According to an animal study consducted at the University of Maryland, the HINI virus responsible for the swine flu (called the “grippe porcine” in France and Belgium) does not (appear to) mutate and thus will not become more virulent this season, say the experts who have shown that the new pathogen does not combine with other virus strains such as the seasonal flu. See: From: http://www.lesoir.be/actualite/sciences_sante/2009-09-01/virus-h1n1-devrait-muter-super-pathogene-725530.shtml.
Using ferrets infected by three different virus strains the researchers have observed that the HINI does not combine with the other viral strains to form a super-virus, something which had been feared it might do, (as did the 1918 “Spanish Flu”), this according to a study published on Tuesday…September 1, 2009.
The HINI is contrary to what was expected, is different from the others and reproduces in the body of the ferrets on average two times faster than the other virus strains.
“The HINI virus takes clearly the lower of the two other principle strains of seasonal flu and has all of the characteristics of a pathogen totally adapted to the human organism.” Observed Danile Perez, director of the agricultural program to prevent and control avian flu who in the University of Maryland, and who is the principle author of the work.
“I am not surprised that the HINI virus is more virulent for the simple reason that it is new and that the infected subjects have not had the time to develop immunity, while the other older strains of flu have developed a immune resistance.”
“The results of this study leave on the think that the HINI flu virus will dominate the virus season and could equally be more contagious,” has stated Dr. Antony Fauci, director of the American National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) which financed Dr. Perez’s research.
These new data, though preliminary, show the necessity of a vaccination against the seasonal flu and the swine flu this autumn and winter.
In a side-piece Le Soire.be adds:
The EU has Stopped Counting
The European Union, which has tabulated at least 46,000 cases of the swine flu, has ceased to publish daily account since the at this phase of the pandemic many EU member countries have ceased to test more patients. “The disease is benign, and not very much more grave than the ordinary seasonal flu,” has insisted Suzanna Jakab, director of the European Center for Prevention and Control of Disease (ECDC). The seasonal flu kills about 40,000 people annually in the EU. “The disease (each year) actually hits 1% of the EU population. This autumn, this proportion could attain about 30% “(of the population), if the virus does not become more virulent, has indicated Mme Jakab
Trans rjk
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
GEORGE WILL, CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST, CALLS FOR US WITHDRAWL FROM AFGHANISTAN
George Will, the Washington Post journalist and popular TV talking head who is often considered the intelligent conservative’s columnist, has called for the US to get out of Afghanistan. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912.html (downloaded September 1, 2009)
This author agrees wholeheartedly. As a nation, our policies have caused more harm to that isolated and mountainous country than any good our continued stay might acheive. Our pre-Soviet-invasion-support for the anti-communist insurgency as well as our self-serving support for the Mujahedeen in the ensuing Soviet-Afghan war (where according to some, we actually worked to encourage the Soviet invasion as an anti-communist cold-war policy) caused untold harm there in the decade of the 1980s. While our recent invasion, after 2001, to "out" the Taliban and "capture or kill"--one man-- Osama Bin Laden, has horribly compounded those effects. (Since those simpler times, our reason for being in Afghanistan has slowly morphed from that into several less clear and logical others.) But perhaps at this point, simple benign neglect is what the Afghan State needs and deserves from us now.
The reaction to Mr. George Will's Afghan column came out of a dark silent night like a drone hit on the GOP right wing and the "any war is a good war" neocon supporters. As I see it also hammered home another nail in the Bush-Cheney foreign policy coffin. Coming from Mr Will, who is well known hawk and a strong supporter of ex-President George Bush's foreign policy, as well as part of conservative cadre of intellectuals in Washington this was damaging. Will kept the drum-beat for Bush's so-called "international war on terror". And he is a Washington insider who has never heard of a troop increase, or invasion he didn't support (up to now). He is an odd bedfellow for those of us who are opposed to this war.
Will's piece in the WaPo begins by stating that our weary engagement in Afghanistan has a long history. It is an old war already. Will points out that we have been there nearly twice as long as our involvement in the two great world wars. And what have we accomplished? Answering that question George Will politely skewers the neocon talking heads and medal-bedecked generals who are caught in a Ground Hog Day mentality concerning how to "win" in Afghanistan. Will to his benefit sees no options of success in that quarter, and I agree. He points out that our so-called “new” strategy of “protecting the population” is one that is heavily dependent upon more American troops. This “troop intensive” policy puts great pressure on an already strained military and greatly increases the likelihood for our forces to be targeted and killed or injured. Furthermore, the related policy of “clear, hold and build” cannot work where the Taliban (Will’s term..but the vast majority of forces opposing the US are local war lords and “ethnics” and have little coherence with the Taliban per se) can melt into the mountainous country-side, re-gather elsewhere and attack other unprotected areas. The Taliban's strategy recalls for me General McArthur’s "island hopping policy" used in the Pacific during WWII against entrenched Japanese forces on heavily fortified islands—McArthur just avoided strongly defended places and attacked elsewhere. Furthermore, Will states that the numbers just do not add up...just 4000 Marines are available to “hold” all of Helmand Province-- a region the size of West Virginia. He goes on to examine the US policy of “building” a coherent Afghan state that will be strong enough to avoid becoming a base for potential Islamic terrorism. Will states that “nation building would be impossible (in Afghanistan) “even if we knew how (to do it), and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try..” (after Somalia).
According to recent news reports, President Obama (who is reputedly unsettled about the military's--call it Petraeus--"pressuring him very early in his term for more troops which he alreay sent) is considering again increasing US forces from the present 68,000 to a total of 110,000. He should avoid the pressuse this time. As this author recalls, that is about the same number the Russians fielded in Afghanistan during the war years which ended in ignoble defeat. They struggled for nine long years and finally retreated with their tails between their legs. Is that what we have to expect? According to Will's analysis....yes.
I recall as well, one more very significant difference between our adventure in Afghanistan and that of the Soviet's, one I learned about in my ROTC military science classes at St. Peter's College during the Vietnam era..and that is that the USSR lines of supply were short in 1979, recall that the Soviets or that era were near-neighbors of Afghanistan---while our main supply bases are many thousands of miles away. Recent Taliban attacks on our supply lines passing through the steep mountain passes between Afghanistan and Pakistan often hold up truck convoys for days. Recently, the US has attempted to establish a land-based supply line through Russia (!) and even Iran(!!). But as of this writing, I have learned that a good part of our supplies now arrive in Afghanistan via dangerous and expensive air cargo flights.
As a footnote, I add here a brief summary of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.
The 1979 Soviet Invasion lasted nine years—between 1979-1989. The initial invasion forces from near-by USSR landed in December 1979 and constituted over 100,000 troops and nearly 2000 tanks. President Carter at the time claimed that the invasion (which was requested of the Soviets by the legitimate Afghan government at the time) was the “greatest threat to world peace since World War II”. (Does that hyperbole sound familiar?) Over the nine years of fierce fighting, the Soviets were able to occupy the large cities and main axes of transport and communication, but never controlled more than one third of the country. (That is the situation the US finds itselves in now) By the mid 1980s, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev--unhappy with the war and its costs--initiated what we might call a “troop surge” in which USSR forces grew to nearly 110,000, but the situation for the Soviets did not change for the better. By 1986 a more desperate Soviet exit strategy included a policy of building up an Afghanistan Army of more than 300,000 troops to take over as the Soviet troops left. (Does that sound familiar?) The troops finally did leave early in 1989 after concluding non-aggression agreements with the scattered Afghan opponents.
The war left more than fifty thousand Soviet troops dead and many thousands more injured and disabled. Over one-million Afghans were killed and another 2 million were displaced to Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere. Half of the refugees in the entire world in the 1980s were Afghans. More than a million Afghan combatants were wounded and disabled and three million non-combatants were maimed or wounded.
Mr George Will states that “counter-insurgency theory" suggest that the time and ratio of forces required to protect the population in Afghanistan "indicates Afghanistan would need “hundreds of thousands of troops to be deployed there for decades to achieve the goals our leaders are enunciating as the reasons for our continued occupation of Afghanistan. For Will, and for most Americans presently suffering the worst economic downturn since the great depression--such a commitment of the nation's energies, wealth and blood is “inconceivable”.
I agree. How could we justify such a commitment? It is clear that a simple cost-benefit analysis of the potential threat that (a worst case scenario) chaotic Afghanistan would pose to US interests versus the costs in loss-of-life and money (after a US pull-out) could not conceivibly justify the expenditures.
What are the actual threats to the US from the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan…or the Taliban? As I see it, they simply want us to go away so they continue in their former lifeways. Who are we to tell them what those should or should not be? Our presence there only exacerbates the problem. We are not part of the solution--at least on the ground and militarily. Finally, and most importantly, they have no capability for threatening the US or our interests. And if they did---a small contingent of US special forces troops, unmanned drones, cruise missiles and the all too common high altitude air strikes are (unfortunately) still available to us. The costs-to-benefits analysis supports George Will's proposal. We must pull out.
rjk
This author agrees wholeheartedly. As a nation, our policies have caused more harm to that isolated and mountainous country than any good our continued stay might acheive. Our pre-Soviet-invasion-support for the anti-communist insurgency as well as our self-serving support for the Mujahedeen in the ensuing Soviet-Afghan war (where according to some, we actually worked to encourage the Soviet invasion as an anti-communist cold-war policy) caused untold harm there in the decade of the 1980s. While our recent invasion, after 2001, to "out" the Taliban and "capture or kill"--one man-- Osama Bin Laden, has horribly compounded those effects. (Since those simpler times, our reason for being in Afghanistan has slowly morphed from that into several less clear and logical others.) But perhaps at this point, simple benign neglect is what the Afghan State needs and deserves from us now.
The reaction to Mr. George Will's Afghan column came out of a dark silent night like a drone hit on the GOP right wing and the "any war is a good war" neocon supporters. As I see it also hammered home another nail in the Bush-Cheney foreign policy coffin. Coming from Mr Will, who is well known hawk and a strong supporter of ex-President George Bush's foreign policy, as well as part of conservative cadre of intellectuals in Washington this was damaging. Will kept the drum-beat for Bush's so-called "international war on terror". And he is a Washington insider who has never heard of a troop increase, or invasion he didn't support (up to now). He is an odd bedfellow for those of us who are opposed to this war.
Will's piece in the WaPo begins by stating that our weary engagement in Afghanistan has a long history. It is an old war already. Will points out that we have been there nearly twice as long as our involvement in the two great world wars. And what have we accomplished? Answering that question George Will politely skewers the neocon talking heads and medal-bedecked generals who are caught in a Ground Hog Day mentality concerning how to "win" in Afghanistan. Will to his benefit sees no options of success in that quarter, and I agree. He points out that our so-called “new” strategy of “protecting the population” is one that is heavily dependent upon more American troops. This “troop intensive” policy puts great pressure on an already strained military and greatly increases the likelihood for our forces to be targeted and killed or injured. Furthermore, the related policy of “clear, hold and build” cannot work where the Taliban (Will’s term..but the vast majority of forces opposing the US are local war lords and “ethnics” and have little coherence with the Taliban per se) can melt into the mountainous country-side, re-gather elsewhere and attack other unprotected areas. The Taliban's strategy recalls for me General McArthur’s "island hopping policy" used in the Pacific during WWII against entrenched Japanese forces on heavily fortified islands—McArthur just avoided strongly defended places and attacked elsewhere. Furthermore, Will states that the numbers just do not add up...just 4000 Marines are available to “hold” all of Helmand Province-- a region the size of West Virginia. He goes on to examine the US policy of “building” a coherent Afghan state that will be strong enough to avoid becoming a base for potential Islamic terrorism. Will states that “nation building would be impossible (in Afghanistan) “even if we knew how (to do it), and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try..” (after Somalia).
According to recent news reports, President Obama (who is reputedly unsettled about the military's--call it Petraeus--"pressuring him very early in his term for more troops which he alreay sent) is considering again increasing US forces from the present 68,000 to a total of 110,000. He should avoid the pressuse this time. As this author recalls, that is about the same number the Russians fielded in Afghanistan during the war years which ended in ignoble defeat. They struggled for nine long years and finally retreated with their tails between their legs. Is that what we have to expect? According to Will's analysis....yes.
I recall as well, one more very significant difference between our adventure in Afghanistan and that of the Soviet's, one I learned about in my ROTC military science classes at St. Peter's College during the Vietnam era..and that is that the USSR lines of supply were short in 1979, recall that the Soviets or that era were near-neighbors of Afghanistan---while our main supply bases are many thousands of miles away. Recent Taliban attacks on our supply lines passing through the steep mountain passes between Afghanistan and Pakistan often hold up truck convoys for days. Recently, the US has attempted to establish a land-based supply line through Russia (!) and even Iran(!!). But as of this writing, I have learned that a good part of our supplies now arrive in Afghanistan via dangerous and expensive air cargo flights.
As a footnote, I add here a brief summary of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.
The 1979 Soviet Invasion lasted nine years—between 1979-1989. The initial invasion forces from near-by USSR landed in December 1979 and constituted over 100,000 troops and nearly 2000 tanks. President Carter at the time claimed that the invasion (which was requested of the Soviets by the legitimate Afghan government at the time) was the “greatest threat to world peace since World War II”. (Does that hyperbole sound familiar?) Over the nine years of fierce fighting, the Soviets were able to occupy the large cities and main axes of transport and communication, but never controlled more than one third of the country. (That is the situation the US finds itselves in now) By the mid 1980s, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev--unhappy with the war and its costs--initiated what we might call a “troop surge” in which USSR forces grew to nearly 110,000, but the situation for the Soviets did not change for the better. By 1986 a more desperate Soviet exit strategy included a policy of building up an Afghanistan Army of more than 300,000 troops to take over as the Soviet troops left. (Does that sound familiar?) The troops finally did leave early in 1989 after concluding non-aggression agreements with the scattered Afghan opponents.
The war left more than fifty thousand Soviet troops dead and many thousands more injured and disabled. Over one-million Afghans were killed and another 2 million were displaced to Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere. Half of the refugees in the entire world in the 1980s were Afghans. More than a million Afghan combatants were wounded and disabled and three million non-combatants were maimed or wounded.
Mr George Will states that “counter-insurgency theory" suggest that the time and ratio of forces required to protect the population in Afghanistan "indicates Afghanistan would need “hundreds of thousands of troops to be deployed there for decades to achieve the goals our leaders are enunciating as the reasons for our continued occupation of Afghanistan. For Will, and for most Americans presently suffering the worst economic downturn since the great depression--such a commitment of the nation's energies, wealth and blood is “inconceivable”.
I agree. How could we justify such a commitment? It is clear that a simple cost-benefit analysis of the potential threat that (a worst case scenario) chaotic Afghanistan would pose to US interests versus the costs in loss-of-life and money (after a US pull-out) could not conceivibly justify the expenditures.
What are the actual threats to the US from the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan…or the Taliban? As I see it, they simply want us to go away so they continue in their former lifeways. Who are we to tell them what those should or should not be? Our presence there only exacerbates the problem. We are not part of the solution--at least on the ground and militarily. Finally, and most importantly, they have no capability for threatening the US or our interests. And if they did---a small contingent of US special forces troops, unmanned drones, cruise missiles and the all too common high altitude air strikes are (unfortunately) still available to us. The costs-to-benefits analysis supports George Will's proposal. We must pull out.
rjk
Sunday, August 30, 2009
FLORIDA METAMORPHOSIS
Not more than a few years ago, my Florida neighbor and golf buddy Frankie Smith, a New Hampshire snow bird, related to me how many new immigrants were coming "down Florida way" each year.
“Every day we get another one-thousand new residents down here,” said Frankie, as we sat at an open air bar under the shade of an ancient palmetto which rustled pleasantly in the gentle sea breeze. Twisting around on his bar stool, Frankie tipped his misted beer mug to a place across the white concrete strip of the AIA Coastal Highway.
“See there,” he said, pointing the foam dripped mug toward a new development being carved out of former sea-side sand dunes which were once covered in ragged palms, bunch grass and saw palmetto. He quickly retrieved the mug to gulp down the last of the cold brew.
"That 'ere place buts right back up to my back yard," complained Frankie, wiping the foam from his thin lips with the back of his hand.
I looked where he pointed. A big red and white sign tacked to posts at the highway-edge blared the name: “First Coast Condos”. Another line boasted that of its planned 200 units 150 had been sold already.
“Three-hundred-fifty thousand every year? Why that’s more than a million people every three years! That’s like adding the population of NY City every twenty-four years or so,” I said, swivelling around to avert my eyes from the construction site to gaze at our well-endowed young bar maid who was vigorously cleaning beer mugs in the bar sink.
How things have changed in a few years. As Frankie says, "a lot of beer has run through the taps at that place" since that day. Today, in 2009 the picture is very different. I don't know what happened to that bar maid, where she works now but that bar closed in 2008. And this year--2009--was the first year since the late 1940s that the population of Florida did not grow….in fact it declined by nearly 60,000 people! The drop of population was the greatest in annual population since 1901 when such data was first tabulated. So the recent recession has brought real change to Florida. For the a full treatment of these data see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30florida.html?_r=1&em
And regarding the First Coast Condos, the new development across AIA Highway---. It was never completed. Lack of interest and funds. Today it stands only partially occupied. One ofits parking lots remains a muddy unsurfaced ground with a rusting bulldozer and a great mound of topsoil gowing rank tall reeds. The few residents complain about the exhorbitant community fees, much more than what they expected to pay. Since now there are fewer than 100 residents when more than two hundred were planned.
The New York Times article on Florida by Damien Cave (August 29, 2009) underscores what any southern sojourner knew, that Florida was one of the most rapidly growing states…and most who knew it (except the builders and real-estate agents) thought it was growing too fast for its own good. The NY Times piece states that in 2000, Florida was the fourth most populous state with a population of 16 million. Of course it’s a big state in area, and much of the northern and western regions are still forest, marsh and dry pine plains, where Brahama cattle still roam. But take a Google Earth tour over the southern coastal areas and see what a century of nearly unrestrained development by the "good-ole-boy network" could do. It is eye-popping to see the vast networks of roads, and oh-so-close together rooftops and vast parking lots all extending like a cancer growth over the countryside to every place that is within smelling distance of a bit of waterside, shore area, marsh or even damp soil. The view is a testament what stupidity and greed can do to a lovely landscape.
According to William Frey a population specialist at Brooking Institution, the census data in December will no doubt confirm the findings of the striking population decline and if they are indeed accurate, the information will be a great blow to the state, states Frey, "since the whole Florida economy was based on migration flows.” He states that declines in population tend to compound the ravages of economic downturns such as the present recession. "They have a negative effect on the quality of life," he states. This is a fact for cities in the Rust Belt of the mid west, agricultural northern New York State, as well as sunny Hollywood Park, Florida. But the NY Times author notes that Florida is different, “Florida, in particular, was not built for emptying.” He reminds us that since 1924, a state constitution amendment banned the dreaded income tax. That was one more appealing factor for in migration. One of the major reasons many retirees abandon their home states and become Florida “homesteaders” was the savings that accrue to living in a “no income tax state”. But in those halcyon days the state of Florida made up this loss of revenue by relying heavily on sales taxes and property taxes which are closely linked to population growth and new housing starts.
But now with housing prices plummeting and housing sales about non-existent the State's sources of revenue are sharply crimped. As a result of the decreasing tax base, municipalities and cities have been forced to cut staff and slash budgets. Unfortuneatley these changes are not likely to encourage people to stay in the state. In fact, there has been an uptick of what some Floridians are calling “halfbacks”. These are disenchanted Florida immigrants who have pulled up stakes and turn back north…but do not go all the way---winding up in the lower tax areas of Georgia and the Carolinas.
But back in Florida in 2009, according to the NY Times piece, Broward County schools were forced to slash their staff by one hundred teachers and cut the school budget from $5 billion to $3.6 billion, that is a 28% drop in budget. The county commissioners reduced library hours and closed parks early and the sheriff’s office has cut 177 positions. These are quality of life changes.
But hope springs eternal as some say…and the hope of the “baby-boom” population to choose Florida as their parents did, and of course optimists expect a return of population increases when the economy picks up. But when will that happen? What effects will higher energy costs and a slow starting and weaker economy have on the population boom and on Florida? We must wait and see. Perhaps a bit of a hiatus in the growth boom might not be such a bad development. Frankie thinks so as he looks on his back yard.
rjk
“Every day we get another one-thousand new residents down here,” said Frankie, as we sat at an open air bar under the shade of an ancient palmetto which rustled pleasantly in the gentle sea breeze. Twisting around on his bar stool, Frankie tipped his misted beer mug to a place across the white concrete strip of the AIA Coastal Highway.
“See there,” he said, pointing the foam dripped mug toward a new development being carved out of former sea-side sand dunes which were once covered in ragged palms, bunch grass and saw palmetto. He quickly retrieved the mug to gulp down the last of the cold brew.
"That 'ere place buts right back up to my back yard," complained Frankie, wiping the foam from his thin lips with the back of his hand.
I looked where he pointed. A big red and white sign tacked to posts at the highway-edge blared the name: “First Coast Condos”. Another line boasted that of its planned 200 units 150 had been sold already.
“Three-hundred-fifty thousand every year? Why that’s more than a million people every three years! That’s like adding the population of NY City every twenty-four years or so,” I said, swivelling around to avert my eyes from the construction site to gaze at our well-endowed young bar maid who was vigorously cleaning beer mugs in the bar sink.
How things have changed in a few years. As Frankie says, "a lot of beer has run through the taps at that place" since that day. Today, in 2009 the picture is very different. I don't know what happened to that bar maid, where she works now but that bar closed in 2008. And this year--2009--was the first year since the late 1940s that the population of Florida did not grow….in fact it declined by nearly 60,000 people! The drop of population was the greatest in annual population since 1901 when such data was first tabulated. So the recent recession has brought real change to Florida. For the a full treatment of these data see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30florida.html?_r=1&em
And regarding the First Coast Condos, the new development across AIA Highway---. It was never completed. Lack of interest and funds. Today it stands only partially occupied. One ofits parking lots remains a muddy unsurfaced ground with a rusting bulldozer and a great mound of topsoil gowing rank tall reeds. The few residents complain about the exhorbitant community fees, much more than what they expected to pay. Since now there are fewer than 100 residents when more than two hundred were planned.
The New York Times article on Florida by Damien Cave (August 29, 2009) underscores what any southern sojourner knew, that Florida was one of the most rapidly growing states…and most who knew it (except the builders and real-estate agents) thought it was growing too fast for its own good. The NY Times piece states that in 2000, Florida was the fourth most populous state with a population of 16 million. Of course it’s a big state in area, and much of the northern and western regions are still forest, marsh and dry pine plains, where Brahama cattle still roam. But take a Google Earth tour over the southern coastal areas and see what a century of nearly unrestrained development by the "good-ole-boy network" could do. It is eye-popping to see the vast networks of roads, and oh-so-close together rooftops and vast parking lots all extending like a cancer growth over the countryside to every place that is within smelling distance of a bit of waterside, shore area, marsh or even damp soil. The view is a testament what stupidity and greed can do to a lovely landscape.
According to William Frey a population specialist at Brooking Institution, the census data in December will no doubt confirm the findings of the striking population decline and if they are indeed accurate, the information will be a great blow to the state, states Frey, "since the whole Florida economy was based on migration flows.” He states that declines in population tend to compound the ravages of economic downturns such as the present recession. "They have a negative effect on the quality of life," he states. This is a fact for cities in the Rust Belt of the mid west, agricultural northern New York State, as well as sunny Hollywood Park, Florida. But the NY Times author notes that Florida is different, “Florida, in particular, was not built for emptying.” He reminds us that since 1924, a state constitution amendment banned the dreaded income tax. That was one more appealing factor for in migration. One of the major reasons many retirees abandon their home states and become Florida “homesteaders” was the savings that accrue to living in a “no income tax state”. But in those halcyon days the state of Florida made up this loss of revenue by relying heavily on sales taxes and property taxes which are closely linked to population growth and new housing starts.
But now with housing prices plummeting and housing sales about non-existent the State's sources of revenue are sharply crimped. As a result of the decreasing tax base, municipalities and cities have been forced to cut staff and slash budgets. Unfortuneatley these changes are not likely to encourage people to stay in the state. In fact, there has been an uptick of what some Floridians are calling “halfbacks”. These are disenchanted Florida immigrants who have pulled up stakes and turn back north…but do not go all the way---winding up in the lower tax areas of Georgia and the Carolinas.
But back in Florida in 2009, according to the NY Times piece, Broward County schools were forced to slash their staff by one hundred teachers and cut the school budget from $5 billion to $3.6 billion, that is a 28% drop in budget. The county commissioners reduced library hours and closed parks early and the sheriff’s office has cut 177 positions. These are quality of life changes.
But hope springs eternal as some say…and the hope of the “baby-boom” population to choose Florida as their parents did, and of course optimists expect a return of population increases when the economy picks up. But when will that happen? What effects will higher energy costs and a slow starting and weaker economy have on the population boom and on Florida? We must wait and see. Perhaps a bit of a hiatus in the growth boom might not be such a bad development. Frankie thinks so as he looks on his back yard.
rjk
Monday, August 24, 2009
ROUBINI'S LAST WORDS ON THE RECOVERY
IN LATE AUGUST 2009-- ROUBINI SPEAKS!
Slow recovery and double dip recession are likely, so says Prof. Nouriel Roubini, of the NYU Stern School of Business says (Aug 23, 2009) in the Financial Times of London (See: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/90227fdc-900d-11de-bc59-00144feabdc0.html, downloaded 8-24-09)
Roubini sees a close correlation with the “way the advanced economies of the world were contracting” in the last quarter of ‘08 and first quarter of ‘09 with that of the Great Depression of ‘29. But in 2008 world leaders “finally” responded with the powerful economic tools in their arsenal. Their efforts worked and the free-fall subsided according to Roubini.
But when will the global economy bottom out? Roubini says it has done so already in most emerging markets such as China, Brazil, India Latin America and parts of Asia. But for the advanced economies (USA and parts of Europe) the recession will not end before the end of the year.
On the question of the shape of the recovery…will it be rapid (“v” shaped curve) or slow (“u” shaped curve)—Roubini thinks the latter is to be expected. He describes it as “anemic and below trend for at least a couple of years”. He also points to a risk of a “w” shaped double dip curve.
But why will recovery be anemic?
First: Job opportunities are still falling sharply in the US and elsewhere. Prof. Roubini estimates unemployment to reach over 10% by 2010. Alone, that factor would crimp demand and exacerbate bank mortgage losses…and add to the problem of the loss of skills from key sectors of the economy, thus slowing recovery and worker productivity.
Second: There is a widespread crisis of solvency, states Roubini…not just liquidity. Banks, companies, households and individuals were so deeply leveraged-up that they continue to remain close to insolvency even though the losses of the financial institutions have been “put on the government balance sheets” this does not change the basics. Insolvency “limits the ability of banks to lend, households to spend and companies to invest.”
Third: In countries like the US—consumers need to cut spending and save more but as noted above, these very consumers are debt-burdened and as well are faced with a “wealth shock” from falling home prices, shrinking incomes, and loss of employment.
Fourth: The financial system—despite the bailout money—is still damaged. Banks are saddled with “trillions of dollars in expected losses on loans and securities while still being seriously undercapitalized”.
Fifth: Due to high debt, default risks, low growth and weak profit margins, companies are hesitant and/or constrained to increase production, hire workers and invest in new equipment.
Sixth: Government releveraging by building up large fiscal deficits risks crowding out private sector spending. Since the effects of the stimulus package will fizzle out by early next year.. private investment must materialize on time to make up the short-fall. Will investment confidence materialize? Roubini suggests that private investors may not be so sanguine.
Seventh: Global imbalances can lead to a weaker global recovery. With the US economy (one of the world’s “profligate”nations according to Roubini) slowed, countries which save—such as China, Germany and Japan—will have to make up the difference (for their lowered exports) with domestic spending, but this may be a big bill to fill and if domestic demand does not grow fast enough, a weaker global recovery will result.
Finally, there is a tendency for wary government policy makers (sometimes prodded by the political opposition) to take large fiscal (bailout) deficits seriously. As a response, they may act to raise taxes, and cut spending as a way to mop up excess liquidity (to avoid inflation). But if they do so, they risk tipping the economy back into recession and deflation. On the other hand, if they maintain large deficits-- inflationary expectations become their worry, since this will generate higher bond-yield demands and hurt the economy due to higher borrowing rates…and possible stagflation.
Then there is the energy problem. At present, Roubini thinks that oil prices are rising faster than economic fundamentals warrant. But these prices could be driven even higher by excessive liquidity (pumped into a weak economy) chasing scarce assets—and by speculation.
Last year when oil reached $145 a barrel it created havoc with the economies of oil importing countries. Gasoline costs at the pump skyrocketed to nearly four dollars a gallon putting a crimp in the economies of homeowners who travel to distant job sites, to companies which deliver goods by truck, etc. etc. Those higher costs certainly tipped some mortgagees into default.
In summary, Roubini sees an “anaemic and below trend” recovery for the advanced economies and a big risk for double dip inflation.
Slow recovery and double dip recession are likely, so says Prof. Nouriel Roubini, of the NYU Stern School of Business says (Aug 23, 2009) in the Financial Times of London (See: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/90227fdc-900d-11de-bc59-00144feabdc0.html, downloaded 8-24-09)
Roubini sees a close correlation with the “way the advanced economies of the world were contracting” in the last quarter of ‘08 and first quarter of ‘09 with that of the Great Depression of ‘29. But in 2008 world leaders “finally” responded with the powerful economic tools in their arsenal. Their efforts worked and the free-fall subsided according to Roubini.
But when will the global economy bottom out? Roubini says it has done so already in most emerging markets such as China, Brazil, India Latin America and parts of Asia. But for the advanced economies (USA and parts of Europe) the recession will not end before the end of the year.
On the question of the shape of the recovery…will it be rapid (“v” shaped curve) or slow (“u” shaped curve)—Roubini thinks the latter is to be expected. He describes it as “anemic and below trend for at least a couple of years”. He also points to a risk of a “w” shaped double dip curve.
But why will recovery be anemic?
First: Job opportunities are still falling sharply in the US and elsewhere. Prof. Roubini estimates unemployment to reach over 10% by 2010. Alone, that factor would crimp demand and exacerbate bank mortgage losses…and add to the problem of the loss of skills from key sectors of the economy, thus slowing recovery and worker productivity.
Second: There is a widespread crisis of solvency, states Roubini…not just liquidity. Banks, companies, households and individuals were so deeply leveraged-up that they continue to remain close to insolvency even though the losses of the financial institutions have been “put on the government balance sheets” this does not change the basics. Insolvency “limits the ability of banks to lend, households to spend and companies to invest.”
Third: In countries like the US—consumers need to cut spending and save more but as noted above, these very consumers are debt-burdened and as well are faced with a “wealth shock” from falling home prices, shrinking incomes, and loss of employment.
Fourth: The financial system—despite the bailout money—is still damaged. Banks are saddled with “trillions of dollars in expected losses on loans and securities while still being seriously undercapitalized”.
Fifth: Due to high debt, default risks, low growth and weak profit margins, companies are hesitant and/or constrained to increase production, hire workers and invest in new equipment.
Sixth: Government releveraging by building up large fiscal deficits risks crowding out private sector spending. Since the effects of the stimulus package will fizzle out by early next year.. private investment must materialize on time to make up the short-fall. Will investment confidence materialize? Roubini suggests that private investors may not be so sanguine.
Seventh: Global imbalances can lead to a weaker global recovery. With the US economy (one of the world’s “profligate”nations according to Roubini) slowed, countries which save—such as China, Germany and Japan—will have to make up the difference (for their lowered exports) with domestic spending, but this may be a big bill to fill and if domestic demand does not grow fast enough, a weaker global recovery will result.
Finally, there is a tendency for wary government policy makers (sometimes prodded by the political opposition) to take large fiscal (bailout) deficits seriously. As a response, they may act to raise taxes, and cut spending as a way to mop up excess liquidity (to avoid inflation). But if they do so, they risk tipping the economy back into recession and deflation. On the other hand, if they maintain large deficits-- inflationary expectations become their worry, since this will generate higher bond-yield demands and hurt the economy due to higher borrowing rates…and possible stagflation.
Then there is the energy problem. At present, Roubini thinks that oil prices are rising faster than economic fundamentals warrant. But these prices could be driven even higher by excessive liquidity (pumped into a weak economy) chasing scarce assets—and by speculation.
Last year when oil reached $145 a barrel it created havoc with the economies of oil importing countries. Gasoline costs at the pump skyrocketed to nearly four dollars a gallon putting a crimp in the economies of homeowners who travel to distant job sites, to companies which deliver goods by truck, etc. etc. Those higher costs certainly tipped some mortgagees into default.
In summary, Roubini sees an “anaemic and below trend” recovery for the advanced economies and a big risk for double dip inflation.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
REAGAN'S POLICIES AND THE LOCKERBIE BOMBING
September 27, 2009
Since the first draft of this blog on August 15, 2008, revelations and media analysis have cast some doubt on the Libyans as the likely perpetrators of the downing of Pan Am 103. Press reports have indicated other possibilities--that the evidence against the only convicted person: al Megrahi was weak, and perhaps it was not even Libya which initiated the bombing. Some now claim the shooting down of an Iranian commercial flight, Iranian Air #655 by the Aegis Class cruiser USS Vincennes which was lurking in Iranian territorial waters on July 3, 1988, under the command of Captain William Rogers III, was the cause. That “accidental” attack killed 290 innocent Iranian civilians, among them 66 children. Some think this precipitated an Iranian reaction—and the downing of Pan Am 103, in retaliation about five months later. That seems quite reasonable. But that is another story and perhaps another blog. But it does not change the over-all thesis of this author that American actions overseas cause reactions, and American aggressive policies of the late 80s helped to set the stage and generate the angry motives for the attack on PanAm 103. This author does not condone the perpetrators on either side…only innocents seem to die and suffer. This is a call for more circumspection from our citizenry, more questioning of our government’s motives, more review of theirpolices abroad, and a call for political action to modify or control their actions. Read on.
Fox News reported this week (August 15, 2009)that the families of the victims of the December 21, 1988 PanAm 103 (Lockerbie, Scotland) bombing were outraged at the release of a Libyan man, Abdel Ali al-Megrahi, who was serving a life sentence for the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am flight 103 which fell from the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 269 passengers and crew and 11 on the ground. The convicted perpetrator, Al-Megrahi is seriously ill and is not expected to live very long. As would be expected, the parents and relatives of the many victims can see no reason for “compassion” for the man who they see as responsible for the death of their loved ones. Their great losses were too harrowing to expect anything else from them and their responses are fully understandable.
Regarding the Pan Am 103 tragedy one can empathize with the responses of the survivor-relatives of the victims but what is troubling, is the attitude of the American public at large. For that, one can blame America's general lack of interest in history and background knowledge--all aided and abetted by the American mass media which rather over-simplify, and shore-up an "American exceptionalism" rather than deal in facts.
Little is generally known here in the US of the underlying causes of the conflict between the US and Libya--- in the--so distant 1980s. This Pan Am 103 case is just one of many in which the American public seems to have no clue as to the "why" of events and seem to prefer simplistic answers such as "they hate us", or they are "envious of our freedoms" or similar pabulum offered up for the unconcerned, uniformed masses.
In this case, there is a well-documented history of our actions and of those of the Libyans. Purposeful acts such as the tragic bombing of Pan Am 103 are not random acts of unthinking terrorists. As in physics:''To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction" (See Newton’s third law in "Aximata Leges Motus"). Political actions have consequences too.
President Reagan's purposeful over-reaction to a terrorist night club bombing in Germany (which killed one soldier) was the stated reason for a massive aerial attack on Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986 which initiated events which are presented here as one cause for the Lockerbie tragedy. We live in a much smaller world than we think. Our actions in foreign lands can and do have consequences. When the American public understands that fact, perhaps we may better evaluate then act to modify or moderate the actions of our leaders when they propose actions abroad.
What is the history of this act of horrible terrorism? If al-Meghari was actually complicit in the bombing (and many in Scotland and elsewhere believe the wrong man was convicted) then why did he do it? (It is noteworthy to mention here that after the trial it was revealed that the key witness against Meghari was paid $2 million dollars for his court testimony by the FBI.) We must go back a few decades.
The Reagan years were a time when the US government initiated some questionable actions in foreign policy. Libya was only one folder in the thick foreign policy dossier of President Reagan, but it is one which is fully documented and is easily available for anyone who may be interested in reading it.
President Reagan is often remembered as an elderly, avuncular, bumbling, but good-natured President—more of an old vaudevillian actor than a politician. But as the man who was credited with helping to bring down the Soviet Union there had to be a darker more sinister side—and there was. Most Americans are unaware of the shadowy area of American foreign policy which President Reagan led the nation into for the first time. (See: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406c.asp) The so called "Reagan Doctrine" openly supported right-wing, pro-American insurgencies in many countries around the world--such as in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, Cambodia, Lebanon, and this policy led to great deal of terror, hardship and bloodshed for many innocent civilians who were caught up in a conflict between opposing economic philosophies, for abstruse economic and political theories which they did not care about or understand.
As a consequence of these covert actions (some of which Congress legislated against) Reagan was faced with a storm of opprobrium and an investigation when his illegal support of the Contras in Nicaragua was revealed. He weathered that storm. But during the Congressional investigations bits of embarrassing information were exposed. One was that Reagan's CIA, under the direction of William Casey, financed, produced and disseminated an assassination manual entitled “Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War” which recommended “selective use of violence and propaganda” and examined various ways to assassinate legally elected government officials in target countries.
The expose' of this secret program clearly destabilized relations with some allies and non-aligned nations and strained relationships with others. But it was clearly in direct contravention to Reagan’s own 1981 executive order, which explicitly banned assassinations. While the US media and Reagan himself denounced terrorism as “uncivilized and barbaric” the US policies continued to use and to espouse these very methods when it found them useful. (See http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406c.asp ).
In 1984 Reagan authorized the CIA to equip and train a wide range of terrorist organizations in the Middle East. This directive was so loosely stated that it was understood by intelligence officials (as reported in the Washington Post in 1984) as a virtual “go-any-where-do-anything-license-to-kill”. The results of these aggressive policies were a wave of terror and death emanating from both the US, on one side, and its targets in the conflict on the other. Often innocent civilians were caught in the cross-fire. Or sometimes they were purposely targeted by US operatives to generate terror.
In an example of the latter case, in March of 1985 a car bomb exploded a few meters from the Beirut, Lebanon residence of the Islamic cleric known as Sayyed Fadallah, a Moslem cleric sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinians and insurgents in Lebanon was the target—he escaped injury. At the time it was widely believed to be a CIA sponsored attack, but there was no firm proof. The attack killed more than 80 civilians, mostly women and children exiting from a near-by mosque, and injured over two-hundred. The perpetrators remained uncertain until, years later, CIA director William Casey admitted his personal culpability to journalist Bob Woodward for the attack on Fadallah. A much later interview with Bob McFarlane is revealing on this same subject. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/interviews/mcfarlane.html.
Then in 1986, President Reagan decided to attack Libya. According to McFarlane's account, the attack had been planned for nine months--and thus the proximate and published cause of the attack--the bombing of a Berlin night club where a US trooper was killed was simply a cover story. However, reading McFarlane’s statements, one surmises that the actual cause was domestic politics.
In those years the Reagan administration had been frustrated and buffeted by a number of overseas setbacks (the 1983 Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon, the abduction of the CIA’s Beirut Chief, William Buckely, the bombing of the US Beirut embassy annex in September 1984, and the hijacking of TWA 847 (in June 1985). All of these events--many which were responses to CIA covert actions, caused the administration to appear weak and indecisive.
For domestic political reasons something had to be done to reverse that trend in the public perceptions. Though the “just do something” school of foreign policy is probably not the most sensible route to follow, frightened and worried heads of state and threatened politicians often do just that. The plan to bomb Libya appears to have been hatched by McFarlane for just that specific purpose---to satisfy a domestic audience and boost the President’s popularity, among other even more mundane concerns. You choose which was more prominent in the President’s mind. (See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/interviews/mcfarlane.html)
Libya is a small (about the size of the State of Alaska)undeveloped desert country on the north coast of Africa, with a population of a about 3.5 million. In 1969, Muammar Qaddafi seized power and hewed to an independent socialist and pro-communist line. He used his nation’s oil wealth to confront the US in several areas, but mostly by sponsoring independence movements and left-wing insurgencies in several countries from Northern Ireland to the Philippines (See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=us+attack+on+libya+1986&aq=0&oq=US+attack+on+Libya&aqi=g1).
One of his more independent and "pro-statist" moves was his 1973 declaration to extend Libya’s territorial control from the normal 12-mile limit to the entire Gulf of Sidra, a wide embayment enclosed by two Libyan coastal promontories. The Gulf of Sidra is about three-hundred miles across and and about ninety miles wide, or about the size of the Ionian Sea (which incidentally is claimed by Hellenic Republic its territorial waters). At the time, in the late 1980s, Libya was weakly defended, it had no significant naval forces, a clear, dry, desert-climate (which permitted easy bomb-targeting), and its leader was and remains a blustering, uncompromising man who was easily demonized in the press. See McFarlane interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/interviews/mcfarlane.html.
The history of the Libya-US relationship was marred by a series of naval and aerial skirmishes in the Gulf of Sidra which continued over several years. The US acknowledges only a 12 mile limit and maintains that the Gulf of Sidra is part of international waters. To underscore this fact aggressively, President Ronald Reagan sent the US Sixth Fleet into the Gulf for naval maneuvers and to “show the flag”.
Once the Fleet's ships entered the area considered by Libya as their territorial waters, the US ships were followed and harassed by Qaddafi’s small-boat navy. The unequal confrontation resulted in the downing of two Libyan aircraft in 1981, then two Libyan radio ships were sunk by the US in March of 1986, followed by the sinking of a Libyan-Navy patrol-boat, soon afterward a similar fate befell another Libyan vessel later in March 1986.
In April, 1986, Muammar al-Qaddafi, in retaliation, or at least as claimed by the CIA, ordered an attack on an American-frequented night-club, known as “La Belle”, in what was then East Berlin. One American soldier was killed, several civilians and many others were injured in the attack. The allegation was based on a CIA intercept of an incriminating message from Libya to its embassy in East Berlin.
On the 15th of April, 1986 with the CIA report in his hand, President Reagan spoke to the US nation and claimed he had the right to protect Americans from attack anywhere in the world, and with that, he launched a punitive bombing raid, code named “Operation El Dorado” on Libya.
More than 45 planes flew from aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean and from land bases in Great Britain to Tripoli and Benghazi where they dropped over three hundred and fifty bombs and laser guided missiles on military installations, and on Qaddafi’s home-compound. Qaddafi's compound was the primary target. Many other non-military targets in those cities were hit as well. Several schools were accidentally hit as was the French embassy in Tripoli. The BBC reported that the raid killed more than two hundred civilians. Quaddafi's’s infant daughter, Hanna, was killed and two of Gaddafi's young sons were injured.
It is claimed that both the governments of Italy and Malta warned Quaddafi of an imminent attack by US planes. The foreign minister of Malta is said to have called Qaddafi and warned him that unidentified planes were passing overhead (above Malta) and that he and his family had better take-cover immediately . Qaddafi and his family were in the process of escaping when the guided missiles struck. The attack on Gaddafi's home compound--where several of his relatives were killed--indicates that the attack was in effect a massive assassination plot. Reagan simply wanted to rid himself of Quaddafi. Aside from the illegality of assinations of heads of state and the extensive physical effects of the bombing raid and the death of several hundred civilians, the end-effects of the attack on Libya's "behavior" toward the US were minimal. Of course if they had killed Quaddafi they might have had more effect. (See: Terrorism and Foreign Policy, by Paul Pillar)
The hoped for "elimination" of Qaddafi, and the possible deterrent and disruption effect from such a military maneuver did not materialize. Libya’s leader continued to do what he was doing--support of regimes not necessarily in favor in Washington--and in fact the American bombing raid appeared to increase the Libyan leaders popularity and helped to solidify his domestic support and popularity around the world.
There is no sound data to suggest that blunt military force--such as the Libya air raid-- on so called “terrorists” have any deterrent long lasting effect. First, as in the case of Libya the effects though widespread, had little impact on Qaddafi actually conducting additional retaliatory attacks.
The Reagan attacks actually served to strengthen Qaddafi’s political position and galvanized public opinion, in the Arab world against the US. If it is true that Libya planned and executed the Pan Am bombing, it probably made it easier for Qaddafi to organize such counter attacks. The over the top US reaction, helped to alienate the civilian population of surrounding states and increase recruits, resources and sympathy for Libya.
Finally, the bombing raid was only part of a series of strikes and counter strikes, attack and retaliation that is a well known pattern. Thus the probable Libyan -sponsored attack on Pan Am 103 was a not an unexpected response, from a state leader who had suffered through an assassination attempt, the loss of his infant daughter and the serious injuries to his sons. Reagan and his advisors were probably hoping that the raid and the assassination would have put an end to Qaddafi as an irritant and the results would have been all positive for the Reagan administration. But events did not go the way they were planned. Quaddafi escaped assassination—and went on to fight another day. Reagan kicked over the Libyan beehive and then stepped back hoping for disruption and deterrence…and a boost in his popularity ratings.
But the angry bees went on to sting others—such as the innocent civilians on the Pan Am 103 flight. Who bears responsibility for the tragedy? Is it the angry bees we blame, who were after all, quiescent in their nests and would have stung no one had they been left undisturbed? Or was it the one who kicked the hive over?
From this vantage point…more than twenty years later..when the pain of the great losses suffered continues to affect us as we recall all those young people on that plane would have gone on to productive careers, married, had children. We must ask ourselves, was Reagan’s act of unnecessary belligerence as a motive for retaliation worth it? What did he accomplish? Quaddafi is still in power. He still claims the entire Gulf of Sidra for Lybia. What has changed? From this point of view…I say---No.
Get the picture?
rjk
Since the first draft of this blog on August 15, 2008, revelations and media analysis have cast some doubt on the Libyans as the likely perpetrators of the downing of Pan Am 103. Press reports have indicated other possibilities--that the evidence against the only convicted person: al Megrahi was weak, and perhaps it was not even Libya which initiated the bombing. Some now claim the shooting down of an Iranian commercial flight, Iranian Air #655 by the Aegis Class cruiser USS Vincennes which was lurking in Iranian territorial waters on July 3, 1988, under the command of Captain William Rogers III, was the cause. That “accidental” attack killed 290 innocent Iranian civilians, among them 66 children. Some think this precipitated an Iranian reaction—and the downing of Pan Am 103, in retaliation about five months later. That seems quite reasonable. But that is another story and perhaps another blog. But it does not change the over-all thesis of this author that American actions overseas cause reactions, and American aggressive policies of the late 80s helped to set the stage and generate the angry motives for the attack on PanAm 103. This author does not condone the perpetrators on either side…only innocents seem to die and suffer. This is a call for more circumspection from our citizenry, more questioning of our government’s motives, more review of theirpolices abroad, and a call for political action to modify or control their actions. Read on.
Fox News reported this week (August 15, 2009)that the families of the victims of the December 21, 1988 PanAm 103 (Lockerbie, Scotland) bombing were outraged at the release of a Libyan man, Abdel Ali al-Megrahi, who was serving a life sentence for the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am flight 103 which fell from the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 269 passengers and crew and 11 on the ground. The convicted perpetrator, Al-Megrahi is seriously ill and is not expected to live very long. As would be expected, the parents and relatives of the many victims can see no reason for “compassion” for the man who they see as responsible for the death of their loved ones. Their great losses were too harrowing to expect anything else from them and their responses are fully understandable.
Regarding the Pan Am 103 tragedy one can empathize with the responses of the survivor-relatives of the victims but what is troubling, is the attitude of the American public at large. For that, one can blame America's general lack of interest in history and background knowledge--all aided and abetted by the American mass media which rather over-simplify, and shore-up an "American exceptionalism" rather than deal in facts.
Little is generally known here in the US of the underlying causes of the conflict between the US and Libya--- in the--so distant 1980s. This Pan Am 103 case is just one of many in which the American public seems to have no clue as to the "why" of events and seem to prefer simplistic answers such as "they hate us", or they are "envious of our freedoms" or similar pabulum offered up for the unconcerned, uniformed masses.
In this case, there is a well-documented history of our actions and of those of the Libyans. Purposeful acts such as the tragic bombing of Pan Am 103 are not random acts of unthinking terrorists. As in physics:''To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction" (See Newton’s third law in "Aximata Leges Motus"). Political actions have consequences too.
President Reagan's purposeful over-reaction to a terrorist night club bombing in Germany (which killed one soldier) was the stated reason for a massive aerial attack on Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986 which initiated events which are presented here as one cause for the Lockerbie tragedy. We live in a much smaller world than we think. Our actions in foreign lands can and do have consequences. When the American public understands that fact, perhaps we may better evaluate then act to modify or moderate the actions of our leaders when they propose actions abroad.
What is the history of this act of horrible terrorism? If al-Meghari was actually complicit in the bombing (and many in Scotland and elsewhere believe the wrong man was convicted) then why did he do it? (It is noteworthy to mention here that after the trial it was revealed that the key witness against Meghari was paid $2 million dollars for his court testimony by the FBI.) We must go back a few decades.
The Reagan years were a time when the US government initiated some questionable actions in foreign policy. Libya was only one folder in the thick foreign policy dossier of President Reagan, but it is one which is fully documented and is easily available for anyone who may be interested in reading it.
President Reagan is often remembered as an elderly, avuncular, bumbling, but good-natured President—more of an old vaudevillian actor than a politician. But as the man who was credited with helping to bring down the Soviet Union there had to be a darker more sinister side—and there was. Most Americans are unaware of the shadowy area of American foreign policy which President Reagan led the nation into for the first time. (See: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406c.asp) The so called "Reagan Doctrine" openly supported right-wing, pro-American insurgencies in many countries around the world--such as in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, Cambodia, Lebanon, and this policy led to great deal of terror, hardship and bloodshed for many innocent civilians who were caught up in a conflict between opposing economic philosophies, for abstruse economic and political theories which they did not care about or understand.
As a consequence of these covert actions (some of which Congress legislated against) Reagan was faced with a storm of opprobrium and an investigation when his illegal support of the Contras in Nicaragua was revealed. He weathered that storm. But during the Congressional investigations bits of embarrassing information were exposed. One was that Reagan's CIA, under the direction of William Casey, financed, produced and disseminated an assassination manual entitled “Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War” which recommended “selective use of violence and propaganda” and examined various ways to assassinate legally elected government officials in target countries.
The expose' of this secret program clearly destabilized relations with some allies and non-aligned nations and strained relationships with others. But it was clearly in direct contravention to Reagan’s own 1981 executive order, which explicitly banned assassinations. While the US media and Reagan himself denounced terrorism as “uncivilized and barbaric” the US policies continued to use and to espouse these very methods when it found them useful. (See http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406c.asp ).
In 1984 Reagan authorized the CIA to equip and train a wide range of terrorist organizations in the Middle East. This directive was so loosely stated that it was understood by intelligence officials (as reported in the Washington Post in 1984) as a virtual “go-any-where-do-anything-license-to-kill”. The results of these aggressive policies were a wave of terror and death emanating from both the US, on one side, and its targets in the conflict on the other. Often innocent civilians were caught in the cross-fire. Or sometimes they were purposely targeted by US operatives to generate terror.
In an example of the latter case, in March of 1985 a car bomb exploded a few meters from the Beirut, Lebanon residence of the Islamic cleric known as Sayyed Fadallah, a Moslem cleric sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinians and insurgents in Lebanon was the target—he escaped injury. At the time it was widely believed to be a CIA sponsored attack, but there was no firm proof. The attack killed more than 80 civilians, mostly women and children exiting from a near-by mosque, and injured over two-hundred. The perpetrators remained uncertain until, years later, CIA director William Casey admitted his personal culpability to journalist Bob Woodward for the attack on Fadallah. A much later interview with Bob McFarlane is revealing on this same subject. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/interviews/mcfarlane.html.
Then in 1986, President Reagan decided to attack Libya. According to McFarlane's account, the attack had been planned for nine months--and thus the proximate and published cause of the attack--the bombing of a Berlin night club where a US trooper was killed was simply a cover story. However, reading McFarlane’s statements, one surmises that the actual cause was domestic politics.
In those years the Reagan administration had been frustrated and buffeted by a number of overseas setbacks (the 1983 Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon, the abduction of the CIA’s Beirut Chief, William Buckely, the bombing of the US Beirut embassy annex in September 1984, and the hijacking of TWA 847 (in June 1985). All of these events--many which were responses to CIA covert actions, caused the administration to appear weak and indecisive.
For domestic political reasons something had to be done to reverse that trend in the public perceptions. Though the “just do something” school of foreign policy is probably not the most sensible route to follow, frightened and worried heads of state and threatened politicians often do just that. The plan to bomb Libya appears to have been hatched by McFarlane for just that specific purpose---to satisfy a domestic audience and boost the President’s popularity, among other even more mundane concerns. You choose which was more prominent in the President’s mind. (See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/interviews/mcfarlane.html)
Libya is a small (about the size of the State of Alaska)undeveloped desert country on the north coast of Africa, with a population of a about 3.5 million. In 1969, Muammar Qaddafi seized power and hewed to an independent socialist and pro-communist line. He used his nation’s oil wealth to confront the US in several areas, but mostly by sponsoring independence movements and left-wing insurgencies in several countries from Northern Ireland to the Philippines (See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=us+attack+on+libya+1986&aq=0&oq=US+attack+on+Libya&aqi=g1).
One of his more independent and "pro-statist" moves was his 1973 declaration to extend Libya’s territorial control from the normal 12-mile limit to the entire Gulf of Sidra, a wide embayment enclosed by two Libyan coastal promontories. The Gulf of Sidra is about three-hundred miles across and and about ninety miles wide, or about the size of the Ionian Sea (which incidentally is claimed by Hellenic Republic its territorial waters). At the time, in the late 1980s, Libya was weakly defended, it had no significant naval forces, a clear, dry, desert-climate (which permitted easy bomb-targeting), and its leader was and remains a blustering, uncompromising man who was easily demonized in the press. See McFarlane interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/interviews/mcfarlane.html.
The history of the Libya-US relationship was marred by a series of naval and aerial skirmishes in the Gulf of Sidra which continued over several years. The US acknowledges only a 12 mile limit and maintains that the Gulf of Sidra is part of international waters. To underscore this fact aggressively, President Ronald Reagan sent the US Sixth Fleet into the Gulf for naval maneuvers and to “show the flag”.
Once the Fleet's ships entered the area considered by Libya as their territorial waters, the US ships were followed and harassed by Qaddafi’s small-boat navy. The unequal confrontation resulted in the downing of two Libyan aircraft in 1981, then two Libyan radio ships were sunk by the US in March of 1986, followed by the sinking of a Libyan-Navy patrol-boat, soon afterward a similar fate befell another Libyan vessel later in March 1986.
In April, 1986, Muammar al-Qaddafi, in retaliation, or at least as claimed by the CIA, ordered an attack on an American-frequented night-club, known as “La Belle”, in what was then East Berlin. One American soldier was killed, several civilians and many others were injured in the attack. The allegation was based on a CIA intercept of an incriminating message from Libya to its embassy in East Berlin.
On the 15th of April, 1986 with the CIA report in his hand, President Reagan spoke to the US nation and claimed he had the right to protect Americans from attack anywhere in the world, and with that, he launched a punitive bombing raid, code named “Operation El Dorado” on Libya.
More than 45 planes flew from aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean and from land bases in Great Britain to Tripoli and Benghazi where they dropped over three hundred and fifty bombs and laser guided missiles on military installations, and on Qaddafi’s home-compound. Qaddafi's compound was the primary target. Many other non-military targets in those cities were hit as well. Several schools were accidentally hit as was the French embassy in Tripoli. The BBC reported that the raid killed more than two hundred civilians. Quaddafi's’s infant daughter, Hanna, was killed and two of Gaddafi's young sons were injured.
It is claimed that both the governments of Italy and Malta warned Quaddafi of an imminent attack by US planes. The foreign minister of Malta is said to have called Qaddafi and warned him that unidentified planes were passing overhead (above Malta) and that he and his family had better take-cover immediately . Qaddafi and his family were in the process of escaping when the guided missiles struck. The attack on Gaddafi's home compound--where several of his relatives were killed--indicates that the attack was in effect a massive assassination plot. Reagan simply wanted to rid himself of Quaddafi. Aside from the illegality of assinations of heads of state and the extensive physical effects of the bombing raid and the death of several hundred civilians, the end-effects of the attack on Libya's "behavior" toward the US were minimal. Of course if they had killed Quaddafi they might have had more effect. (See: Terrorism and Foreign Policy, by Paul Pillar)
The hoped for "elimination" of Qaddafi, and the possible deterrent and disruption effect from such a military maneuver did not materialize. Libya’s leader continued to do what he was doing--support of regimes not necessarily in favor in Washington--and in fact the American bombing raid appeared to increase the Libyan leaders popularity and helped to solidify his domestic support and popularity around the world.
There is no sound data to suggest that blunt military force--such as the Libya air raid-- on so called “terrorists” have any deterrent long lasting effect. First, as in the case of Libya the effects though widespread, had little impact on Qaddafi actually conducting additional retaliatory attacks.
The Reagan attacks actually served to strengthen Qaddafi’s political position and galvanized public opinion, in the Arab world against the US. If it is true that Libya planned and executed the Pan Am bombing, it probably made it easier for Qaddafi to organize such counter attacks. The over the top US reaction, helped to alienate the civilian population of surrounding states and increase recruits, resources and sympathy for Libya.
Finally, the bombing raid was only part of a series of strikes and counter strikes, attack and retaliation that is a well known pattern. Thus the probable Libyan -sponsored attack on Pan Am 103 was a not an unexpected response, from a state leader who had suffered through an assassination attempt, the loss of his infant daughter and the serious injuries to his sons. Reagan and his advisors were probably hoping that the raid and the assassination would have put an end to Qaddafi as an irritant and the results would have been all positive for the Reagan administration. But events did not go the way they were planned. Quaddafi escaped assassination—and went on to fight another day. Reagan kicked over the Libyan beehive and then stepped back hoping for disruption and deterrence…and a boost in his popularity ratings.
But the angry bees went on to sting others—such as the innocent civilians on the Pan Am 103 flight. Who bears responsibility for the tragedy? Is it the angry bees we blame, who were after all, quiescent in their nests and would have stung no one had they been left undisturbed? Or was it the one who kicked the hive over?
From this vantage point…more than twenty years later..when the pain of the great losses suffered continues to affect us as we recall all those young people on that plane would have gone on to productive careers, married, had children. We must ask ourselves, was Reagan’s act of unnecessary belligerence as a motive for retaliation worth it? What did he accomplish? Quaddafi is still in power. He still claims the entire Gulf of Sidra for Lybia. What has changed? From this point of view…I say---No.
Get the picture?
rjk
Friday, August 14, 2009
WHAT ARE THEY THINKING IN WASHINGTON?
Republicans didn’t lift a finger, write a letter of complaint, or raise their voices while President Bush, manufactured a phony reason ( a causus belli) for a war in Iraq, and in its pursuit spent (or will spend) some $3 trillion taxpayer’s dollars. The vast costs over the next decade may, as some have estimated, reach to the level of $8000 dollars for every man woman and child in the US. Even today we continue to spend approximately twelve billion dollars a month to maintain our military forces in Iraq where they remain encamped and reviled by the Iraqis as occupiers. In Afghanistan , the still burgeoning war in that blighted land is estimated to have cost nearly one-quarter of a trillion dollars to date---and according to Secretary of Defense Gates’ dreary prediction in today’s (August 14, 2009) newspapers “the fighting will go on (there) for several years”.
But in Washington, an attempt by our President to spend a little money on health care is met with Republican (and Blue Dog Democrat) bellicosity and chicanery! The present bill in Congress (HR3200), would, by some estimates, cost between $600 billion ( $0.6 trillion) and $1 trillion dollars over the next ten years. Using the lower estimate that’s just 50 months or a bit more than 4 years worth of Iraq War expenses! Or only a fifth, or 20%, what Bush spent on a needless, bloody, war that brought only misery and death. The proposed health bill is a considerable expenditure, but is only a small fraction of what we have wasted on military adventurism during the Bush years. Rather than weaken us, this bill would improve our nation’s over-all health , make our businesses more competitive, reduce health costs, and provide care for the vast majority of the 30-40 million Americans who now have no health insurance.
I find it ironic and hypocritical that the anti-health-bill cabal of Republican Senators and Congressman (and some Democrats too) the vast majority of whom heartily supported the disastrous Bush-Cheney’s Iraq War and remained silent while its costs skyrocketed to astronomical levels as they continued to support it to the very end. They kept mum while slurries of taxpayer dollars were funneled into the coffers of the large military-industrial corporations--which after-all do provide largess to many in Washington.
However, when it comes to addressing the health needs of the nation’s families and those of the common working man these Congressmen and women are roused to anger and bellicosity in inequitable objection. What can one think of their behavior? And what must we imagine of those who, I might add here, while they are speaking so eloquently and angrily to deny access to health care to their constituents and the rest of us, are the happy beneficiaries of the best, most expensive, government-sponsored health-care system in the nation—just a mere shadow of which they aim to deny to the rest of us. Sadly, I suppose it is very clear what they are thinking.
RJK
But in Washington, an attempt by our President to spend a little money on health care is met with Republican (and Blue Dog Democrat) bellicosity and chicanery! The present bill in Congress (HR3200), would, by some estimates, cost between $600 billion ( $0.6 trillion) and $1 trillion dollars over the next ten years. Using the lower estimate that’s just 50 months or a bit more than 4 years worth of Iraq War expenses! Or only a fifth, or 20%, what Bush spent on a needless, bloody, war that brought only misery and death. The proposed health bill is a considerable expenditure, but is only a small fraction of what we have wasted on military adventurism during the Bush years. Rather than weaken us, this bill would improve our nation’s over-all health , make our businesses more competitive, reduce health costs, and provide care for the vast majority of the 30-40 million Americans who now have no health insurance.
I find it ironic and hypocritical that the anti-health-bill cabal of Republican Senators and Congressman (and some Democrats too) the vast majority of whom heartily supported the disastrous Bush-Cheney’s Iraq War and remained silent while its costs skyrocketed to astronomical levels as they continued to support it to the very end. They kept mum while slurries of taxpayer dollars were funneled into the coffers of the large military-industrial corporations--which after-all do provide largess to many in Washington.
However, when it comes to addressing the health needs of the nation’s families and those of the common working man these Congressmen and women are roused to anger and bellicosity in inequitable objection. What can one think of their behavior? And what must we imagine of those who, I might add here, while they are speaking so eloquently and angrily to deny access to health care to their constituents and the rest of us, are the happy beneficiaries of the best, most expensive, government-sponsored health-care system in the nation—just a mere shadow of which they aim to deny to the rest of us. Sadly, I suppose it is very clear what they are thinking.
RJK
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
SOME INTERESTING FACTS CONCERNING THE US HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
Concerning how long we live: Longevity
In 2000 the World Health Organization studied health and related factors of the world’s nations. One of these measures was longevity ranking. How long a citizen lived in good health. Of the 191 nations evaluated Japan ranked 1, while the US ranked 24th . The US placed just above the nation of Cyprus (25th) and below nations such as Iceland, Finland and Malta. Yes the citizens of those nations live longer than those in US. In these rankings Australia came in at number 2, and all of Western Europe ranked in the single digits, for instance :France (3), Italy (4). Canada was ranked 12. The citizenry of the USA, the richest most powerful nation in the world, do not live as long as those in much smaller, weaker, and poorer nations! Why? Could it be that we have no national health care system? The US government has no actual stake it its citizen’s health. Is that why? Note that the citizens of Canada (a nation much abused in our TV adverts) live longer on average than a US citizen. Why?
Concerning how our health care system functions: Health System Performance
The WHO estimated the functioning of a nation’s health care system using eight parameters. In these 1997 rankings the US placed 71 out of 191 nations listed. While nations such as France (4), Italy (3) Spain(6), Greece (11), UK(24), Norway(18), Belgium, Sweden(21), as well as little Oman, tropical Jamaica, desertified Morocco ranked well above us. We were in the company of nations such as Bhutan (73), Nicaragua (74) and (pre-US invasion) Iraq (75). Why?
Canada which US anti-health-care advocates seems to like to use in their scare tactics was ranked at 35 in health care performance. Canada and the US are found on the same NA continent. We have similar ethnic origins and speak the same language (well nearly). We have a similar economic system, government and judiciary. Why such a disparity in health care rankings? Could it be their much maligned (here in the US) health care system is better than our system of unregulated insurance companies?
Concerning how much we spend on health care: Cost
Total Health Care Expenditures: This is where the US ranks highest--in the cost of its health-care system. We expended (2005 figures) more than 15.2% of our GDP on health care and rank number two on the chart, just under the Marshal Islands (rank = 1) which spends 15.4% of its GDP, and above Niue (r= 3) Timor (r= 4) and Kiribati (r=5). Who even knows where these nations are?
On the other hand France, Italy, Germany, and Canada…all those nations with better longevity figures and health care performance rankings--- spend less of their GDP than we do.
Another Evaluation: Preventable Deaths…the US ranks last!
In a 2008 study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (See http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07651650 --downloaded Aug 13, 2009) researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee tracked patient deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care. They ranked 19 industrialized nations on how they performed in avoiding unnecessary or preventable deaths . The researchers considered deaths before age 75 from various causes including heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes , certain bacterial infections and post operative care. The authors considered the results an important way to assess the functioning of a nation’s health care system. Of the nineteen nations France, Japan, and Australia rated the best and the US the worst (at the bottom).
In the study France did the best with less than 65 deaths deemed preventable per 1000 people in the 2002-2003 study period, while Japan had 71.2 and Australia 71.3. The US rate was 109.7 cases deemed “preventable deaths” per 100,000 citizens. After the top three, Spain was 4th, followed by Italy, Canada, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, UK, Ireland and Portugal…the US was last.
In a comparison of previous rankings in the years 1997-1998 the authors note that France and Japan were first and second, while the US was 15th in these earlier rankings. Thus over the period the US had declined by four rankings in the current study. During the period studied the authors conclude that all the nations made progress in decreasing the number of “unnecessary or preventable deaths” noting that on average the numbers of preventable deaths declined by 16% for the 19 nations studied. They noted however that the US decline was only one-fourth of the average value of the other industrialized nations, or only 4%.
The authors concluded that using if the US health care system performed as well as those of the top three countries more than 100,000 fewer US citizens would die each year. These “unnecessary” deaths constituted 23% of overall male deaths and 32% of female deaths in each year in the US.
Is there some common thread we might detect among those nations which have better health care, lower morbidity (sickness) and lower rates of mortality?
Yes it is obvious--those nations such as France, Japan, Italy, Greece, UK and ……yes Canada…. all have universal health care systems in which the central government oversees and regulates the operation and function of health care insurers and health care professionals. The results—are clearly superior to our unregulated, expensive and ineffective system. Those who continue to oppose change in our health care system may have to pay for it---not with higher taxes but with a shorter, less healthful life…for themselves and their children.
What are these activists in the town hall meetings trying to prevent?
Better health care?
Are they against the possibility of living a longer more healthful life?
Are they against lowering costs?
Or are they simply ill informed unthinking dupes of the giant HMOs, and insurance companies?
Concerning how long we live: Longevity
In 2000 the World Health Organization studied health and related factors of the world’s nations. One of these measures was longevity ranking. How long a citizen lived in good health. Of the 191 nations evaluated Japan ranked 1, while the US ranked 24th . The US placed just above the nation of Cyprus (25th) and below nations such as Iceland, Finland and Malta. Yes the citizens of those nations live longer than those in US. In these rankings Australia came in at number 2, and all of Western Europe ranked in the single digits, for instance :France (3), Italy (4). Canada was ranked 12. The citizenry of the USA, the richest most powerful nation in the world, do not live as long as those in much smaller, weaker, and poorer nations! Why? Could it be that we have no national health care system? The US government has no actual stake it its citizen’s health. Is that why? Note that the citizens of Canada (a nation much abused in our TV adverts) live longer on average than a US citizen. Why?
Concerning how our health care system functions: Health System Performance
The WHO estimated the functioning of a nation’s health care system using eight parameters. In these 1997 rankings the US placed 71 out of 191 nations listed. While nations such as France (4), Italy (3) Spain(6), Greece (11), UK(24), Norway(18), Belgium, Sweden(21), as well as little Oman, tropical Jamaica, desertified Morocco ranked well above us. We were in the company of nations such as Bhutan (73), Nicaragua (74) and (pre-US invasion) Iraq (75). Why?
Canada which US anti-health-care advocates seems to like to use in their scare tactics was ranked at 35 in health care performance. Canada and the US are found on the same NA continent. We have similar ethnic origins and speak the same language (well nearly). We have a similar economic system, government and judiciary. Why such a disparity in health care rankings? Could it be their much maligned (here in the US) health care system is better than our system of unregulated insurance companies?
Concerning how much we spend on health care: Cost
Total Health Care Expenditures: This is where the US ranks highest--in the cost of its health-care system. We expended (2005 figures) more than 15.2% of our GDP on health care and rank number two on the chart, just under the Marshal Islands (rank = 1) which spends 15.4% of its GDP, and above Niue (r= 3) Timor (r= 4) and Kiribati (r=5). Who even knows where these nations are?
On the other hand France, Italy, Germany, and Canada…all those nations with better longevity figures and health care performance rankings--- spend less of their GDP than we do.
Another Evaluation: Preventable Deaths…the US ranks last!
In a 2008 study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (See http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07651650 --downloaded Aug 13, 2009) researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee tracked patient deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care. They ranked 19 industrialized nations on how they performed in avoiding unnecessary or preventable deaths . The researchers considered deaths before age 75 from various causes including heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes , certain bacterial infections and post operative care. The authors considered the results an important way to assess the functioning of a nation’s health care system. Of the nineteen nations France, Japan, and Australia rated the best and the US the worst (at the bottom).
In the study France did the best with less than 65 deaths deemed preventable per 1000 people in the 2002-2003 study period, while Japan had 71.2 and Australia 71.3. The US rate was 109.7 cases deemed “preventable deaths” per 100,000 citizens. After the top three, Spain was 4th, followed by Italy, Canada, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, UK, Ireland and Portugal…the US was last.
In a comparison of previous rankings in the years 1997-1998 the authors note that France and Japan were first and second, while the US was 15th in these earlier rankings. Thus over the period the US had declined by four rankings in the current study. During the period studied the authors conclude that all the nations made progress in decreasing the number of “unnecessary or preventable deaths” noting that on average the numbers of preventable deaths declined by 16% for the 19 nations studied. They noted however that the US decline was only one-fourth of the average value of the other industrialized nations, or only 4%.
The authors concluded that using if the US health care system performed as well as those of the top three countries more than 100,000 fewer US citizens would die each year. These “unnecessary” deaths constituted 23% of overall male deaths and 32% of female deaths in each year in the US.
Is there some common thread we might detect among those nations which have better health care, lower morbidity (sickness) and lower rates of mortality?
Yes it is obvious--those nations such as France, Japan, Italy, Greece, UK and ……yes Canada…. all have universal health care systems in which the central government oversees and regulates the operation and function of health care insurers and health care professionals. The results—are clearly superior to our unregulated, expensive and ineffective system. Those who continue to oppose change in our health care system may have to pay for it---not with higher taxes but with a shorter, less healthful life…for themselves and their children.
What are these activists in the town hall meetings trying to prevent?
Better health care?
Are they against the possibility of living a longer more healthful life?
Are they against lowering costs?
Or are they simply ill informed unthinking dupes of the giant HMOs, and insurance companies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)