THIS is a ticketed event...advance tickets
only...tickets will NOT be sold at the door the day of the
event.
Nationally syndicated conservative talk show host Michael
Gallagher, House Republican Leader John Boehner* (R-OH) and U.S.
Representative Steve King* (R-IA) are coming to Central Florida for
another '660 WORL Presents' VIP luncheon at Central
Florida's premier restaurant, Maison & Jardin.
General Seats for the Luncheon are $66.00. Table Seating with Me is
$76.00 (but I am offering a special $10 discount til Sunday).
Table Seating with Syndicated Talk show host Mike Gallagher or with
Congressman Steve King is $96.00...however, the table for
Congressman John Boehner is already sold out.
660 WORL is the sister station to AM 1520 WHIM and WakeUp! with
Doug K has been invited to participate. We will even have a special
table...come SIT WITH ME and Let's break some bread together at
this special event.
This is part of the 'America Unplugged' tour and will
happen on April 12, 2010 from noon until 2PM.
You still have time to get in on the $10 discount on your seats. I
am personally paying the discount for you in an effort to SELL OUT
MY TABLE...
Enter the promo code: Doug (this is not case sensitive) for the
discount. We have extended the $10 discount until Sunday, February
28th..so ACT NOW to get the discount!
Remember, addition to an exquisite meal, you will have the
opportunity to have your photo taken with Michael, and hear
political commentary and concerns on the issues that are sweeping
the nation.
Failure to act immediately (by noon on the 28th) will result in you
missing out on the discount...however you can still buy advance
tickets through the link for a great event and a great lunch.
Tickets will not be sold at the door so go get your tickets now!
Stop lollygagging. Go. Now!
Tallahassee, Fla. -Senator Carey Baker announced
today that Senate Bill 96, Florida's 10th Amendment resolution,
has successfully passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The
legislation, which seeks to reaffirm Florida's legislative
sovereignty under the United States Constitution's 10th
Amendment, passed the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 6 to 2.
'Washington's policymakers need to be reminded that the
10th Amendment protects states from the inappropriate exercise of
federal power,' Baker said. 'Unfortunately, Congress
continues to assert jurisdiction over matters in which they have no
clear constitutional authority. We need to protect our 10th
Amendment right to govern our own affairs because Florida's
legislators are better able to address issues affecting Floridians
than bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.'
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as
follows: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.' To date, 38
states have introduced legislation similar to Senator Baker's
in an attempt to restore the proper constitutional balance of power
between the state and federal governments.
The legislation will now be forwarded to the Senate
Rules Committee for further consideration.
Now it's going to go to the next step. The
legislation will now be forwarded to the Senate Rules Committee for
further consideration. There are 20 Senators on the Rules
Committee, 13 Republicans, 7 Democrats. I would suggest to all you
Floridians that if you recognize any of them as your Senators in
your district, CONTACT them and let them know that you want them to
follow the other 38 states and protect us against the Federal
Government and reaffirm Florida's legislative sovereignty under
the United States Constitution's 10th Amendment.
Chair: Senator J. Alex Villalobos (R)
Vice Chair: Senator Dave Aronberg (D)
Senator JD Alexander (R)...
See More
Senator Lee Constantine (R)
Senator Victor D. Crist (R)
Senator Ted Deutch (D)
Senator Don Gaetz (R)
Senator Rudy Garcia (R)
Senator Andy Gardiner (R)
Senator Dennis L. Jones, D.C. (R)
Senator Charlie Justice (D)
Senator Alfred "Al" Lawson, Jr. (D)
Senator Evelyn J. Lynn (R)
Senator Joe Negron (R)
Senator Gary Siplin (D)
Senator Christopher L. "Chris" Smith (D)
Senator Eleanor Sobel (D)
Senator Ronda Storms (R)
Senator John Thrasher (R)
Senator Stephen R. Wise (R)
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that
investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released
its 2009 list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt
Politicians." The list, in alphabetical order, includes:
Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks
two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 "Ten
Most Corrupt" list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and
loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still
dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut
Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for
undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate
Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch's complaint
forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest
the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch
also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart
deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in
obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton
administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and
business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were
part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking
Committee.
Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of
scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted
illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush
payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year's
worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign.
Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of
one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special
favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence.
According to The New York Times: "The Justice
Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to
conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign
violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to
conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…" The
former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign's
office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite
the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign
seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying
access to his office as a payment for his silence about the
affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as
if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to
cover up his sexual shenanigans.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is
investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to
the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts
Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition
of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it
would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending.
Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it
was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations
of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including
owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Rep. Frank
admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator," and
Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder
despite Frank's intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover,
Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that
members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues,
risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even
as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to
rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For
example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003,
before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a
Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and
Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that
I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are
facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two
Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have
recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led
to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do
not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the
Treasury." Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions
from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank
also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae
Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which
has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In
2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he
failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and
Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member
countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we
mention Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn't until President
Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid
back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty
penalties. In March 2009, Geithner also came under fire for his
handling of the AIG bonus scandal, where the company used $165
million of its bailout funds to pay out executive bonuses,
resulting in a massive public backlash. Of course as head of the
New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft the AIG deal in
September 2008. However, when the AIG scandal broke, Geithner
claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009. The
timing is important. According to CNN: "Although Treasury
Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday
that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments
to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10,
sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed
Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28. That is
ten days before Treasury staffers say they first learned 'full
details' of the bonus plan, and three days before the [Obama]
Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for
AIG." Throw in another embarrassing disclosure in 2009 that
Geithner employed "household help" ineligible to work in
the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury Secretary
has earned a spot on the "Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in
Washington" list.
Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can
be sure he won't be hounded about his tax-dodging by his
colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch
strongly opposed Holder because of his
terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI
investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos
Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an
independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by
then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House;
undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by
Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and
planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian
Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro's
Cuba. Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism. Holder
bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill
Clinton's scandalous presidential pardons and commutations,
including for 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican
terrorist group that orchestrated approximately 120 bombings in
the United States, killing at least six people and permanently
maiming dozens of others, including law enforcement officers.
His record in the current administration is no better. As he did
during the Clinton administration, Holder continues to ignore
serious incidents of corruption that could impact his political
bosses at the White House. For example, Holder has refused to
investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP
access to the White House in exchange for
campaign contributions - a scheme eerily similar to one hatched
by Holder's former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The
Holder Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a
voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. On Election Day
2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb threatened
voters as they approached polling stations. Holder has also
failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the
notorious organization ACORN (Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now), which is closely tied to
President Obama. There were allegedly more than 400,000
fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the 2008 campaign. And
then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN Housing workers
advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration,
and child prostitution laws. Holder's controversial
decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on
previous efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact
that his former law firm has provided and continues to provide
pro bono representation to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.
Holder's politicization of the Justice Department makes one
long for the days of Alberto Gonzales.
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris
(D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved
a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell
President Obama's then-vacant Senate seat to the highest
bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal:
Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse
Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse
Jackson Jr., named "Senate Candidate A" in the
Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to
Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to
Obama's seat. Three days later federal authorities arrested
Blagojevich. Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his
contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for
trying to sell Obama's Senate seat. According to
Reuters: "Roland Burris came under
fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money
for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the
U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama…In
the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into
mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich -- later charged with
trying to sell Obama's Senate seat -- at the same time he
was expressing interest to the then-governor's aides about
his desire to be appointed." Burris changed his story five
times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the
Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of
those changing explanations came under oath.
President Barack Obama: During his
presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical
and transparent administration. However, in his first year in
office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy,
bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House.
Consider just a few Obama administration "lowlights" from
year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was
interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's scheme to sell the
President's former Senate seat to the highest bidder.
(Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie
Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich
scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling
claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White
House.The Obama White House believes it can violate the
privacy rights of American citizens without any legal
consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly
proclaimed that "transparency and the rule of law will be
the touchstones of this presidency," but his administration
is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial
Watch's Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing
to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires.
The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the
Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program)
into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to
persuade "artists" to promote the Obama agenda.
According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea
emerged as a direct result of the Obama
campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation.
President Obama has installed a record number of
"czars" in positions of power. Too many of these
individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but
the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to
Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional
questions). Under the President's bailout schemes, the
federal government continues to appropriate or control --
through fiat and threats -- large sectors of the private
economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write:
"The administration's central activity -- the political
allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely
susceptible to corruption, it is corruption."
Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House
coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office
to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the
private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for
terrorists, perks for campaign donors - this is Obama's
"ethics" record -- and we haven't even gotten
through the first year of his presidency.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the
corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement.
Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution)
apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel.
Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that
suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own
personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom
of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email
correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to
accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts
and military aircraft as well as the speaker's 11th hour
cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came
under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed
about the CIA's use of the waterboarding technique during
terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting
a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests
otherwise. Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a
CIA Inspector General report, which further
confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced
interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal
transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of
corruption within her own party, including many of the
individuals on this list. (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson,
Jr., etc.)
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA
Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the
wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal
investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct
defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha
associate, has been the congressman's largest campaign
contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA
and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from
Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks -- tens of millions
of dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention
surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it.
Following an FBI raid of PMA's offices earlier in 2009, Murtha
continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while
also hitting them up for campaign contributions. According to
The Hill, in April, "Murtha
reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients
for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations
bills." When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not
alone. As many as six other Members of Congress are currently
under scrutiny according to The Washington Post. They include:
Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA), Norm
Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and
Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.). Of course rather than investigate this
serious scandal, according to Roll
Call House Democrats circled the wagons, "cobbling
together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and
file." The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that
Murtha's nephew received $4 million in Defense Department
no-bid contracts: "Newly obtained
documents…show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential
family connection as leverage in his business dealings and
holding unusual power with the military."
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in
charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to
adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxes on $75,000
in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property.
He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence
to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled
apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to
fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax
loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On
top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial
disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He
somehow "forgot" about $1 million in assets.) And what
did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into
all of this? He apparently resorted to making "campaign
contributions" to dig his way out of trouble. According to
WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate: "The
reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently
'wrangling' other politicos to get him out of his own
financial and tax troubles...Since ethics probes began last year
the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119
members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on
the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating
him." Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in
Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways
and Means Committee, and he knows it. That's why he felt the
need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee
members and other congressional colleagues.
I NEED YOUR HELP..WakeUp!'s listeners have been challanged to
beat a Pledge for Relief in Haiti..We are working with
foodforthepoor.org who has been assisting the people of Haiti for
20 yrs. Forbes Mag survey of U.S. charities, Food For The Poor was
ranked 4th-largest recipient of private support and it's
charitable co...mmitment ratio was an impressive 97%. PLEASE GIVE
$12 (feed family of 4 for a mo) or any amount, large or small
www.foodforthepoor.org/whim or 866.433.4673 Please give if you
can..and Share or Resend, $12 feeds a family of four for a
MONTH..plus they don't just give a person a fish, this org
actually teaches poor villages to fish and equips them with ways to
improve their situation..Haiti will need to be rebuilt..this is
part of that transition because Foodforthepoor.org will be there
long after the ... See Moreother aid is gone. We have always
dedicated 10% of our show to serving local charities...this is a
Florida based charity, but the Haiti situation is local to all of
us. Call 866.433.4673 or online www.foodforthepoor.org/whim and
tell them it was a gift through The Doug Kosarek show on WHIM.
January 24, 2010 Why has Sarah Palin agreed to campaign for McCain?
Ann Kane Go figure. Why would Sarah Palin agree to stump for McCain
in Arizona? She must have learned through hellfire that loyalty in
politics is an oxymoron, yet, she can't let it go. She is the
real deal. An honest Sarah bemuses the political elites, but at the
same time plays right into their power grabbing hands. Michelle
Malkin says in her blog: At least she has an excuse: She's
caught between a loyalty rock and a partisan hard place. The
conservative base has no such obligations - and it is imperative
that they get in the game (as they did in Massachusetts) before
it's too late. The movement to restore limited government in
Washington has come too far, against all odds, to succumb to McCain
Regression Syndrome now. John McCain should just stop the endless
treadmill he's been on, and call it quits. Malkin writes: With
all due respect to McCain's past noble war service, it's
time to head to the pasture. As the Supreme Court ruled on
Thursday, he was wrong on the constitutionality of the
free-speech-stifling McCain-Feingold campaign finance regulations.
He was wrong to side with the junk-science global warming activists
in pushing onerous carbon caps on America. He was on the wrong side
of every Chicken Little-driven bailout. He was wrong in opposing
enhanced CIA interrogation methods that have saved countless
American lives and averted jihadi plots. And he was spectacularly
wrong in teaming with the open-borders lobby to push a dangerous
illegal alien amnesty. If Massachusetts proved anything, it's
that a non-partisan conservative movement has swept over this
nation, and the grassroots efforts of ordinary citizens will not
allow status quo politicians to come on board unless they show a
conversion of heart and embrace the new rules of revolution. Sarah
better cut the ties that bind her to the old way of thinking, and
get on with leading the country away from governmental tyranny.
I had just finished reading
the uncensored edition of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book, In
The First Circle (Harper Perennial, 2009), when I came across
Chris Hedges article, "One Day We'll All Be
Terrorists" (Truthdig, Dec. 28, 2009). In Hedges'
description of the US government's treatment of American
citizen Syed Fahad Hashmi, I recognized the Stalinist legal system
as portrayed by Solzhenitsyn.
Hashmi has been held in
solitary confinement going on three years. Guantanamo's
practices have migrated to the Metropolitan Correction Center in
Manhattan where Hashmi is held in the Special Housing Unit. His
access to attorneys, family, and other prisoners is prevented or
severely curtailed. He must clean himself and use toilet facilities
on camera. He is let out of solitary for one hour every 24 hours to
exercise in a cage.
Hashmi is a US citizen but
his government has violated every right guaranteed to him by the
Constitution. The US government, in violation of US law, is also
subjecting Hashmi to psychological torture known as extreme sensory
deprivation. The bogus "evidence" against him is
classified and denied to him. Like Joseph K. in Kafka's The
Trial, Hashmi is under arrest on secret evidence. As the case
against him is unknown or non-existent, defense is
impossible.
Hashmi's rights have
been abrogated by his government with the allegation that he is a
potential terrorist or perhaps just a terrorist sympathizer.
Another American citizen, Junaid Babar stayed with Hashmi for two
weeks and allegedly delivered ponchos and socks to al Qaeda in
Pakistan. Allegedly Babar used Hashmi's cell phone to reach
others aiding terrorists. The US government says that this suffices
to implicate Hashmi in Babar's activities.
Babar made a plea bargain to
five counts of "material support" for terrorism, but is
working off his prison sentence by testifying as a government
witness in other terror trials, including in Canada and the UK, and
as the US government's only evidence against
Hashmi.
Hashmi's real offense is
that he is a Muslim activist defending Muslim civil liberties and
making provocative statements about the US. As Michael Ratner,
president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, has pointed out,
federal courts have given the US government wide latitude to use
Hashmi's exercise of his constitutionally protected rights to
free speech and association as evidence of a terrorist frame of
mind and, thereby, of intent to commit terrorism.
Brooklyn College professor
Jeanne Theoharis warns us that an American citizen can now be tried
on secret evidence. "You can spend years in solitary
confinement before you are convicted of anything. There has been
attention paid to extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo and Abu
Ghraib with this false idea that if people are tried in the United
States things will be fair. But what allowed Guantanamo to happen
was the devolution of the rule of law here at home, and this is not
only happening to Hashmi."
Indeed, Hedges reports that
"radical activists in the environmental, [anti]-globalization,
anti-nuclear, sustainable agriculture and anarchist movements are
already being placed by the state in special detention facilities
with Muslims charged with terrorism." Hedges warns: "This
corruption of our legal system will not be reserved by the state
for suspected terrorists or even Muslim Americans. In the coming
turmoil and economic collapse, it will be used to silence all who
are branded as disruptive or subversive. Hashmi endures what many
others, who are not Muslim, will endure later."
The silence of bar
associations and law schools indicates an astounding insouciance to
Thomas Paine's warning: "He that would make his own
liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he
violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to
himself." Some of my Republican and conservative acquaintances
are even gleeful that, finally, we are going to get tough and deal
forcibly with "these people." They naively believe that
they themselves will remain safe when law ceases to be a shield of
the people and becomes a weapon in the hands of
government.
In "A Man For All
Seasons," Sir Thomas More cautions against cutting the law
down in order to chase after devils, for with the law cut down,
where do we stand when the devil turns on us?
Clearly, these fundamental
questions are of no concern to the US Department of Justice (sic),
to Congress or the White House, to the "mainstream
media," to the American people, or even to very much of the
federal judiciary.
Glenn Greenwald pointed out
in Salon (Dec. 4, 2009) that the Convention Against Torture,
championed and signed by President Ronald Reagan and ratified by
the US Senate, states: "Each State Party is required either to
prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite
them to other countries for prosecution. No exceptional
circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or threat of war,
internal political instability or any other public emergency may be
invoked as a justification of torture. Each State Party shall
ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under its criminal
law."
Two decades later the US
government tortures at will. Justice (sic) Department officials
write memos authorizing torture despite the ratified Convention
Against Torture, US law, and the Geneva Conventions. The Pew Poll
reports that 67 percent of Republicans and 47 percent of Democrats
support the use of torture.
And Americans think they
have freedom and democracy and live under the protection of the
rule of law.
Science on the Credibility Bubble Surely there must have been
serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point
worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were
putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature
of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the
climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their
breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern
politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture
of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the
East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once. I
don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This
isn't only about the credibility of global warming. For years,
global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard
science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would
associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The
public was told repeatedly that something called "the
scientific community" had affirmed the science beneath this
inquiry. A Nobel Prize was bestowed (on a politician). Global
warming enlisted the collective reputation of science. Because
"science" said so, all the world was about to undertake a
vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial
cost. Not every day does the work of scientists lead to galactic
events simply called Kyoto or Copenhagen. At least not since the
Manhattan Project. What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal
event. As the hard sciences-physics, biology, chemistry, electrical
engineering-came to dominate intellectual life in the last century,
some academics in the humanities devised the theory of
postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the
sciences. Postmodernism, a self-consciously "unprovable"
theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the
revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual
world has crossed into the hard sciences. This has harsh
implications for the credibility of science generally. Hard
science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left
accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay
persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia
emails will conclude that hard science has become just another
faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender
studies. The New England Journal of Medicine has turned into a
weird weekly amalgam of straight medical-research and propaganda
for the Obama redesign of U.S. medicine. The East Anglians'
mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming's
claims-plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to
publish-evokes the attempt to silence Galileo. The exchanges
between Penn State's Michael Mann and East Anglia CRU director
Phil Jones sound like Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of
the Inquisition. For three centuries Galileo has symbolized dissent
in science. In our time, most scientists outside this circle have
kept silent as their climatologist fellows, helped by the cardinals
of the press, mocked and ostracized scientists who questioned this
grand theory of global doom. Even a doubter as eminent as
Princeton's Freeman Dyson was dismissed as an aging crank.
Beneath this dispute is a relatively new, very postmodern
environmental idea known as "the precautionary
principle." As defined by one official version: "When an
activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health,
precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and
effect relationships are not fully established
scientifically." The global-warming establishment says we know
"enough" to impose new rules on the world's use of
carbon fuels. The dissenters say this demotes science's
traditional standards of evidence. The Environmental Protection
Agency's dramatic Endangerment Finding in April that greenhouse
gas emissions qualify as an air pollutant-with implications for a
vast new regulatory regime-used what the agency called a
precautionary approach. The EPA admitted "varying degrees of
uncertainty across many of these scientific issues." Again,
this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough
is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under
this theory. The Obama administration's new head of policy at
EPA, Lisa Heinzerling, is an advocate of turning precaution into
standard policy. In a law-review article titled "Law and
Economics for a Warming World," Ms. Heinzerling wrote,
"Policy formation based on prediction and calculation of
expected harm is no longer relevant; the only coherent response to
a situation of chaotically worsening outcomes is a precautionary
policy. . . ." If the new ethos is that
"close-enough" science is now sufficient to achieve
political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion
that politicians will press-gang them into service for future
agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has
an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia
emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries
of what we understand to be the role of science go with it. Write
to henninger@wsj.com About Daniel Henninger. Daniel Henninger is
deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. Mr.
Henninger joined Dow Jones in 1971 as a staff writer for the
National Observer. He became an editorial-page writer for the
Journal in 1977, arts editor in 1978 and editorial features editor
in 1980. He was appointed assistant editor of the editorial page in
1983 and chief editorial writer and senior assistant editor in
October 1986, with daily responsibility for the "Review &
Outlook" columns. In November 1989 he became deputy editor of
the editorial page. Mr. Henninger was a finalist for a Pulitzer
Prize in editorial writing in 1987 and 1996, and shared in the
Journal's Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper's coverage
of the attacks on September 11. In 2004, he won the Eric Breindel
Journalism Award for his "Wonder Land" column. He won the
Gerald Loeb Award for commentary in 1985. In 1998 he received the
Scripps Howard Foundation's Walker Stone Award for editorial
writing, for editorials on a range of issues, including the
International Monetary Fund, presidential politics and cloning. He
won the 1995 American Society of Newspaper Editors'
Distinguished Writing Award for editorial writing, and he was a
finalist in that award in 1985, 1986 and 1993. A native of
Cleveland, Mr. Henninger graduated from Georgetown University with
a bachelor's degree from the School of Foreign Service.
TIA Daily • December 1, 2009 FEATURE ARTICLE No Idea Whether
He's Coming or Going Obama's Afghanistan Strategy Is the
Bush Surge, But Without Conviction by Robert Tracinski Something
immediately struck me as strange, creepy really, about Barack
Obama's speech at West Point on his new strategy for
Afghanistan. Because I read the speech first, rather than listening
to it, my mind immediately filled in a familiar voice to speak
these lines-and it wasn't the voice of the current president.
Try it for yourself: We did not ask for this fight. On September
11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to
murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and
economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women,
and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were
it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of
those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great
symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more. As we
know, these men belonged to al Qaeda-a group of extremists who have
distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great
religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's
base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by
the Taliban-a ruthless, repressive, and radical movement that
seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of
Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America
and our friends had turned elsewhere…. Under the banner of
this domestic unity and international legitimacy-and only after the
Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden-we sent our troops
into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered
and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from
power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades
of fear now had reason to hope. And later: I am convinced that our
security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the
epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is
from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that
new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger;
no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have
apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from
the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of
terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards,
and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. Obama's speechwriters
always like to crib from past presidents. A little JFK here, a
little Reagan there. But I really didn't expect the first
paragraphs of this speech-and a few passages later on-to read
incongruously like a George W. Bush speech. (Except that Bush's
speeches were actually better than this. Obama has always been able
to use a smooth, measured delivery to elevate his pedestrian
material, while Bush's awkward delivery prevented his audience
from realizing what good speechwriters he had.) That weird
similarity sets the tone for the content of the speech, which is
Obama's endorsement of a repeat of the Bush "surge"
in Iraq-but without the sense of unwavering personal conviction
that Bush brought to his decision. Blaming Bush for all of the
challenges he faces is one of Obama's most annoying habits, and
he does so in this speech, too-but it only serves as camouflage to
cover up the fact that he is basically acting on the Bush legacy.
That becomes clear early in the speech with Obama's awkward,
indirect admission that we've won the war in Iraq. Or rather,
he says that we've "achieved hard-earned milestones in
Iraq" which allow us to bring the war "to a responsible
end." We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end
of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we
are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women
in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit, and perseverance, we
have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are
successfully leaving Iraq to its people. Does that mean we've
won? Of course it does, but Obama's not a big enough man to
come out and say so, because that would mean admitting that he was
wrong about the "surge," which he opposed. This is the
big context for Obama's speech. By ordering the
"surge" in Iraq, Bush demonstrated that America could
learn how to fight and win a counterinsurgency war. That was the
real answer to the "Vietnam Syndrome." The legacy of
Vietnam was not that America couldn't successfully fight a
conventional war. It was the fear that foreign insurgencies would
always prove to be quagmires and that we were always doomed to
lose. In Iraq, Bush provided a model for how to win such a war-and
he raised up into positions of command a whole cohort of officers
who are experienced at fighting them. One of those officers is
Stanley McChrystal. President Obama has basically accepted this
achievement without giving credit for it, and so he goes on to
apply to Afghanistan the same reasoning and strategy, the same
counter-insurgency "surge," that allowed us to achieve
all those "milestones" in Iraq. He even goes so far-and I
did not expect this-as to explicitly reject the comparison of
Afghanistan to Vietnam and to reject Vice-President Biden's
quixotic notion of fighting the war through isolated air strikes
against al-Qaeda hideouts. Even more surprising, given his explicit
rejection of this notion in past speeches, Obama caved in on
American exceptionalism: "[O]ur country has borne a special
burden in global affairs…. We have not always been thanked
for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more
than any other nation, the United States of America has
underwritten global security for over six decades-a time that, for
all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions
lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and
advancing frontiers of human liberty." Thank you for the
acknowledgement, Mr. President. It's about time. And yet there
is still one big difference between Obama and Bush. Yes, he backed
the Afghan surge, but throughout his speech, Obama conveyed no
sense of conviction, of an unshakable personal commitment to
victory in this war. Quite the opposite. To begin with, consider
the shallowness of his actual explanation of his "new"
Afghan counter-insurgency strategy. As far as I can tell, this is
all there really is to it: The 30,000 additional troops that I am
announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010-the
fastest pace possible-so that they can target the insurgency and
secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to
train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so
that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create
the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to
the Afghans. This is one of the vaguest descriptions I have ever
heard of the military science of counter-insurgency. It glosses
over virtually everything. President Bush used to talk in detail
about "clear, hold, and build" strategies, and during
last year's campaign, John McCain spoke authoritatively about
reforming the fractured command structure of international troops
in Afghanistan. These are the kind of details that convey a sense
that a leader is really engaged with and understands the details of
the war policy he is ordering. We should expect as much or more out
of President Obama. After all, wasn't his over-prolonged,
nearly four-month period of analysis justified by the claim that
Obama was thoroughly investigating every detail and considering
every possibility? But his speech shows no trace of such an
exacting effort. It shows no knowledge of or interest in the
details and implementation of the strategy it announces. For
example, the president gives General McChrystal almost as many
troops as he asked for, but not quite. Why that many troops and not
more? What does he know that his commander in the field
doesn't? What objective was going to be accomplished with the
extra troops that will now have to be abandoned? Obama offers no
explanation. Or note the speech's reference to the idea that
the added troops will "secure key population centers."
This gives us our only clue about the difference between 30,000
extra troops and the 40,000 to 45,000 McChrystal wanted. It implies
that some population centers and possibly large swathes of the
Afghan countryside will not be secured. But which areas are
"key" to victory and which are not? And doesn't this
just mean holding the cities while the insurgents control the
countryside-the recipe that led to failure for the Soviets? Maybe
there's a good answer to these questions, but we sure
didn't hear it from the president. It's looking more and
more like Obama's exaggerated period of indecision on
Afghanistan was intended to demonstrate to the left that he is
thorough and deliberate-the opposite of their caricature of Bush as
a "gut player" who rushes into war-in order to give cover
for his decision to order a surge. And the decision to cut the
number of troops was intended to show his skepticism concerning the
claims of his generals-again, in contrast to Bush-while not
actually changing the overall strategy. But the shallowness of
Obama's decision is most clearly demonstrated by the way he
talks about having a timetable for US withdrawal: Taken together,
these additional American and international troops will allow us to
accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow
us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July
of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this
transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the
ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's
Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul.
But it will be clear to the Afghan government-and, more
importantly, to the Afghan people-that they will ultimately be
responsible for their own country. Again, is this all we get from
the man who spent four months supposedly exploring every angle of
the war strategy? He says that this withdrawal timetable will
"take into account conditions on the ground"-yet he is
predicting it for a specific month, before the Afghan surge has
even been implemented and at a point when our position in
Afghanistan is still deteriorating. All of this invites the
question: what happens if July 2011 arrives and we're not
clearly winning yet? Will Obama still insist on a withdrawal? No
wonder Obama advisor David Axelrod was reduced to incoherence when
he was asked about this timetable. Half of winning a
counter-insurgency war is conveying a sense of resolve. You want
the enemy to sense that continued resistance is futile because you
just won't give up, and you want your allies and potential
allies to sense that they can rely on you over the long term. But
no one wants to cooperate with the US if they suspect that
we're stampeding for the exits in July 2011, and their heads
are going to end up on display in the town square the next day.
This is the crucial issue of Obama's speech: convincingly
demonstrating and explaining the degree of his resolve to achieve
victory in Afghanistan. And Obama is disastrously unclear. He
announces a surge-while at the same time announcing a withdrawal.
Obama doesn't know whether he's coming or going. Or as Der
Spiegel put it, "It was a dizzying combination of surge and
withdrawal, of marching to and fro." The deeper impression
conveyed by Obama's speech is that he doesn't really care
that much about Afghanistan. He's just checking a box on one of
his expected responsibilities as president, but his heart isn't
in it. I suspect this is the real reason for his extended
indecision. The passage that is most ominous in this respect begins
with the most completely non-stirring quotation I have ever heard
in a major presidential speech: "Indeed, I am mindful of the
words of President Eisenhower, who-in discussing our national
security-said, 'Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a
broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among
national programs.'" Obama then cites the more pressing
needs of the economy and of his plans for domestic spending:
"In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends
and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and
too many Americans are worried about the future facing our
children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has
grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price
of these wars." To turn Jefferson's famous dictum upside
down and inside out, Obama's rule seems to be: trillions for
health-care and "stimulus," but billions for defense?-I
don't know. We'll have to "balance our
priorities." Deep down, Obama is still a dyed-in-the-wool
leftist who believes that war is a jingoistic distraction from the
task of imposing socialism on the economy-that a bayonet is a
weapon with a worker on both ends. That's why we're getting
a half-hearted surge. The message of Obama's speech is: I'm
surging troops into Afghanistan to show the hawks I'm serious,
but I really want to get out as soon as possible because I think
other things are more important. The message to the Taliban and
al-Qaeda is: wait me out. Sure, the next year is going to be really
tough with all of those extra US troops coming after you. But if
you can just hang tough until July of 2011, I'll decide America
has done all it can afford to do, and we'll leave. That
doesn't mean that we are doomed to lose in Afghanistan. We have
many more advantages there than we usually realize. And remember
that the crucial turning point came in Iraq in early 2007,
precisely at the point when the Democratic Congress was attempting
to cut off funding for the war. If I had to bet-and all of us are
anted up for this game-I would say that an Afghan surge will
produce significant results next year, making it a political
success that Obama will want to keep rolling. (God knows he'll
need one.) And so the withdrawal timetable will suddenly become
very flexible. But still, signs of wavering and divided priorities
in the commander-in-chief are far more significant than anti-war
sentiment in Congress. That's particularly true from the
perspective of our enemies, who are accustomed to authoritarianism;
they know to ignore the carping of the political flunkies and just
size up the head guy giving the orders. And Obama's speech must
have made him seem weak and uncommitted. As a result, he
significantly and unnecessarily undermined the prospects for the
success of his own strategy.
Mises Daily: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 by Floy Lilley Floy
Lilley is an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute. She was
formerly with the University of Texas at Austin's Chair of Free
Enterprise, and an attorney-at-law in Texas and Florida. There are
three things everybody knows when we talk trash: 1.We know
we're running out of landfill space; 2.we know we're saving
resources and protecting the environment by recycling; and 3.we
know no one would recycle if they weren't forced to. Let's
look at these three things we think we know. Are they real or are
they rubbish? 1. Are We Running Out of Landfill Space? Two events
created the perfect garbage storm in the late 1980s. One barge and
one bureaucrat created this overhyped myth. The garbage barge was
the Mobro 4000. The bureaucrat was J. Winston Porter. The Mobro
4000 gained celebrity status by spending two months and 6,000 miles
seeming to scour the Atlantic coastline and the Gulf of Mexico
looking for a home for its load, as if no landfills existed. The
physical availability of landfill space was not the issue, but you
would not have guessed that from the hysteria the media whipped up.
J. Winston Porter became a star that season at the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) by writing a report entitled The Solid
Waste Dilemma: Agenda for Action, in which Porter proclaimed that
recycling is absolutely vital because America is running out of
landfill space. What Porter thought he knew was simply not so. The
EPA had noticed that the number of landfills was dropping. They
failed to notice that the size of landfills was getting much bigger
much faster. Total landfill capacity was actually rising. The EPA
also underestimated the prospects for creating additional capacity.
Obviously, and as usual, the real landfill problem is not a
landfill problem at all but a political problem. "Fears about
the effects of landfills on the local environment have led to the
rise of the not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) syndrome, which has made
permitting facilities difficult. Actual landfill capacity is not
running out." Today, 1,654 landfills in 48 states take care of
54 percent of all the solid waste in the country. One-third of them
are privately owned. The largest landfill, in Las Vegas, received
3.8 million tons during 2007 at fees within the national range of
$24 to $70 per ton. Landfills are no longer a threat to the
environment or public health. State-of-the-art landfills, with
redundant clay, plastic liners, and leachate collection systems,
have now replaced all of our previously unsafe dumps. "We are
not running out of landfill space."More and more landfills are
producing pipeline-quality natural gas. Waste Management plans to
turn 60 of their waste sites into energy facilities by 2012. The
new plants will capture methane gas from decomposing landfill
waste, generating more than 700 megawatts of electricity, enough to
power 700,000 homes. Holding all of America's garbage for the
next one hundred years would require a space only 255 feet high or
deep and 10 miles on a side. Landfills welcome the business. Forty
percent of what we recycle ends up there anyway. We are not running
out of landfill space. 2. Are We Saving Resources and Protecting
the Environment by Recycling? What are the costs in energy and
material resources to recycling as opposed to landfill disposal,
which we've just looked at? Which method of handling solid
waste uses the least amount of resources as valued by the market?
As government budgets tighten and the cost of being
"green" rubs against the reality of rising taxes,
recycling coordinators like Auburn University's Leigh Jacobson
will increasingly be under pressure to justify their programs as
cost-effective alternatives to waste-disposal methods like
landfills. I don't think she will be able to do it. But it
should be easier for Leigh at the university than it will be for
her counterpart in the City of Auburn, or in any city that funds
curbside recycling. Curbside recycling is substantially more costly
- that is, it uses far more resources - than a program in which
disposal is combined with a voluntary drop-off/buy-back option.
Overall, curbside recycling's costs run between 35 percent and
55 percent more than other recycling methods, because it uses huge
amounts of capital and labor per pound of material recycled.
Recycling itself uses three times more resources than does
depositing waste in landfills. The largest US organization
dedicated to recycling just found out how difficult this chosen
path can be. The final death knell for the National Recycling
Coalition (NRC) appeared to ring earlier this year when the
organization announced it would be filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
The NRC ceased operations and terminated all staff members at the
close of business on September 4, shortly after an attempt to merge
with Keep America Beautiful failed. NRC is now trying to avoid
bankruptcy by reorganization. Even though they are a half-million
dollars in debt, NRC may legally continue to exist if they can
raise funds, negotiate with their creditors and develop a business
plan. What seems to be their business plan? They are counting on
the Kerry-Boxer Bill on clean energy to include recycling language.
In other words, they are counting on being bailed out and
subsidized. The market knows this is a losing proposition, so these
players are trying to get taxpayers to fund their enterprises.
"Wherever private-property rights to forests are well-defined
and enforced, forests are either stable or growing."The Solid
Waste Association of North America found that, of the six
communities involved in a particular study, all but one of the
curbside recycling programs, and all the composting operations and
waste-to-energy incinerators, increased the cost of waste disposal.
Indeed, the price for recycling tends to soar far higher than the
combined costs of manufacturing raw materials from virgin sources
and dumping rubbish into landfills. Recycled newspapers must be
deinked, often with chemicals, creating sludge. Even if the sludge
is harmless, it too must be disposed of. Second, recycling more
newspapers will not necessarily preserve trees, because many trees
are grown specifically to be made into paper. The amount of new
growth that occurs each year in forests exceeds by a factor of 20
the amount of wood and paper that is consumed by the world each
year. Wherever private-property rights to forests are well-defined
and enforced, forests are either stable or growing. Glass is made
from silica dioxide - that's common beach sand - the most
abundant mineral in the crust of the earth. Plastic is derived from
petroleum byproducts after fuel is harvested from the raw material.
Recycling paper, glass, or plastic is usually not justified
compared to the virgin prices of these materials. The best way to
measure the scarcity of natural resources, such as trees, sand, or
oil, is to use the market prices of those resources. If the price
of a resource is going up over time (and it's not just
inflation pushing those prices higher) the resource is getting
scarcer. If the price is going down, it is becoming more plentiful.
Indeed, since 1845, the average price of raw materials has fallen
roughly 80 percent after adjusting for inflation. This paradox of
our having more by using more is explained by the use of the most
important resource - man's mind. Human ingenuity makes natural
resources increasingly available through prices, innovation, and
substitution. Bureaucrats, however, appear to occupy a place at the
opposite end from human ingenuity. Their interferences in markets
do damage. Just two examples will illustrate what I mean by that.
One is about a light that has a dark side. The other example
requires that you either clean your plate or become a composter. In
2007, Congress banned incandescent bulbs - not exactly a market
action. The phasing out of incandescent light is to begin with the
100-watt bulb in 2012 and end with the 40-watt bulb in 2014. By
2020, bulbs must be 70 percent more efficient than they are today.
While a standard, 100-watt bulb costs $1.24, the spiral compact
fluorescent light (CFL) 100-watt sells for $4.97. Advocates argue,
however, that the CFL lasts longer and uses less energy. The
packaging claims that after six years I will have saved $74 in
energy. Thereby, in the year 2007 alone, under this edict, some 397
million compact fluorescent light bulbs were placed on the market.
Their debut is counted as a success. "Recycling would seem to
be the philosophy that everything is worth saving except your own
time and money."However, the recycling of spent household CFLs
has been an abject failure. Despite CFL-disposal bans in states
like Maine, despite continuing statewide education efforts, and
despite a free CFL-recycling program there, households throw the
used bulbs into the trash that ends up in the landfills. What's
the problem with that? Landfills, as we've learned, have the
space and the appetite for our waste. Well, the problem is the
potential public and environmental health effects of the collective
release of the small amount of mercury in each discarded CFL. For
example, using the mean amount of 5 milligrams per CFL, the total
amount of mercury contained in the 2007 shipments of CFLs alone is
a large amount. There is no mention on GE's packaging of the
bulb's mercury component or any special precautions you must
take when this bulb breaks. Notice that "mercury free" is
already a selling point for the producers of new LED technology
Accent bulbs. "Accent" means you can't actually get
enough light from them to read by. But, you can tell the packager
has obviously experienced how ugly the CFL-produced light is,
because the buyer is assured a warm, white light, which is
something you do not get with a CFL. In June of this year, Maine
adopted the nation's first law that requires CFL bulb
manufacturers to share the costs and responsibility for recycling
mercury-containing CFLs through a producer-financed collection and
recycling program, which must include an education component. This
mandate will drive the CFLs' cost even higher. Additional
specialized equipment will have to be created for handling light
bulbs that will be seen to be hazardous waste. How can any savings
ever result from such a boondoggle? Then, bringing new depth and
meaning to the word "boondoggle," San Francisco's
newest mandatory-recycling ordinance took effect last month. All
residences, all restaurants and all commercial buildings must
participate in the city's recycling and composting programs. A
recent study had unearthed the fact that 36 percent of the
city's landfilled waste is compostable. That happens to be the
ingredient that makes the landfill valuable as an energy source.
Collecting your food scraps, plant trimmings, soiled paper, and
other compostables is considered necessary by San Franciscans to
fight global warming. Residents get both a green cart and a green
report titled "Stop Trashing the Planet." Residents face
$100 fines if they fail to separate their food scraps from their
papers or cans. Businesses face fines of $500. Really bad actors
could be fined $1,000. The stated goal is to get to zero waste,
meaning no garbage at all going into landfills, by the year 2020.
Obviously, San Francisco believes we have run out of landfill
space. Obviously, they do not have the vision to see the energy
plants that landfills can become when waste is actually put in
them. In light of these facts, how can San Franciscans and others
think recycling conserves resources? First, many states and local
communities subsidize recycling programs, either out of tax
receipts or out of fees collected for trash disposal. That's
the case with Auburn University's recycling grant. Thus the
bookkeeping costs reported for such programs are far less than
their true resource costs to society. Also, observers sometimes
erroneously compare relatively high-cost, twice a week garbage
pickup with relatively low-cost, once or twice a month recycling
pickups, which makes recycling appear more attractive.
"Mandated recycling exists mainly because there is plenty of
money to be made by labeling products as "green" or
"recycled" to get municipal and federal grants."Why
do these same people think that recycling is protecting the
environment by not polluting? Recycling is a manufacturing process,
and therefore it too has environmental impact. The US Office of
Technology Assessment says that it is "usually not clear
whether secondary manufacturing such as recycling produces less
pollution per ton of material processed than primary manufacturing
processes." Increased pollution by recycling is particularly
apparent in the case of curbside recycling. Los Angeles has
estimated that its fleet of trucks is twice as large as it
otherwise would be - 800 versus 400 trucks. This means more iron
ore and coal mining, more steel and rubber manufacturing, more
petroleum extracted and refined for fuel - and of course all that
extra air pollution in the Los Angeles basin as the 400 added
trucks cruise the curbs. Manufacturing paper, glass, and plastic
from recycled materials uses appreciably more energy and water, and
produces as much or more air pollution, as manufacturing from raw
materials does. Resources are not saved and the environment is not
protected. 3. Do People Recycle Only When They Are Forced To? If
all we knew about recycling was what we heard from environmentalist
groups, recycling would seem to be the philosophy that everything
is worth saving except your own time and money. Costs of recycling
are mostly hidden. If we add in the weekly costs of sorting out
items, it makes more sense to place everything in landfills. But
private recycling is the world's second oldest, if not the
oldest, profession. Recyclers were just called scavengers.
Everything of value has always been recycled. You will
automatically know that something is of value when someone offers
to buy it from you, or you see people picking through your waste or
diving into dumpsters. Aluminum packaging has never been more than
a small fraction of solid waste, because metals have value.
Ragpickers separating out cloth from waste may not be in season
now, but cardboard, wood, and metals have always been in some
demand. Scrapyards recycle iron and steel because making steel from
virgin iron and coal is more expensive. Members of the Institute of
Scrap Recycling Industries recycle 60 million tons of ferrous
metals, 7 million tons of nonferrous metals, and 30 million tons of
waste paper, glass, and plastic each year - an amount that dwarfs
that of all government (city, county, and state) recycling
programs. Recycling is a long-practiced, productive, indeed
essential, element of the market system. Informed, voluntary
recycling conserves resources and raises our wealth, enabling us to
achieve valued ends that would otherwise be impossible. So yes,
people do recycle even when they are not forced to do so. Henry
Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises speak to our recycling topic. However,
forcing people to recycle makes society worse off. Mandated
recycling exists mainly because there is plenty of money to be made
by labeling products as "green" or "recycled"
to get municipal and federal grants. In Economics in One Lesson,
Hazlitt teaches us that mandatory recycling considers only-short
term benefits to a few groups - politicians, public-relations
consultants, environmental organizations, and waste-handling
corporations - instead of looking at the longer-term effects of the
policy for all groups. The negative consequence will be the
squandering of human resources. In conclusion, Mises also teaches
us what to expect. Mises, in his great work Human Action, does not
say that recycling is a bad belief. He shows by example that
mandatory recycling is an inappropriate means of caring about the
environment. Waste is inescapable. Austrian economics leaves it to
every person to decide whether his or her belief in recycling is
more important than the avoidance of the inevitable consequences of
forced recycling policies: wasted natural resources and wasted
human resources.
David Bromwich.Professor of Literature at Yale Posted: December 2,
2009 01:23 PM An unusually reflective lawyer once advised a
purchaser of a house that a contract should not be signed or money
paid before the seller made all the final repairs and improvements.
"Do it straight and plain -- you don't want the tail in
the door." Something about President Obama's West Point
Speech on Afghanistan brought to mind that suspicious proverb. To
take a country farther into a questionable war ought to be harder
than opening a parenthesis and saying you know where you will close
it. Yet Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops to
Afghanistan had all the composed clarity of a logical proposition.
Throughout the speech -- which sought to justify the most important
act of his presidency -- Obama was poised and moderate-sounding.
His idea of what his escalation would do seemed moderate, too, and
definite: self-contained and self-terminating. The 30,000 troops
will go into Afghanistan quickly, he said, so that the last arrive
within six months. They will commence their departure a year later,
in July 2011. It was a gratifying picture and an orderly one; and
yet it raised a question. Can you turn up the violence of a war and
then turn it down? Will it stop, like that, when you tell it to?
President Obama justified the intensification of his commitment in
Afghanistan by the fact that we are still fighting Al Qaeda. It was
Al Qaeda that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, he
said, and the organization now operates in the border-region of
Afghanistan and Pakistan. We therefore have a double reason for
scouring the country of the remnants of the fanatical sect. For
Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Al Qaeda wants to obtain such a
weapon, and if it had one it would use it against the United
States. Yet here occurred the first of several noticeable
omissions. According to the president's national security
adviser, James Jones, Al Qaeda's members now number as few as
100. The president also asserted -- on what evidence he did not say
-- that Al Qaeda is locked in a stable alliance with the Taliban
forces. Yet James Jones in the same remarks concluded that he does
not "foresee the return of the Taliban" to power. Obama,
then, was playing up the links between Al Qaeda and the Taliban in
much the way his predecessor played up the supposed links between
Al Qaeda and the Baath Party of Iraq; but, with Afghanistan today,
as with Iraq in 2004, it is easy to put oneself in possession of
facts that refute the claim. We know now that the effect of the
American bombings and invasion was initially to put to rout and
scatter the group and then, with the stimulant of the Iraq war, to
multiply it into a score of sects and cells in whose names we
barely know -- in North Africa, Indonesia, and elsewhere. Yet the
president spoke as if Al Qaeda were the name of a distinct, finite,
searchable entity that can be subdued by an intensification
(lasting exactly 18 months) of American fighting in the country
that was once its camp. As for the Taliban, whatever else they may
be, they are native to Afghanistan. This cannot be said of Al
Qaeda, but it cannot be said, either, of the soldiers, trainers,
advisers, and contractors sent by the United States. There is a
curious air of exactness in the idea of a renewed and extended war
that closes at 18 months because that "benchmark" was
settled in advance. How can anyone be sure that the scale of so
entangling a mission, with so many pitfalls, will fit neatly into
the shape of a year and a half? From another point of view, the
case for the urgency of the mission -- that the protection of
American lives in the U.S. depends on it -- really proves too much.
If the enemy is so potent and has so long and sure a reach -- if
the surviving 100 members of Al Qaeda are among the greatest
dangers the U.S. faces in the world -- we should be willing to stay
and fight for fifty years or a hundred, and to colonize the country
if need be, with a million settlers acting as our sentinels. The
truth is that half of the president's logic believes in the
urgency of this mission and half perceives no urgency at all. Since
people who fear for their lives tend to err on the side of
self-protection, we may infer that something other than the
imperative of national self-preservation drove the West Point
speech and is driving the new policy. Several possibilities are
obvious and have been much discussed: President Obama's
cautious relationship to the military; his wariness of the
ambitious general, David Petraeus, and the commander of forces in
Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, who is an emanation of Petraeus.
By leaking the high-end figure for the numbers of troops he would
have liked, McChrystal threatened to outflank the president, and
that threat has been quelled only for the moment. Meanwhile,
Obama's fear of being called weak on defense by Republicans,
and thus seeing his stature in foreign affairs diminished for the
rest of his term, was doubtless a motive as well. A president needs
a war, or so they say. Having a war did not protect Lyndon Johnson
from an insurgent movement in his own party's primaries that
denied him a second term, nor did it save Richard Nixon from being
driven out of office in disgrace, but the superstition remains: it
never harms a president to have a war in his pocket. President
Obama's assurance about the neatness of the solution extends
beyond the violence of the war to the resolution of Afghanistan
into a better political society under American guidance. He told
his West Point audience that the Karzai government may have proved
itself corrupt, but we expect the new money being sent to be placed
in the hands of the uncorrupt, and we will expect all the corrupt
to be "held accountable." But how? By what species of
oversight, given the scarcity of competent civilians and Americans
on the ground who even speak the language? At this point, one is
struck, not for the first time, by a psychological oddity in
Obama's makeup. He is almost convinced of the omnipotence of
words. When once he has persuaded himself of a thing -- that it is
true, or that it is plausible and might become true -- the words
that embody his conviction have for him the quality of deeds
already done. It did not work so happily with his spoken wish for a
freeze of Israeli settlements; and he has seen the word falter on
the brink of the deed, once more, in the wish for a comprehensive
health care bill before the summer or before Thanksgiving. Still,
his sense of the omnipotence of words was at work in his declared
belief regarding the utility of an 18-month extension of the war.
Obama dealt with the Vietnam analogy in passing, in an attempt to
dispel the fears that a similar entanglement is on the brink of
recurring. Yet he argued the point in a way that could only remind
his older listeners that the president was very young during the
Vietnam War. His study of it has been abstract and conventional. He
said the analogy did not hold because in Vietnam we had no allies.
In fact, Australia and Canada both gave limited but real assistance
in the form of ground forces, and other allies of the time gave
less direct assistance. The number of troops supplied by our
European allies in Afghanistan has been similarly small thus far,
despite the ostensibly greater danger to them by the proximity of
Al Qaeda to Europe. The president also noted that Vietnam had never
attacked the United States, whereas Al Qaeda did attack us. But
that contrast loses its force under two legitimate questions: who
exactly are Al Qaeda now, and where are they located? In many ways
the Vietnam War, though of an atrociousness that Afghanistan War
has not yet approached, was pursued by the U.S. obedient to a much
sounder theory than any offered for the present war. The theory was
that World Communism was all one thing and its spread to a single
country would lead inevitably to its spread to a continent. The
theory turned out to be false; and its falseness was perceived as
early as 1964 by critics of the war such as Hans J. Morgenthau. But
what are we doing in Afghanistan but following an inferior and less
persuasive version of a similar theory: namely that World Terrorism
is all one thing, that its heart is in Afghanistan (because that is
where we found it), and that if we don't "defeat" it
soon by "completing the mission," the terror will stay
and spread. Omitted is the fact that Afghanistan is not our
country. Admittedly, this is a truth that comes hard to Americans.
"The very idea of the fabrication of a new government,"
wrote Edmund Burke, "is enough to fill us with disgust and
horror." But David Brooks disagrees: "aside from killing
bad guys," he wrote in the spring, American troops are
"also trying to figure out how to reweave Afghan
society." By what right do we engage in the reweaving and
refabrication of a society that has thrown out conquerors for
thousands of years? The effect of the self-conceit can only be to
unite the society in hostility against us. For America to look on
the native resistance to an occupying army as proof of terrorism
will surely increase the obduracy of the resistance itself, and
serve to recruit more terrorists. Our war in the border regions is
being fought by drone assassinations. A man at the control sits in
front of a screen in Las Vegas, and fires when he has a certain
shot. To a primitive mind (but not only to a primitive mind), this
experiment on a country not our own has the trappings a video game
played in hell. But the procedure was here embraced by the
president in the antiseptic idiom of a practiced technocrat. He
gave no sign of the effects of such killings by a foreign power out
of reach in the sky. To assassinate one major operative, Baitullah
Mehsud, as Jane Mayer showed in a recent article in the New Yorker,
16 strikes were necessary, over 14 months, killing a total of as
many as 538 persons, of whom 200-300 were bystanders. What comes of
the reputation of policemen in a crime-ridden neighborhood when
they conduct themselves like that? And what makes anyone suppose
the reaction will be less extreme when the policeman comes from
another country? And yet, from the president's West Point
speech, one would not guess that he has reflected what our mere
presence in West Asia does to increase the enchantment of violent
resistance and to heat the anger that turns into terrorists people
who have lost parents, children, cousins, clansmen, and friends to
the Americans. The total number of Muslims killed by Americans in
revenge for the attacks of September 11th now numbers in the
hundreds of thousands. Of those, few were members of Al Qaeda, and
few harbored any intention, for good or ill, toward the United
States before we crossed the ocean as an occupying power. President
Obama closed his speech by offering his large American audience a
warm bath of self-love about the American way of life. The rest of
the world will want to "access opportunity" and resemble
us as soon as they learn what we are really like, he said. This
long peroration was ordinary and at the same time reminiscent of
the war speeches of George W. Bush. By contrast Obama did not talk
about the abstract issue that would have taken some courage to
broach: the danger that war is becoming an integrated part of the
American way of life. George W. Casey, Chief of Staff of the U.S.
Army, has spoken in several recent speeches about the present as
"an era of persistent conflict." So deeply has the Cheney
Axiom of Endless War has taken hold of the minds of officials and
policy-makers. Yet nowhere in his speech did the president address
the risk of this view for democracy, or separate himself from the
doctrine itself. Indeed, he has gone some way to embrace it and
join the pattern of "persistence" -- with the reservation
that he thinks by setting limits he can remove its sting. Hans
Morgenthau, in one of the articles he published against the
escalation in Vietnam, paraphrased the lines of Goethe's Faust
on the fatality of every choice: take a first step and you are a
free man, take the second and you become the slave of your choice.
For Obama, giving the command of Afghanistan to General McChrystal
was the first step, and a step he must have taken knowingly. Then
came the leaked memo from the ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl
Eikenberry, urging Obama to send no more troops -- and with that
letter, an almost miraculous chance of a reprieve. Nobody could
have said those words with more effect, since Eikenberry is a
military man, and one whom both Petraeus and McChrystal had looked
up to. He was throwing Obama a lifeline; but the miracle was
unorthodox, and Obama has the caution of the orthodox. He acted as
if the memo had never been received. The new shipment of troops to
Afghanistan is his second step. Barack Obama is the most convincing
person he knows. He can convince himself of a proposition,
"A," and a second proposition, "Not A," and
come to believe that the two may be combined. At West Point, he
seemed to want to declare a policy and take it back in a single
breath. But there are circles that can't be squared; and it is
with war as with other fatal commitments: the way in is not the way
out.