmental groups like Greenpeace, and others as being on the forefront of preventing the most malaria-ridden nations from using the same insecticides that eradicated the disease here in America. This begs the question: Why are the voices of human rights groups and churches silent about this ''subtle'' form of racism, and human-rights abuse? You tell me."
"Real Racism" by Sharon�Hughes
"Real Racism" by Sharon�Hughes: "Here’s an even more far-reaching form of racism: Letting Africans die because of radical environmentalist white idealogues’ activism. Paul Driessen, senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and former environmental policy advocate, talked with me about this issue on my radio show. He said what few are willing and courageous enough to talk about.
Did you know that in 2004 alone malaria took the lives of more African children than any other infectious disease, and according to UNICEF--three times more than HIV/AIDS? How about that malaria infects 400 million people in sub-Saharan Africa and kills up to 2 million (half of them children) every year? Why? Primarily because of global environmental laws that prohibit the use of DDT spraying.
Paul Driessen points out in his article, ”Double Standards on Disease Control”:
“From colonial times until the 1940s, malaria was the American disease,” says Dr. Robert Desowitz, professor of tropical medicine at the University of North Carolina. At the dawn of the twentieth century, it thrived from New York to Florida, from North Carolina to California. Up to 7 million Americans were stricken by it every year until the mid-1920s, and 3,900 died in 1936. For centuries, it struck down people of all ages in England, Holland, Italy, and other parts of Europe. But by the early 1950s, it was gone, and all but forgotten. How was this possible? We used DDT, window screens and other measures to gradually eradicate the malaria parasite from its human and insect hosts. Today, we still spray pesticides (mostly by airplanes) to control mosquitoes and the West Nile virus that some carry. But we apply a vastly different standard when it comes to poor developing countries that are still wracked by malaria. “ "
Did you know that in 2004 alone malaria took the lives of more African children than any other infectious disease, and according to UNICEF--three times more than HIV/AIDS? How about that malaria infects 400 million people in sub-Saharan Africa and kills up to 2 million (half of them children) every year? Why? Primarily because of global environmental laws that prohibit the use of DDT spraying.
Paul Driessen points out in his article, ”Double Standards on Disease Control”:
“From colonial times until the 1940s, malaria was the American disease,” says Dr. Robert Desowitz, professor of tropical medicine at the University of North Carolina. At the dawn of the twentieth century, it thrived from New York to Florida, from North Carolina to California. Up to 7 million Americans were stricken by it every year until the mid-1920s, and 3,900 died in 1936. For centuries, it struck down people of all ages in England, Holland, Italy, and other parts of Europe. But by the early 1950s, it was gone, and all but forgotten. How was this possible? We used DDT, window screens and other measures to gradually eradicate the malaria parasite from its human and insect hosts. Today, we still spray pesticides (mostly by airplanes) to control mosquitoes and the West Nile virus that some carry. But we apply a vastly different standard when it comes to poor developing countries that are still wracked by malaria. “ "
Jumat, 23 September 2005
What aout Hydrogen burning cars?
One Hand Clapping: "what about hydrogen cars? They would burn hydrogen and oxygen and emit water. How cool would that be, eh? But writer Patrick Bedard says that if by a trick of science autos had been invented using hydrogen-oxygen motors, so that everyone was driving them now,
... President’s FreedomCAR initiative would be anteing up its $1.8 billion to invent the gasoline engine. Freeing us from hydrogen would be “the moral equivalent of war,” to use the words of a long-past energy-crisis president. Gasoline would be the miracle fuel. It would save money by the Fort Knoxful. It would save energy by the Saudi Arabiaful.
The reason is that the amount of energy required to produce a kilogram of hydrogen is simply enormous, many multiples more than the energy recovered by using the hydrogen as a fuel. Where would all that energy come from?
Virtually all the hydrogen produced today, about 50 million tons worldwide, comes from natural gas. The process, called “steam reforming,” is only about 30 percent efficient, much less, he [Donald Anthrop, Ph.D., professor emeritus of environmental studies at San Jose State University] says, “than if the natural gas were simply burned” in the generating plant.
Producing enough hydrogen to replace gasoline by reforming natural gas would increase our [natural] gas consumption by 66 percent over 2002’s usage. And don’t forget the carbon emissions.
Electrolysis to produce the element carries its own toll so that the energy required to produce a kilo of hydrogen for an auto’s use is several multiple of the energy a hydrogen kilo yields in the motor.
Starting with 140.8 kilowatt-hours of energy from coal [to generate electricity for electrolysis] gives you 17.4 kilowatt-hours of electrical power from the fuel cell to propel the car, or an energy efficiency of 12 percent.
Hydrogen as an auto fuel turns out to be terribly inefficient.
Presumably, BMW knows all of this, yet it has been thumping the tub for hydrogen since the 1970s. Along with hundreds of other invitees, I attended BMW’s hydrogen hootenanny at Paramount Pictures in 2001. Mostly, it amounted to a day of corporate preening before California’s greenies. Still, BMW is famously brave in confronting technology. Does it have a plan? I summed up the science of this column, in writing, and passed it up through BMW’s official channels, along with the obvious question: Where will the necessary quads and quads of energy come from for hydrogen cars? That was nearly two years ago. BMW has not answered.
No answer, of course, is the anwer.
Like it or not, we’re stuck with internal-combustion engines for a long time to come."
... President’s FreedomCAR initiative would be anteing up its $1.8 billion to invent the gasoline engine. Freeing us from hydrogen would be “the moral equivalent of war,” to use the words of a long-past energy-crisis president. Gasoline would be the miracle fuel. It would save money by the Fort Knoxful. It would save energy by the Saudi Arabiaful.
The reason is that the amount of energy required to produce a kilogram of hydrogen is simply enormous, many multiples more than the energy recovered by using the hydrogen as a fuel. Where would all that energy come from?
Virtually all the hydrogen produced today, about 50 million tons worldwide, comes from natural gas. The process, called “steam reforming,” is only about 30 percent efficient, much less, he [Donald Anthrop, Ph.D., professor emeritus of environmental studies at San Jose State University] says, “than if the natural gas were simply burned” in the generating plant.
Producing enough hydrogen to replace gasoline by reforming natural gas would increase our [natural] gas consumption by 66 percent over 2002’s usage. And don’t forget the carbon emissions.
Electrolysis to produce the element carries its own toll so that the energy required to produce a kilo of hydrogen for an auto’s use is several multiple of the energy a hydrogen kilo yields in the motor.
Starting with 140.8 kilowatt-hours of energy from coal [to generate electricity for electrolysis] gives you 17.4 kilowatt-hours of electrical power from the fuel cell to propel the car, or an energy efficiency of 12 percent.
Hydrogen as an auto fuel turns out to be terribly inefficient.
Presumably, BMW knows all of this, yet it has been thumping the tub for hydrogen since the 1970s. Along with hundreds of other invitees, I attended BMW’s hydrogen hootenanny at Paramount Pictures in 2001. Mostly, it amounted to a day of corporate preening before California’s greenies. Still, BMW is famously brave in confronting technology. Does it have a plan? I summed up the science of this column, in writing, and passed it up through BMW’s official channels, along with the obvious question: Where will the necessary quads and quads of energy come from for hydrogen cars? That was nearly two years ago. BMW has not answered.
No answer, of course, is the anwer.
Like it or not, we’re stuck with internal-combustion engines for a long time to come."
Kamis, 22 September 2005
Senin, 19 September 2005
One Hand Clapping � Blog Archive � Address to Gold Star families
One Hand Clapping � Blog Archive � Address to Gold Star families: "I addressed Gold Star Mothers and their families, along with many Blue Star families, at a luncheon honoring fallen U. S. Marines on Sept. 17, 2005. The luncheon was sponsored by Tennessee Marine Families, a chartered not-for-profit organization of which my wife and I are members.
Many readers will recognize that I modeled about the last half this address on Pericles’ oration at the first funeral of Athens’ fallen of the Peloponnesian War in 431 bc. You will also see an echo of Shakespeare’s “Henry V” (I cited the full quotation here) in a closing paragraph."
Many readers will recognize that I modeled about the last half this address on Pericles’ oration at the first funeral of Athens’ fallen of the Peloponnesian War in 431 bc. You will also see an echo of Shakespeare’s “Henry V” (I cited the full quotation here) in a closing paragraph."
Sabtu, 17 September 2005
Jumat, 16 September 2005
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell: "The country does not have one dime more resources available when those resources are channeled through government. The resources are just handled less effectively by government and dispensed in an indiscriminate way that encourages people to continue locating in the known path of predictable disasters."
Kamis, 15 September 2005
Rabu, 14 September 2005
Oh Mary!
I have heard it all now. While illegally threatening the President of the United States with bodily harm on ABC's This Week, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) accused him of visiting hurricane-decimated Louisiana merely in order to stage a "photo-op." She ranted and raved hysterically during her appearance on the televised news show last Sunday, at one point bursting into tears. No doubt about it — her levee broke, big(easy)-time.
It's always something. If President Bush works out, he exercises too much. It never occurs that perhaps this is his only means of relieving the enormous stress and pressure he's under. And now comes this latest bit of antic fabrication, straight from the big brassy mouth of a bureaucratic bass caught in Katrina's rip current. If he tours the hurricane-ravaged coast, he's posing for a photo-op. If he stays away, he doesn't care, isn't "personally engaged," and is perpetrating nothing short of indirect "murder."
It's always something. If President Bush works out, he exercises too much. It never occurs that perhaps this is his only means of relieving the enormous stress and pressure he's under. And now comes this latest bit of antic fabrication, straight from the big brassy mouth of a bureaucratic bass caught in Katrina's rip current. If he tours the hurricane-ravaged coast, he's posing for a photo-op. If he stays away, he doesn't care, isn't "personally engaged," and is perpetrating nothing short of indirect "murder."
Why New Orleans Flooded
Why New Orleans Flooded: "Designed for the Mississippi, Not the Gulf
In an earlier September 2 story the Journal noted that in Louisiana, coastal wetlands provide some shelter from surging seawater, but more than one million acres of coastal wetlands have been lost since 1930 due to development and construction of levees and canals. For every square mile of wetland lost, storm surges rise by one foot.
'Moreover, the levees in New Orleans were built to keep the city from being flooded by the Mississippi, but instead caused it to fall below sea level. Now the Gulf of Mexico has moved into the city,' says the Journal.
As the hurricane rolled into New Orleans, scores of boats broke free or sank. In the Industrial Canal, the gush of water broke a barge from its moorings. It isn't known whose barge it was. The huge steel hull became a water-borne missile. It hurtled into the canal's eastern flood wall just north of the major street passing through the Lower Ninth Ward, leading officials to theorize that the errant barge triggered the 500-foot breach. Water poured into the neighborhood.
When the storm was over, the barge was resting inside the hole. 'Based on what I know and what I saw, the Lower Ninth Ward, Chalmette, St. Bernard, their flooding was instantaneous,' said Col. Rich Wagenaar of the Army Corps.
It didn't help that the Mississippi River, which runs along the southern border of these neighborhoods, rose 11 feet between Sunday and Monday mornings. Coastal experts say that could have worsened flooding by limiting the water's escape route."
In an earlier September 2 story the Journal noted that in Louisiana, coastal wetlands provide some shelter from surging seawater, but more than one million acres of coastal wetlands have been lost since 1930 due to development and construction of levees and canals. For every square mile of wetland lost, storm surges rise by one foot.
'Moreover, the levees in New Orleans were built to keep the city from being flooded by the Mississippi, but instead caused it to fall below sea level. Now the Gulf of Mexico has moved into the city,' says the Journal.
As the hurricane rolled into New Orleans, scores of boats broke free or sank. In the Industrial Canal, the gush of water broke a barge from its moorings. It isn't known whose barge it was. The huge steel hull became a water-borne missile. It hurtled into the canal's eastern flood wall just north of the major street passing through the Lower Ninth Ward, leading officials to theorize that the errant barge triggered the 500-foot breach. Water poured into the neighborhood.
When the storm was over, the barge was resting inside the hole. 'Based on what I know and what I saw, the Lower Ninth Ward, Chalmette, St. Bernard, their flooding was instantaneous,' said Col. Rich Wagenaar of the Army Corps.
It didn't help that the Mississippi River, which runs along the southern border of these neighborhoods, rose 11 feet between Sunday and Monday mornings. Coastal experts say that could have worsened flooding by limiting the water's escape route."
Selasa, 13 September 2005
Senin, 12 September 2005
"Katrina and Playing the Odds" by Jan�Larson
"Katrina and Playing the Odds" by Jan�Larson Katrina and Playing the Odds
Written by Jan Larson
Monday, September 12, 2005
Flood protection levees were first built around New Orleans starting in the late 1800s. Following Hurricane Betsy, the federal government stepped in with the Flood Control Act of 1965. This legislation set in motion a series of levee construction projects design to protect New Orleans [1]. All of the engineering for these projects assumed a fast-moving hurricane equivalent to Betsy, rated as category three on the Saffir-Simpson scale [2].
It has long been known that the levee system could not protect the city from a category four or five hurricane. Why would officials take such a risk when the consequences, as we’ve seen, were so devastating? Two reasons: money and probability.
The likelihood of a category four or stronger hurricane making a direct strike on New Orleans was determined to be about once every 200 to 300 years. In fact, there have only been three category five hurricanes to make landfall in the United States since records have been kept. The cost to upgrade the levee system to protect for this “worst case” was and is not insignificant. In fact, with the projected cost being in the billions of dollars and the probability so low, it is as a practical matter, politically untenable for politicians to ask taxpayers to pony up that kind of money to protect them from something that isn’t likely to happen during their lifetimes. It is especially untenable to ask taxpayers in other states to pick up the tab--which is where federal flood control money comes from.
Before disaster strikes, it is natural for people to think that it won’t happen to them. Just like the lottery, it always happens to someone else, somewhere else, and at some other time.
Commenting on the disaster in New Orleans, Rep. David Obey (D-WI) asked: “How many times do we have to see disaster overwhelm our preparedness before we recognize that we are playing Russian roulette with people's lives, with their livelihoods, and with the life of whole communities?”
The answer is, of course, just about every time. Our government didn’t protect us from terrorists crashing airplanes into buildings before September 11 and they didn’t protect the citizens of New Orleans from a catastrophic flood before Katrina.
Hindsight is always 20/20 and so in the next few months there will undoubtedly be calls to beef up the New Orleans levees to protect against the strongest hurricane likely to ever occur. But is that a good idea? After all, the probability of another category four or five storm hitting New Orleans remains at once every 200-300 years.
There are plenty of areas in the country that are at risk for a natural disaster, some on a massive scale, but hurricanes are never a surprise. If officials act appropriately and citizens act responsibly, there should never be any fatalities as a direct result of a hurricane. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen in New Orleans, appropriate action by government officials and responsible decisions by citizens are not always, if ever, the norm.
We all assume risks every day. There are upwards of 35,000 traffic fatalities in the United States every year, but I’m willing to wager than most if not all of you reading this right now drive regularly. People living in New Orleans have known for years that a devastating hurricane could strike the city and that it was possible for the city to be flooded yet not only did they assume the risk of living there, but many also continued to assume that risk even as Katrina approached.
The city of Seattle sits in the shadow of Mt. Rainier, an active volcano. Much like its neighbor to the south, Mt. Saint Helens, one day it will erupt. It might be 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years, but eventually that day will come. The potential devastation from an eruption is enormous, but as is the case with hurricanes, an eruption of Mt. Rainier is unlikely to be a surprise and the residents of the Puget Sound region assume that risk. If the worst were to happen, there would be great loss of property, but hopefully the loss of life would be minimized through diligent disaster planning.
Seismologists have predicted that some day, sooner or later, a massive earthquake (the “big one”) will strike California. Again, when that day will come is anyone’s guess. Unlike hurricanes along the coast or volcanoes in the Pacific Northwest, a California earthquake would likely not come with a warning and the loss of life could number in the hundreds of thousands but the odds-makers say that it won’t happen anytime soon, so millions of people are willing to take that chance.
Governments cannot protect everyone from everything that may happen and it would, in the big picture, be irresponsible of government to try. There are better ways to spend (or not spend) billions of dollars than to try to protect New Orleans from a category five hurricane, Seattle from a volcanic eruption, or California from earthquakes.
We have seen that even if government has a plan, such as the evacuation plan for the city of New Orleans that was largely ignored, the best-laid plans won’t protect everyone from disaster. It is ultimately up to each individual to choose the level of risk to assume. In the end, people are largely responsible for their own well being and as we’ve seen, to misjudge the risks or to ignore the danger when it stares us in the face can be fatal.
Written by Jan Larson
Monday, September 12, 2005
Flood protection levees were first built around New Orleans starting in the late 1800s. Following Hurricane Betsy, the federal government stepped in with the Flood Control Act of 1965. This legislation set in motion a series of levee construction projects design to protect New Orleans [1]. All of the engineering for these projects assumed a fast-moving hurricane equivalent to Betsy, rated as category three on the Saffir-Simpson scale [2].
It has long been known that the levee system could not protect the city from a category four or five hurricane. Why would officials take such a risk when the consequences, as we’ve seen, were so devastating? Two reasons: money and probability.
The likelihood of a category four or stronger hurricane making a direct strike on New Orleans was determined to be about once every 200 to 300 years. In fact, there have only been three category five hurricanes to make landfall in the United States since records have been kept. The cost to upgrade the levee system to protect for this “worst case” was and is not insignificant. In fact, with the projected cost being in the billions of dollars and the probability so low, it is as a practical matter, politically untenable for politicians to ask taxpayers to pony up that kind of money to protect them from something that isn’t likely to happen during their lifetimes. It is especially untenable to ask taxpayers in other states to pick up the tab--which is where federal flood control money comes from.
Before disaster strikes, it is natural for people to think that it won’t happen to them. Just like the lottery, it always happens to someone else, somewhere else, and at some other time.
Commenting on the disaster in New Orleans, Rep. David Obey (D-WI) asked: “How many times do we have to see disaster overwhelm our preparedness before we recognize that we are playing Russian roulette with people's lives, with their livelihoods, and with the life of whole communities?”
The answer is, of course, just about every time. Our government didn’t protect us from terrorists crashing airplanes into buildings before September 11 and they didn’t protect the citizens of New Orleans from a catastrophic flood before Katrina.
Hindsight is always 20/20 and so in the next few months there will undoubtedly be calls to beef up the New Orleans levees to protect against the strongest hurricane likely to ever occur. But is that a good idea? After all, the probability of another category four or five storm hitting New Orleans remains at once every 200-300 years.
There are plenty of areas in the country that are at risk for a natural disaster, some on a massive scale, but hurricanes are never a surprise. If officials act appropriately and citizens act responsibly, there should never be any fatalities as a direct result of a hurricane. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen in New Orleans, appropriate action by government officials and responsible decisions by citizens are not always, if ever, the norm.
We all assume risks every day. There are upwards of 35,000 traffic fatalities in the United States every year, but I’m willing to wager than most if not all of you reading this right now drive regularly. People living in New Orleans have known for years that a devastating hurricane could strike the city and that it was possible for the city to be flooded yet not only did they assume the risk of living there, but many also continued to assume that risk even as Katrina approached.
The city of Seattle sits in the shadow of Mt. Rainier, an active volcano. Much like its neighbor to the south, Mt. Saint Helens, one day it will erupt. It might be 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years, but eventually that day will come. The potential devastation from an eruption is enormous, but as is the case with hurricanes, an eruption of Mt. Rainier is unlikely to be a surprise and the residents of the Puget Sound region assume that risk. If the worst were to happen, there would be great loss of property, but hopefully the loss of life would be minimized through diligent disaster planning.
Seismologists have predicted that some day, sooner or later, a massive earthquake (the “big one”) will strike California. Again, when that day will come is anyone’s guess. Unlike hurricanes along the coast or volcanoes in the Pacific Northwest, a California earthquake would likely not come with a warning and the loss of life could number in the hundreds of thousands but the odds-makers say that it won’t happen anytime soon, so millions of people are willing to take that chance.
Governments cannot protect everyone from everything that may happen and it would, in the big picture, be irresponsible of government to try. There are better ways to spend (or not spend) billions of dollars than to try to protect New Orleans from a category five hurricane, Seattle from a volcanic eruption, or California from earthquakes.
We have seen that even if government has a plan, such as the evacuation plan for the city of New Orleans that was largely ignored, the best-laid plans won’t protect everyone from disaster. It is ultimately up to each individual to choose the level of risk to assume. In the end, people are largely responsible for their own well being and as we’ve seen, to misjudge the risks or to ignore the danger when it stares us in the face can be fatal.
Selasa, 06 September 2005
Senin, 05 September 2005
HOG ON ICE says
Look at the failures on the local level.
1. Locals chose not to pay for an adequate flood control system. It was well within their means, and they had THREE HUNDRED YEARS to get it done. When complaining about the President's evil refusal to foot the whole bill, and they tell us how much more money was needed, they themselves quote a figure of about sixty million dollars. Don't you dare tell me an entire state couldn't come up with sixty million dollars. They were too cheap. They preferred to risk death. Now the bill will be in the tens of billions of dollars, and thousands of people are dead. By the way, who believes that flood control improvements funded during the Bush administration would have been finished by the time Katrina arrived? Nobody except those whose careers depend on believing it.
2. After inviting disaster by refusing to pay for flood control projects, local officials failed to respond quickly enough to the threat of storm damage. Here in Florida (and everywhere else), we respond to the approach of hurricanes by notifying FEMA, setting up shelters, and issuing evacuation orders WELL in advance of landfall. The mayor of New Orleans and other local officials dragged their feet. They didn’t even open the Superdome to evacuees until noon on the day before the hurricane, and at first, they limited access to people with special needs. And the governor, who must request federal aid before Washington can come in and provide it, sat on her hands while the waters rose. Florida’s Democrat governor did the same thing after Andrew, and then he whined about FEMA’s slow response. A bureaucrat’s prime directive is “Cover your ass at all costs, and if you can blame your enemies in the process, so much the better.”
3. Local citizens refused to evacuate, ensuring that they and their children and pets would die. We’re not supposed to talk about this, because it’s “blaming the victims.” Here’s a newsflash. When a person is a victim because of his own irresponsibility, you’re SUPPOSED to blame him. Watch cable news for an hour, and you’ll see the same story over and over. A New Orleans resident refuses to leave a flooded house, days after the storm. In the driveway are one or two cars this person could have used to flee the storm. Rescuers have to argue and cajole to get the “victim” into the boat. And sometimes they still refuse to leave. This is AFTER the storm, mind you. There is no food, no clean water, no electricity, and no police protection, and these people still won’t leave. Don’t even think of telling me they behaved better when the storm was still in the Gulf.
4. The New Orleans police have disappeared. Their chief had the gall to blame the National Guard for taking two whole days to show up, and then for amusing themselves during down time by playing cards. Meanwhile, his own officers are too busy shoplifting to do their jobs. According to the National Guard, the New Orleans police department has disintegrated. I guess their French heritage is taking over. But somehow, the disorder is the Guard’s fault. Can’t you see what’s happening here? The chief’s underlings proved to be cowardly and selfish, and they abandoned their posts, and in order to avoid responsibility, he’s launching a preemptive PR strike on the very people who are now doing his job for him. It’s CYA, pure and simple.
5. Evacuation holdouts are shooting at the police and the Guard and contractors and everyone else they can draw a bead on. Call me crazy, but I think this discourages and slows down rescue efforts. Here in Miami, after Andrew, people shot looters, not the police (who stayed on the job, unlike the New Orleans cops).
Sure, the federal response could have been better. Wake up; that’s what happens when you shift your own responsibilities to the federal government. Has anyone in New Orleans or the MSM been awake during the last two hundred years? Has the federal government EVER responded to a national disaster in less than two days? The federal government is like an ocean liner. It doesn’t start and stop quickly. Local government, when it works properly, is much more responsive. You don’t call the FBI when you see a burglar in your yard. You call the local police. Similarly, you don’t sit on your ass and wait for Washington to build your floodwalls and evacuate your citizens. New Orleans had buses. It had trains and planes. There were places it could have set up temporary shelters. And the disaster should never have occurred in the first place; locals should have looked after their own flood control needs. But like I said, Uncle Sam is society’s diaper, so none of that matters.
The whole Ting'
1. Locals chose not to pay for an adequate flood control system. It was well within their means, and they had THREE HUNDRED YEARS to get it done. When complaining about the President's evil refusal to foot the whole bill, and they tell us how much more money was needed, they themselves quote a figure of about sixty million dollars. Don't you dare tell me an entire state couldn't come up with sixty million dollars. They were too cheap. They preferred to risk death. Now the bill will be in the tens of billions of dollars, and thousands of people are dead. By the way, who believes that flood control improvements funded during the Bush administration would have been finished by the time Katrina arrived? Nobody except those whose careers depend on believing it.
2. After inviting disaster by refusing to pay for flood control projects, local officials failed to respond quickly enough to the threat of storm damage. Here in Florida (and everywhere else), we respond to the approach of hurricanes by notifying FEMA, setting up shelters, and issuing evacuation orders WELL in advance of landfall. The mayor of New Orleans and other local officials dragged their feet. They didn’t even open the Superdome to evacuees until noon on the day before the hurricane, and at first, they limited access to people with special needs. And the governor, who must request federal aid before Washington can come in and provide it, sat on her hands while the waters rose. Florida’s Democrat governor did the same thing after Andrew, and then he whined about FEMA’s slow response. A bureaucrat’s prime directive is “Cover your ass at all costs, and if you can blame your enemies in the process, so much the better.”
3. Local citizens refused to evacuate, ensuring that they and their children and pets would die. We’re not supposed to talk about this, because it’s “blaming the victims.” Here’s a newsflash. When a person is a victim because of his own irresponsibility, you’re SUPPOSED to blame him. Watch cable news for an hour, and you’ll see the same story over and over. A New Orleans resident refuses to leave a flooded house, days after the storm. In the driveway are one or two cars this person could have used to flee the storm. Rescuers have to argue and cajole to get the “victim” into the boat. And sometimes they still refuse to leave. This is AFTER the storm, mind you. There is no food, no clean water, no electricity, and no police protection, and these people still won’t leave. Don’t even think of telling me they behaved better when the storm was still in the Gulf.
4. The New Orleans police have disappeared. Their chief had the gall to blame the National Guard for taking two whole days to show up, and then for amusing themselves during down time by playing cards. Meanwhile, his own officers are too busy shoplifting to do their jobs. According to the National Guard, the New Orleans police department has disintegrated. I guess their French heritage is taking over. But somehow, the disorder is the Guard’s fault. Can’t you see what’s happening here? The chief’s underlings proved to be cowardly and selfish, and they abandoned their posts, and in order to avoid responsibility, he’s launching a preemptive PR strike on the very people who are now doing his job for him. It’s CYA, pure and simple.
5. Evacuation holdouts are shooting at the police and the Guard and contractors and everyone else they can draw a bead on. Call me crazy, but I think this discourages and slows down rescue efforts. Here in Miami, after Andrew, people shot looters, not the police (who stayed on the job, unlike the New Orleans cops).
Sure, the federal response could have been better. Wake up; that’s what happens when you shift your own responsibilities to the federal government. Has anyone in New Orleans or the MSM been awake during the last two hundred years? Has the federal government EVER responded to a national disaster in less than two days? The federal government is like an ocean liner. It doesn’t start and stop quickly. Local government, when it works properly, is much more responsive. You don’t call the FBI when you see a burglar in your yard. You call the local police. Similarly, you don’t sit on your ass and wait for Washington to build your floodwalls and evacuate your citizens. New Orleans had buses. It had trains and planes. There were places it could have set up temporary shelters. And the disaster should never have occurred in the first place; locals should have looked after their own flood control needs. But like I said, Uncle Sam is society’s diaper, so none of that matters.
The whole Ting'
ESR | September 5, 2005 | America as a Third World nation
America as a Third World nation
By Alan Caruba
web posted September 5, 2005
The haunting images of New Orleans were those of a Third
World nation unable to cope with a natural disaster. The over-
riding question in the first days following the hurricane was "What
is the government doing?"
Americans have been conditioned to look to the federal
government as the answer to all their needs. The federal
government has steadily taken over our education and health
care systems through vast programs that, in the former case, has
ruined what was once one of the best in the world and, in the
latter case, through Medicare and Medicaid, exercises control
over the way the system works and who it benefits. Social
Security has, for too many, replaced planning and saving for
one's old age.
When a portion of everything you earn is removed from your
paycheck in order to pay for someone else's senior years, how
can you be expected to put aside money you don't have to save,
invest or spend as you wish? We have been required to turn
personal responsibility for our lives over to "the government." It
sounds good on paper, but the reality is that Social Security is
going broke and the interest level in the current administration's
effort to "fix" the system is so low the President's efforts have
been met with a significant measure of indifference.
The "government's" response to the disaster that befell huge
swaths of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama suggests that
there are, indeed, limits to what it can do. It is, after all,
composed of bureaucrats who must obey the thousands of
regulations and laws affecting their agencies and that have been
imposed on our national economy, affecting all the rest of us.
One of the first actions "the government" took was the
Environmental Protection Agency announcement that it was
suspending the idiotic mandates requiring countless different
formulations of gasoline to insure that a sufficient supply was
available nationwide. In one state after another, these mandates
insure that different formulations are required in different areas of
the same state.
Mandating the use of ethanol in order to insure a bounty of riches
for corn producers while ignoring the need to drill for oil in
Alaska or ignoring enormous off-short reserves and shale oil
exposes the politics that over-rode the need for greater energy
self-sufficiency and independence from a Middle East that largely
hates America.
The looting and criminality that occurred in New Orleans also
revealed the failure of not just local people, but much of the
black community in America to take advantage of the
protections and opportunities afforded by the Civil Rights and
Voting Rights legislation enacted since the 1960s. As
Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson, pointed out on
September 2nd, "New Orleans is two cities, not one, according
to census data---a relatively affluent, small, achingly lovely city
that's mostly white, and a poor, big, unlovely city that's almost all
black. Overall, the city is two-thirds African American; it ranks
as the ninth-poorest big city in the nation. It is also one of the
most violent cities in the country, now making a bid to reclaim
the ‘murder capitol' designation it held for many years."
This is repeated over and over again in many of the nation's
cities, many of whom are also falling prey to the influx of millions
of illegal aliens flooding across our southern border, bringing with
them crime and disease, replacing native-born American
workers for those jobs they might have had were it not for the
low wages the illegals will accept.
The laws fashioned to protect and help blacks have brought
about some improvements. A black middle class has emerged,
but the evidence demonstrates that too many black Americans
opted to remain mired in their own failure to take advantage of
educational opportunities, continued to produce the one-parent
families in which men were largely absent, and remained
responsible for much of the crime in the cities. In return, they
offered America a "gangsta rap" and "hip-hop" culture that
reflects attitudes immune to the values shared by the majority of
Americans. They were not marginalized. They marginalized
themselves.
The physical losses in the affected areas will be rebuilt.
Americans always rebuild after natural disasters, but the social
problems are likely to remain unless and until we begin to shut
our borders against what can only be called an invasion and until
black Americans fully integrate themselves by taking more
responsibility for their lives.
We all need to rely less on the "government", but it seems
unlikely at this point the government will allow that to occur.
Congress is too in love with the billions it can seize for countless
pork barrel projects "for the folks back home" and to insure
reelection. There are too many people dependent on the socialist
programs enacted after WWII. The mindless federal spending
has been reflected at the state level while, at the same time,
federal mandates have eroded state and local power.
We need to vastly reduce the vast matrix of economic
regulations that suck billions out of the economy while creating
obstacles to free market answers to our most pressing needs
and, as in the recent Supreme Court ruling, destroy private
property values with a ferocity matched only by natural disasters.
Life in America is going to get more expensive because "the
government" claimed it could take care of us from birth to death.
It can't. It never could.
Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted
on the Internet website of The National Anxiety Center,
www.anxietycenter.com. © Alan Caruba, September 2005
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com
By Alan Caruba
web posted September 5, 2005
The haunting images of New Orleans were those of a Third
World nation unable to cope with a natural disaster. The over-
riding question in the first days following the hurricane was "What
is the government doing?"
Americans have been conditioned to look to the federal
government as the answer to all their needs. The federal
government has steadily taken over our education and health
care systems through vast programs that, in the former case, has
ruined what was once one of the best in the world and, in the
latter case, through Medicare and Medicaid, exercises control
over the way the system works and who it benefits. Social
Security has, for too many, replaced planning and saving for
one's old age.
When a portion of everything you earn is removed from your
paycheck in order to pay for someone else's senior years, how
can you be expected to put aside money you don't have to save,
invest or spend as you wish? We have been required to turn
personal responsibility for our lives over to "the government." It
sounds good on paper, but the reality is that Social Security is
going broke and the interest level in the current administration's
effort to "fix" the system is so low the President's efforts have
been met with a significant measure of indifference.
The "government's" response to the disaster that befell huge
swaths of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama suggests that
there are, indeed, limits to what it can do. It is, after all,
composed of bureaucrats who must obey the thousands of
regulations and laws affecting their agencies and that have been
imposed on our national economy, affecting all the rest of us.
One of the first actions "the government" took was the
Environmental Protection Agency announcement that it was
suspending the idiotic mandates requiring countless different
formulations of gasoline to insure that a sufficient supply was
available nationwide. In one state after another, these mandates
insure that different formulations are required in different areas of
the same state.
Mandating the use of ethanol in order to insure a bounty of riches
for corn producers while ignoring the need to drill for oil in
Alaska or ignoring enormous off-short reserves and shale oil
exposes the politics that over-rode the need for greater energy
self-sufficiency and independence from a Middle East that largely
hates America.
The looting and criminality that occurred in New Orleans also
revealed the failure of not just local people, but much of the
black community in America to take advantage of the
protections and opportunities afforded by the Civil Rights and
Voting Rights legislation enacted since the 1960s. As
Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson, pointed out on
September 2nd, "New Orleans is two cities, not one, according
to census data---a relatively affluent, small, achingly lovely city
that's mostly white, and a poor, big, unlovely city that's almost all
black. Overall, the city is two-thirds African American; it ranks
as the ninth-poorest big city in the nation. It is also one of the
most violent cities in the country, now making a bid to reclaim
the ‘murder capitol' designation it held for many years."
This is repeated over and over again in many of the nation's
cities, many of whom are also falling prey to the influx of millions
of illegal aliens flooding across our southern border, bringing with
them crime and disease, replacing native-born American
workers for those jobs they might have had were it not for the
low wages the illegals will accept.
The laws fashioned to protect and help blacks have brought
about some improvements. A black middle class has emerged,
but the evidence demonstrates that too many black Americans
opted to remain mired in their own failure to take advantage of
educational opportunities, continued to produce the one-parent
families in which men were largely absent, and remained
responsible for much of the crime in the cities. In return, they
offered America a "gangsta rap" and "hip-hop" culture that
reflects attitudes immune to the values shared by the majority of
Americans. They were not marginalized. They marginalized
themselves.
The physical losses in the affected areas will be rebuilt.
Americans always rebuild after natural disasters, but the social
problems are likely to remain unless and until we begin to shut
our borders against what can only be called an invasion and until
black Americans fully integrate themselves by taking more
responsibility for their lives.
We all need to rely less on the "government", but it seems
unlikely at this point the government will allow that to occur.
Congress is too in love with the billions it can seize for countless
pork barrel projects "for the folks back home" and to insure
reelection. There are too many people dependent on the socialist
programs enacted after WWII. The mindless federal spending
has been reflected at the state level while, at the same time,
federal mandates have eroded state and local power.
We need to vastly reduce the vast matrix of economic
regulations that suck billions out of the economy while creating
obstacles to free market answers to our most pressing needs
and, as in the recent Supreme Court ruling, destroy private
property values with a ferocity matched only by natural disasters.
Life in America is going to get more expensive because "the
government" claimed it could take care of us from birth to death.
It can't. It never could.
Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted
on the Internet website of The National Anxiety Center,
www.anxietycenter.com. © Alan Caruba, September 2005
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com
Mister Snitch!: The Politics of evacuation (part one)
Mister Snitch!: The Politics of evacuation (part one): "So you think you know who screwed up, bigtime, in New Orleans?
Odds are, you don't. But you will, as these stories work their way up (down?) from the blogospehere to mainstream media."
Read about it:
Odds are, you don't. But you will, as these stories work their way up (down?) from the blogospehere to mainstream media."
Read about it:
Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog
Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog: "Monday, September 05, 2005"
Monday, September 05, 2005
Katrina Rescues: A Military Perspective
I'm posting a letter from Joe Roche, whose wife is doing helicopter rescue missions in hurricane-affected areas, "24/7, very tired, sometimes being shot at, facing intense heat and humidity, having spartan-to-bare sleeping conditions, with sickness and disease spreading."
Amy,
I want you to know that over the past days, our soldiers of the National Guard have quickly and readily made big sacrifices so they can get down to the Hurricane Katrina rescue mission. My wife, as you know, is with National Guard. I watched last week as they worked feverishly, being called in from their other jobs and away from their families, to get everything ready to go.
Tens of thousands of National Guard soldiers have mobilized all over the country like this. I know you have felt grief over the disaster and the issue some people have made of it. I want you to take heart and lift your spirits at what has happened with our military.
There is now a MASSIVE military response under way. It is moving very fast, in fact. So fast that it quickly and frequently overwhelmed the capacity to put it all in place and get it launched.
I understand the frustration, fear and sadness being felt, but it takes time to get such a thing going. Remember that it took many months for our military operations to get under way overseas when the decisions were made to do so. In fact, I think there was some controversy about that in both of the wars over Iraq, when it took from August to January to launch Operation Desert Storm, and even longer to get Operation Iraqi Freedom going. I well remember even having to assure people that we were going to respond after September 11th when some started worrying that weeks had passed and nothing had happened.
I believe that such comparisons actually will show that the military response to Hurricane Katrina's destruction is going at breath-taking fast speed.
Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, the commanding General of the Army National Guard, said that the thing to realize is that the rescuers who were there on the first day were also victims of the storm.
It takes time to organize the massive operation now under way. I watched my wife and her unit prepare to go, and I felt worried that they would become victims too if they didn't properly prepare. The vital thing the soldiers have to make sure of is that they are the solution to the problem, and not part of the problem. Therefore, what has happened is that a vast, truly amazing and powerfully inspiration-driven massive team of professionals has quickly and effectively set up a huge series of staging areas from which rescue operations can begin.
It is a fact that with the destruction of the storm, there were very few open and secure areas in which to set up huge military operations. Well, defying all the challenges, your National Guard soldiers have done that brilliantly!
Now we are seeing this massive military response making it's impact. Tens of thousands have been rescued, moving entire refugee populations hundreds of miles. I don't believe others ever have been able to do this, such as the Europeans in the Balkans. No, such massive population moves are normally the work of war and crime that last years. This time, bigger and faster than most in history, your National Guard has moved in, set up, and begun one of the largest rescue operations in history.
The thing that has affected me most, however, are the soldiers doing this. I have seen police officers, Vietnam Veterans, and other professionals from all sorts of jobs, dropping everything last week and getting airborne to get down there. And Amy, it is scary too.
My wife is my best friend and the best person I have ever met. Now she is doing helicopter rescue missions, 24/7, very tired, sometimes being shot at, facing intense heat and humidity, having spartan-to-bare sleeping conditions, with sickness and disease spreading. There are thousands of rescue operations to do, and there are dozens of air units and even more ground units working hard and sometimes bumping into each other. It is more dangerous than I think people realize.
Yet, amazingly and very inspiringly, I watched as these National Guard soldiers cancelled plans for college, jobs, their kids' plans for next week, basically everything that you can imagine, and instead jumped eagerly and with great determination to get ready and deploy to Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
Some of them are veterans, soldiers who have served for years in many of our wars and missions, civilian professionals who have jobs and lives and families, and all of them have set everything aside to go. Many are taking big financial hits, and their families have to make big adjustments. But you know what? They are all highly motivated and eager to get down there and do their jobs.
I know that for the victims of this storm, their suffering and tragedy is terrible and cannot be erased. I do hope we all realize, though, that the military is making a massively huge effort to rescue and help them that also involves National Guard soldiers making countless personal sacrifices.
We should have found inspiration from the determination of the people of New Orleans and the rest of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to survive the long series of nightmares they have endured as a result of the hurricane. I also believe that we should now find inspiration in our great military, primarily the Army National Guard, for how they have jumped full steam ahead into this.
Be proud of your soldiers, keep your spirits and hopes high. There are some very sad and gruesome days and weeks ahead for our nation as we learn of the full scope of the disaster. Face it with the resolve, focus and determination that our military is showing us now, and we'll get through this to make a more safe future for such events and rebuild what has been lost.
Joe
Monday, September 05, 2005
Katrina Rescues: A Military Perspective
I'm posting a letter from Joe Roche, whose wife is doing helicopter rescue missions in hurricane-affected areas, "24/7, very tired, sometimes being shot at, facing intense heat and humidity, having spartan-to-bare sleeping conditions, with sickness and disease spreading."
Amy,
I want you to know that over the past days, our soldiers of the National Guard have quickly and readily made big sacrifices so they can get down to the Hurricane Katrina rescue mission. My wife, as you know, is with National Guard. I watched last week as they worked feverishly, being called in from their other jobs and away from their families, to get everything ready to go.
Tens of thousands of National Guard soldiers have mobilized all over the country like this. I know you have felt grief over the disaster and the issue some people have made of it. I want you to take heart and lift your spirits at what has happened with our military.
There is now a MASSIVE military response under way. It is moving very fast, in fact. So fast that it quickly and frequently overwhelmed the capacity to put it all in place and get it launched.
I understand the frustration, fear and sadness being felt, but it takes time to get such a thing going. Remember that it took many months for our military operations to get under way overseas when the decisions were made to do so. In fact, I think there was some controversy about that in both of the wars over Iraq, when it took from August to January to launch Operation Desert Storm, and even longer to get Operation Iraqi Freedom going. I well remember even having to assure people that we were going to respond after September 11th when some started worrying that weeks had passed and nothing had happened.
I believe that such comparisons actually will show that the military response to Hurricane Katrina's destruction is going at breath-taking fast speed.
Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, the commanding General of the Army National Guard, said that the thing to realize is that the rescuers who were there on the first day were also victims of the storm.
It takes time to organize the massive operation now under way. I watched my wife and her unit prepare to go, and I felt worried that they would become victims too if they didn't properly prepare. The vital thing the soldiers have to make sure of is that they are the solution to the problem, and not part of the problem. Therefore, what has happened is that a vast, truly amazing and powerfully inspiration-driven massive team of professionals has quickly and effectively set up a huge series of staging areas from which rescue operations can begin.
It is a fact that with the destruction of the storm, there were very few open and secure areas in which to set up huge military operations. Well, defying all the challenges, your National Guard soldiers have done that brilliantly!
Now we are seeing this massive military response making it's impact. Tens of thousands have been rescued, moving entire refugee populations hundreds of miles. I don't believe others ever have been able to do this, such as the Europeans in the Balkans. No, such massive population moves are normally the work of war and crime that last years. This time, bigger and faster than most in history, your National Guard has moved in, set up, and begun one of the largest rescue operations in history.
The thing that has affected me most, however, are the soldiers doing this. I have seen police officers, Vietnam Veterans, and other professionals from all sorts of jobs, dropping everything last week and getting airborne to get down there. And Amy, it is scary too.
My wife is my best friend and the best person I have ever met. Now she is doing helicopter rescue missions, 24/7, very tired, sometimes being shot at, facing intense heat and humidity, having spartan-to-bare sleeping conditions, with sickness and disease spreading. There are thousands of rescue operations to do, and there are dozens of air units and even more ground units working hard and sometimes bumping into each other. It is more dangerous than I think people realize.
Yet, amazingly and very inspiringly, I watched as these National Guard soldiers cancelled plans for college, jobs, their kids' plans for next week, basically everything that you can imagine, and instead jumped eagerly and with great determination to get ready and deploy to Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
Some of them are veterans, soldiers who have served for years in many of our wars and missions, civilian professionals who have jobs and lives and families, and all of them have set everything aside to go. Many are taking big financial hits, and their families have to make big adjustments. But you know what? They are all highly motivated and eager to get down there and do their jobs.
I know that for the victims of this storm, their suffering and tragedy is terrible and cannot be erased. I do hope we all realize, though, that the military is making a massively huge effort to rescue and help them that also involves National Guard soldiers making countless personal sacrifices.
We should have found inspiration from the determination of the people of New Orleans and the rest of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to survive the long series of nightmares they have endured as a result of the hurricane. I also believe that we should now find inspiration in our great military, primarily the Army National Guard, for how they have jumped full steam ahead into this.
Be proud of your soldiers, keep your spirits and hopes high. There are some very sad and gruesome days and weeks ahead for our nation as we learn of the full scope of the disaster. Face it with the resolve, focus and determination that our military is showing us now, and we'll get through this to make a more safe future for such events and rebuild what has been lost.
Joe
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)