While walking the Freedom Trail in downtown Boston this week, Kerri and I stumbled across a memorial to Irish immigrants who struggled during the potato famine. Photo by Christopher.

The other day, I asked Kerri if she thought it was too late to have our publisher change something in our upcoming book. I was prompted to ask because of a recent report released by the USDA which stated that 49 million Americans (1 in 7 households) are currently in need of some type of food assistance; a number that in August hovered around 36 million. In the second part of our book we talk in depth about SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program), formerly known as food stamps, and as it stands now, when our book is released we will have drastically understated the scope of the problems people are facing.

Then yesterday, a shocking projection was revealed across the newswires: nearly half of all children in the United States will eat on food stamps during some part of their childhood.

The study was published earlier this month in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, and was conducted by sociologists from Cornell University and Washington University in St. Louis. They based their projection on 30 years of national data, and said their results, “show U.S. kids face a substantial risk for experiencing poverty, which poses a serious threat to their health and well-being.”

The article by Lindsey Tanner of the Associated Press goes on to do a fairly good job of embracing the nuances of food security issues, but what was most surprising (and predictable?) was the comment from Robert Rector at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Apparently, Rector sees no need to sound the alarm about this issue as he explains that many in this situation, “have comforts like televisions and air conditioning receive food stamps for short periods of time when a parent is laid off.”

I cannot eat my television when I’m hungry, or get enough nutrition from cold air, and I’m assuming that the people he’s talking about can’t do so either. (The callousness of this response prompted today’s accompanying photo)

Rector’s comments seem to stem from the same place that many libertarian economic philosophers do, one of “every man for himself” and “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” rhetoric that does little to account for the contexts or the individual situations that people face. When your research is aimed from a certain philosophical gun, it’s pretty easy to hit the target you’re aiming for. The Heritage Foundation has such an arsenal, and uses it frequently on issues of social spending.

Meanwhile, local food pantries and charities keep plugging away while the need for services climbs, and resources diminish. While the work of these groups is essential, it is not enough, and on its own will never come close to getting at the roots of these problems. That being said, we would like to ask you once again to do what you can to help others, either through donating to those in extreme poverty abroad, or to those facing food insecurity in your community (or both).

While we were in Boston this past week, Kerri and I were humbled by the depth of our nation’s history, and by the efforts of those working to help others. While on the red line train we saw an ad for a Catholic charity, that asks people to throw a party where the entrance to the event is a bag of boxed and canned foods for donation. We thought it quite clever, and will most likely use this idea for our own efforts in San Diego. Thankful for your continued help of others…

- Christopher

(by Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com) – As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.

…More

I love going to the movies. I especially love the NACHOS!

I used to have this routine on Monday mornings: I’d get off work (I work night shift), go home and change clothes, do some stuff around the house so that I could stay awake and then at 11 am I’d take off for the movies. First thing I bought was a Dr.Pepper and nachos. After the movie, I’d go next door to Cold Stone Creamery for ice cream and then go home to bed.

I loved that routine. But I can no longer in good conscience spend money supporting the immoral and unethical Hollywood elite. I have no respect for them and they have none for most of America. Granted, there’s a handful (Jon Voight, for instance) who I would and will continue to go see, but there are way too many like this:

Rape-rape? Rape-rape? What the hell is that? Whoopi is a moron. End of that story.

She was 13. She was drugged and liquored up. It was rape. There’s no other way to slice it. She could not consent because she was 13. What part of this is not understandable to these Hollywood dummies?

Where is their humanity? She was a CHILD!

So, I will turn my family room into my very own movie theater and watch movies that I really like: Hitchcock and Capra and Chaplin, the Marx Brothers and movies that I already own. I want to watch movie stars that were MOVIE STARS and not political activists whose views and morals are contrary to mine or in Whoopi’s case, totally absent.

There was a time when movie stars appreciated their fame and their fans. Not so anymore. These entertainers now feel entitled to adoration. They are the other end – the rich end – of the entitlement mentality in this country. They belong to their own exclusive club and the rest of us are the unwashed. Screw them! When you subtract their wealth, they are no different from me. They suffer and mourn and laugh, just like I do. But I have something they don’t: morals, ethics and values.

Although I know that my personal boycott won’t effect any of them, I feel better for it.

America is a nation rooted in values and laws. As President Obama would say–and should say to his Hollywood supporters–these issues are not red or blue, but American. Hollywood does America a great disservice when they demand we trade our economy in for global warming bills from their G5 jet; when they demand we push millions of Americans onto an inferior health care plan; when they attack capitalism from their exclusive country clubs; when they demand that we hug dictators like Chavez or excuse rape because a debatably good movie or two was directed by the aggressor. The hypocrisy must end. The Heritage Foundation

I can make better nachos at home and I don’t need the added ice cream calories, anyway.

Today President Obama took another great leap toward destroying the security of America and her allies when he abandoned a planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Planned installations in Poland and the Czech Republic are being abandoned.

Once again, this President believes we make ourselves stronger by displaying weakness. Or does he? It’s beginning to look more and more like he really just wants us to be weak.

By Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D.

Late last month, I returned to Washington after attending a conference in Stockholm. In both national capitals, thousands of children and their parents were in full back-to-school planning mode.

But there was one big difference.

In the capital city of socialist Sweden, as in the rest of the country, schoolchildren and their parents were finalizing their choice of public or private school – using the school-voucher program available to all Swedish children.

Back here in the capital of free-market America, Congress was phasing out Washington, D.C.’s modest voucher program. Some 216 low-income families, who thought they were newly eligible for a voucher, were told that they could rip up their private-school acceptances and go back to their failing public schools.

No, I don’t make these things up. All children throughout Sweden get education vouchers. It seems that the citadel of socialism can teach our Congress and teachers unions quite a bit about education choice.

Sweden introduced school vouchers throughout the country in 1992 to deal with exactly the same quality problems we face in our public schools.

Under the program, enacted by a center-right coalition government, children can use a voucher to go to either public schools or one of the growing number of private schools.

Private schools include religious schools and even for-profit schools. One of the largest for-profits – Kunskapsskolan (or “Knowledge School”) – runs 32 schools with about 10,000 students ages 12-18.

These independent schools, like the public schools, get a voucher payment for each child. They compete vigorously with one other because the money follows the child to the school of his or her choice. Schools must satisfy their customers … or lose them. —

No, the private schools cannot select the students they want. They can’t just cream the smartest and the richest. They have to accept children on a first come, first serve basis. And they cannot charge additional fees, so poor Swedish children have exactly the same shot at the top private schools as rich children.

Children with special needs, such as learning disabilities, get a larger voucher to cover the additional costs of accommodating them.

Every private school is free to design its own programs and teaching methods, but each must cover the content of Sweden’s national curriculum. Each school also must participate in national testing and be open to government inspection.

Before the voucher system was enacted in 1992, the Social Democrats – then the opposition party – opposed it. But when they were swept back to power in 1994, the voucher program was so successful and popular that they did not repeal it. In fact they expanded it, increasing the voucher amount from the original 85 percent of local public school costs to 100 percent.

According to Timbro, a Stockholm think tank that has been studying the program, there is a good reason why the major parties back vouchers. Swedes strongly support the program.

There is a higher level of satisfaction among children, parents and teachers in the private Swedish schools. Measures of quality among those schools are higher, and competition is also shaking up the public schools and improving their quality.

The growth of the competing private sector has been dramatic. Before the voucher program, less than 1 percent of Swedish children attended private schools. Now it is 10 percent. At the senior high school level, it is 20 percent. About one in five Swedish schools is now private, and roughly 10 percent of the private schools are church-based.

While many of Sweden’s private schools are nonprofit or church-based, 60 percent of its private schools actually operate as for-profit companies. Some are chains, such as Kunskapsskolan, but many are smaller, local private schools. According to Timbro, the average profit margin of these schools is about 4 percent, and nearly 80 percent of the profits are reinvested in the schools.

Children of all backgrounds in Sweden have the legal right and the financial means through vouchers to attend the school that is right for them – public or private. True, in Washington and in other parts of America, children now have access to charter schools, which are shaking up the education landscape.

But it is ironic – and embarrassing – that if the 216 low-income D.C. children now effectively being barred from going to private school lived in socialist Sweden, they would be able to exercise choice in a free-market school system.

Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D., is Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation

First Appeared in The Washington Times

   Iata ce apare pe site-ul The Heritage Foundation (click pe foto pentru a mari):

   Este o imagine de pe site-ul oficial al presedintelui Obama in care oponentii acestuia sunt numiti “Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists” …

   Interesant este ca a semnalat aceasta The Heritage Foundation, una din creatiile familiei Bechtel. Cititi va rog si articolul:

Personalitati si organizatii: BECHTEL      

   Dupa cum observati citind articolul mai sus mentionat, Bechtel se invarte in lumea ELITELOR ca si papusarii care-l manuiesc pe Obama:

Detalii esentiale despre PAPUSARII si sforile prin care este manuit presedintele marioneta Barack Obama

   Ca atare se arunca praf in ochii maselor.

Contact: Steven Camarota, (202) 466-8185, sac@cis.org

WASHINGTON (August 10, 2009) – One out of three people in the U.S. without health insurance is an immigrant (legal or illegal) or the U.S.-born child (under 18) of an immigrant. Immigrants and their children also account for one-fourth of those on Medicaid. While there has been some discussion of whether illegal immigrants should be covered by proposed government insurance plans, the enormous impact of immigration, both legal and illegal, on the health care system has generally not been acknowledged in the current debate.

The Center for Immigration Studies will hold a panel discussion to explore what effects immigration policy both current and future may have on health care reform. The panel will be held at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, August 19, in the Murrow Room of the National Press Club, 14th & F streets.

Panelists will include:

Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies, author of The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget, and an expert in the areas of economics and demography

Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, an authority on poverty, the U.S. welfare system, and immigration.

James R. Edwards, Jr., Fellow, Center for Immigration Studies, coauthor of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, and former Communications Manager for the Healthcare Leadership Council.

Moderator: Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies

James Sherk, the Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy at The Heritage Foundation, writes:

Most Americans take it as fact that manufacturing jobs have decreased over the past 30 years. However, that is not fully accurate. Chart 1 shows manufacturing employment for union and non-union workers. Unionized manufacturing jobs fell by 75 percent between 1977 and 2008. Non-union manufacturing employment increased by 6 percent over that time. In the aggregate, only unionized manufacturing jobs have disappeared from the economy. As a result, collective bargaining coverage fell from 38 percent of manufacturing workers to 12 percent over those years.

Manufacturing jobs have fallen in both sectors since 2000, but non-union workers have fared much better: 38 percent of unionized manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2000, compared to 18 percent of non-union jobs.

To the President and Congress of the United States
From Edwin Feulner, Ph.D.
President, The Heritage Foundation
Health care reform has been a central goal of The Heritage Foundation since our creation more than three decades ago, so we welcomed President Barack Obama’s call for a common effort to find the right solution to this public policy challenge. We believe that putting families, not the government, in control of the system is the key to success. We want to strengthen our health system based on that principle.
The trouble has been that, no sooner does the President call for “everybody to pitch in” and engage in the debate, than he vilifies anyone who criticizes his plans. Denigrating different views does nothing to improve the tone of the debate here in Washington, let alone achieve real reform.
Having a civil national debate will produce more lasting change; accusing opponents of engaging in “scare tactics and fear-mongering” will not.
And make no mistake: there are legitimate concerns with what the White House has proposed. Americans need to understand the implications of all of the competing proposals, whether from the White House, from Capitol Hill, from industries, from think tanks or from interest groups.
In his speech to the American Medical Association, the President said, “When you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They’re not telling the truth.” Truth, however, is not a commodity over which the President has a monopoly. We not only believe that we are alerting the nation to potentially catastrophic consequences when we point out pitfalls in his plans, we think that some proposals being made by the White House are advertised on false premises.
Here are a few examples:
If you like your health care package you can keep it: This assertion is difficult to square with the facts. The President says that a “public option”—a government plan—would just be one of many health care plans that Americans could select. In fact, a public plan will lead many employers to drop private health coverage for their workers and dump them into the public plan—just as many employers in the 1990s pushed their workers into cheaper managed care plans. According to independent analyses, as many as 119 million Americans could end up in a public plan. This is hardly letting people keep what they have. And many in Congress are eager to expand a public plan, with tight rules on what your doctor can do and how much he or she will be paid. Congress can do that because it will be both the “umpire” who sets the rules and the “team owner” of the public plan. There will be no “level-playing field.” We believe a public option will toll a death knell for private plans.
The end goal is not a single payer system: This is another Washington euphemism that confuses people. Let us all be clear: The “single payer” here is Uncle Sam, using taxpayers’ money, and not just paying the bills but calling the shots and deciding what care every American will get—or not get. The inclusion of a public option is nothing more than a Trojan horse. The architects of the President’s proposals, and the sponsors of his proposals on Capitol Hill, know that once a government plan is in place, private insurance companies will be eventually run out of business. The government already owns a major bank and auto company; we shouldn’t hand over the medical industry as well.
The proposals are deficit-neutral: The President also asserts that a government system will be fully financed. This is a stunning untruth. Analysts, including the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office–Congress’s own watchdog–have issued preliminary estimates that the cost could be high as $2 trillion over 10 years, with most of that borrowed money. Even squeezing Medicare payments and adding new tax revenue will not pay for the massive burden this plan would put on American families. And current congressional proposals would still leave millions without insurance. Washington always says that new costs will be paid by savings elsewhere, but these phantom savings never materialize. These new costs will be borne by American families.
The quality of your health care will get better: One need only look at current government health programs to test this premise. Medicare has huge gaps in coverage. Medicaid’s quality is notoriously bad. They both offer substandard care compared to most private insurance plans. These persistent deficiencies are routinely overlooked in discussions of a government health plan. Rather than fixing Medicare and Medicaid, what the government proposes is to make these programs the foundations of a universal plan.
But we know opposing bad ideas is not enough. We need to fix the gaps in our health care system and lower costs for Americans. The system we need must not just protect union bosses, bureaucrats and select cartels, it must empower American families. The nation needs health care reform, not health care micromanaged by the government.
We are happy the President has joined a cause we have championed since our inception. He has recently been asking audiences across the nation “Where’s the alternative?” We at The Heritage Foundation are ready to discuss our alternative plans and help craft a bipartisan solution to America’s health care problems. That is what the country needs and what the President says he wants.
Specifically, a plan that would reform health care will need to:
Give families control of their health care: We need to let families—not the government—control decisions so they can choose the coverage they want. For this to happen private health insurance needs to be portable—that is, owned by Americans so they can take their package from job to job. The health care system we have today was conceived in the era of World War II, when many Americans worked for the same company all their lives. As we know, that is not the case today. The President has acknowledged this. But we do not need a public plan, or mandates on businesses, to have portability. We need changes in rules and the removal of tax penalties to allow families real choice and ownership.
Reform the tax system: For portability to become reality, we need to reform the tax system. Right now, families can get a tax break for their insurance only if they hand over control of their insurance to their boss, and leave their plan behind if they change jobs. That needs to change. We need to provide the same tax relief to families wherever they choose to get their plan. In that world of empowered families, plans would have to compete to satisfy them, not compete to cut costs for employers.
Bring on competition: Americans will get quality health care only with the mechanism that has given us quality in all other aspects of life: competition. The way to get quality care in America is to have insurers compete to satisfy families in an insurance market, one that provides transparent information, ease of delivery and quick results, and which is fair to families and their doctors. Members of Congress pick and choose plans in such a market. The rest of America should also have that right.
Recognize that states know better than Washington: The challenges of organizing and delivering health care vary greatly across the nation. Rural Mississippi is not the same as Midtown Manhattan. States have always been smarter than Washington at figuring out how to get the job done. To the extent that government must play a role, the states should take the lead in devising the best way to reach our national goals. The last thing we need is one-size-fits-all health care. Congress needs to let states find the best way to achieve value for money in widening coverage while bringing down costs.
A reckless, expensive and one-sided rush toward “reform” would not only be damaging to our public discourse, but it could fundamentally change our society in ways that have far-reaching consequences.
Rather than bringing in the failed central-planning approach to health care, with the government controlling who gets what, let’s ensure access to affordable health care for all Americans. Let’s use the tried and tested approach of the empowered consumer in a truly competitive market.
These are some of our remedies to our nation’s health care system. There are other free market ideas that also warrant consideration. We call on the President and Congress to widen the conversation. Let the debate truly begin.

All text in bold is my emphasis.

From The Heritage Foundation:

My name is Ben Lieberman and I’m the Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment at The Heritage Foundation. I’ll be discussing the economics of global warming policy and especially the cost of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill currently working its way through the House of Representatives. I’ll focus on the Heritage Foundation’s economic analysis of that bill. But before I do that, I wanted to set out a framework with which to judge Waxman-Markey or any other measure offered up as a solution to the global warming problem — a set of questions that need to be answered before we enact any global warming measures, especially costly ones

So let’s start out with what cap and trade is and then I’ll get to the costs. The cap part of cap and trade refers to a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, chiefly carbon dioxide. The problem is that carbon dioxide is the unavoidable byproduct of fossil fuel combustion — the coal, oil, and natural gas that currently provides America with 85 percent of its energy. There’s no cheap or easy way to significantly reduce those emissions any time soon. The Waxman-Markey bill requires a 3 percent reduction from 2005 baseline levels beginning in 2012, and rises to 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. There will be some fuel-switching from coal to natural gas, and an increase in alternatives like wind and solar, especially if these alternatives get a federal mandate on top of the generous tax breaks they already receive. But for the most part, if you look at these targets as energy rationing, you’ll be correct. And you’d be even more correct if you view them as an energy tax in disguise.

Who would be directly regulated? Electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site. So the good news for the rest of us — homeowners, car owners, small business owners, property owners, farmers — is that we won’t be directly regulated under Waxman-Markey. The bad news is that almost all of the costs will get passed on to us anyway.

One other thing that has gotten most of the attention as Waxman-Markey went from a draft proposal to a bill was the allocation of allowances. President Obama had endorsed cap and trade with 100 percent auction of allowances. That means that the regulated entities would have to pay for all of the allowances and would get none for free. We are talking about something worth hundreds of billions of dollars each year. On the other side, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of many major corporations and some environmental groups, asked for some of those allowances for free. They clearly had a role in drafting Waxman-Markey which gave them what they wanted. I thought President Obama actually had the right idea with no free allowances, because it means that none of these companies can be bought off in this manner. But in the end, 85 percent of the allowances have been promised for free. The biggest winners are the electric utilities which get 35 percent of the allowances. Some energy-intensive manufacturers also made out well. So only 15 percent of the allowances will be auctioned, at least in the initial phase of the bill, and even those may get promised away as the bill moves forward.

In our analysis, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill’s provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach over $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 per year over that span. Electricity costs go up $468, gasoline goes up $565, and natural gas goes up $161 by 2035. That’s a 58 percent increase in gas prices, 90 percent for electricity, and 55 percent for natural gas. Cumulative higher energy costs for a household of four from 2012-2035 would reach nearly $20,000.

But direct energy costs is only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey as reflected in the cost of the allocations and offsets, and divide these costs by the population, you get a total impact attributable to a family of four averaging $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035. And most of that $2,979 per household would be passed on to the general public so it is a good gauge of the ultimate cost.

The overall gross domestic product losses will average $491 billion per year from 2012-2035 and the cumulative GDP loss is $9.4 trillion by 2035. The increase in the national debt by 2035 for a family of four is 26 percent or $115,000.

Read On

(Ed: This is the first post in a 3-part series on earmarks.)

You have to wonder about the intelligence of a system that encourages this sort of behavior: Democrats slipped $5 billion for the IMF into the latest supplemental war-funding bill (via the Economist; emphasis mine).

It was always foolish to pretend that a vote against a war-funding bill, especially one that everyone knew was going to pass, was some kind of Doltschuss against GI Joe. Because war-funding bills are so impossible to oppose, they’re always larded with special projects and money that didn’t make it into some other bill. If this is what it takes to expose that, great. If it takes the defeat of this bill and the negotiation of a clean one, even better.

The astute observer will remember that Democrats were ostracized for trying to block a similarly bloated war bill in December of 2007. Cries of “but you aren’t supporting the troops!” convinced them otherwise. Bank on Democrats (successfully) trying the same tactic against Republicans this time around.

Of course, this is nothing new. We operate in a legislative system where earmarks are the norm. Some are for party projects, like the Dems’ inclusion of IMF funding, although most are pet projects designed to bring goodies to the constituents back home. Some, like John McCain, treat earmarks as the ultimate affront to sensibility. Others rightly point out that they’re a pretty insignificant portion of the budget at less than one percent. I don’t think those two viewpoints are mutually exclusive, but I’ll get to that in a moment.

First, to the shock tactics:

Conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation reported back in March that the most recent stimulus package contained over 9,000 earmarks. (Liberal watchdog Media Matters notes that 40 percent of those were of Republican origin, and this is important because both parties are complicit in the crime.)

Just this week, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) released a report detailing $5.5 billion in wasteful earmarks from that same bill (via The Wall Street Journal):

Among the top 10 are funds for repairing bridges in rural Wisconsin, including $840,000 for a small bridge that carries just 260 vehicles daily. It also lists $800,000 for the John Murtha Airport in Johnstown/Cambria County in Pennsylvania “despite the fact that virtually no one uses the airport.”

And Politico did some digging on questionable stimulus funding (valued at $1 billion) that commissions FutureGen to build a clean coal power plant, which Dems swore up and down would not be included in the bill as an earmark.

Debates about FutureGen and variable definitions of “earmark” notwithstanding, there are two things to take away from all this. Pork happens. And it doesn’t cost that much.

That being said, there is certainly cause for the John McCains of the world to wave their crusading red pens and cry “Foul!” each and every time pork makes its way through the legislature. Yeah, it doesn’t cost that much, but that doesn’t mean it’s an efficient use of money. Those who wish to brush it under the rug may be right as a practical matter — eliminating earmarks won’t do a damn thing to the deficit. But it ignores an important fact: those same $100,000, $1 million, $1 billion dollars spent more efficiently could mean the world to a community, city, or even state. I’ll have more on that, and the root causes of earmarks in future posts.

“Capitalism is essentially a system of mass production for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses. It pours a horn of plenty upon the common man. It has raised the average standard of living to a height never dreamed of in earlier ages. It has made accessible to millions of people enjoyments which a few generations ago were only within the reach of a small elite.”

~Ludwig von Mises, The Ant-capitalistic Mentality, p. 49.

“That democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for its produces something so utterly different that few of those who now wish it would be prepared to accept the consequences, many will not believe until the connection has been bare in all its aspects.”

~Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, page 34.

UPDATE

The American People Celebrate Independence Day–Saturday, July 4, 2009–By Marching in 1000 Cities and Towns and Attending Ice Tea Parties To Freeze Federal Government Spending, Taxes and Deficits–30 Million Expected Nationally–1 Million In Washington D.C.!

Share of GDP: China, India, Japan, Latin America, Western Europe, United States

Share of Population Growth: China, India, Africa, Latin America, Western Europe, United States

The growth and success of the American economy in creating wealth and employment is  largely due to market capitalism and the American work ethic.

Electricity, autos, trucks, airplanes, jets,  telephones, computers, radios, air conditioners, refrigerators, television,   movies, medical drugs, devices and cures and treatments were all due to individuals creating wealth in the private sector and not by government initiatives, regulations or interventions.

For 2008 the estimated Gross Domestic Product of the United States was $14,264,600,000,000 or 14.264 trillion dollars.

For 2008 the estimated Gross Domestic Product of the World was $69,490,000,000,000 or 69.49 trillion dollars.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html

For 2008 the United States produced approximately 20.5% of the world’s gross domestic product. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Accounts

http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

The United States’ population is about 306 million and the world’s population is about 6,781 million.

The United States’ population is just over 4.51% of the world’s population.

With  less than 5% of the world population and using roughly 25% of the world’s oil, the United States economy creates over 20% of the world’s production, output or wealth.

 U.S. Population Clock

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

World Population Clock

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html 

The growth and success of the United States of America is manifestly not due to government intervention into the economy by radical socialist lawyers and social engineers that have never run a business, met a payroll or understand how wealth is created and markets work.

President Obama is trying to destroy market capitalism by creating economic crisises and insisting that government intervention is needed to solve the crisises.

The bailout of failing businesses is not the function of the Federal government nor are such bailouts constitutional.

Glenn Beck – U.S. Obligated Debt Exceeds World GDP $78.8 Trillion

President Obama and the Democractic Party are using either taxpayer money, deficit debt financing and/or the printing of money by debt monetarization to finance the bailout of  businesses, unions, and governments.  

President Obama and the Democractic Party are using the Federal government to steal money and wealth  from the American people  and givng it to their political friends and partners in crime.  Just like the National Socialist did it Germany with the jews and the Communists in the Soviet Union and China did with business and property owners.

How the liberals destroyed America 1

How the liberals destroyed America 2

Meanwhile, Communist China is turning slowly away from communist socialism and surprise embracing market capitalism for its economy:

China embracing capitalism

President Obama and the Democratic Party are paying off  private entities such as banks, businesses and unions that made significant campaign contributions to elect President Obama and other Democratic Party politicians.

President Obama is shaking down and extorting from the American people money to payoff those who got him into power including the executives at the failing Wall Street firms and banks and the unions including the UAW, SEIU and NEA.

President Obama strategy is to create a crisis then assert that the only solution is another Federal government program, regulation, standard, tax or subsidy. This is not change. It more government interference and meddling into job wealth creation.

President Obama still does not understand that the vast majority of new jobs  in the economy are created by small to medium size businesses started by entrepreneurs and where the business is usually less than five years old. Governments are not job and wealth creators but are largely wealth redistributors at best and job and wealth destroyers at worse. 

Today with much fanfare and more and bigger lies, President Obama announced  a proposed new CAFE standards.

Obama’s Energy Czar on new Tailpipe Emissions Standard 

Obama Pushes Stronger Fuel-efficiency Standard

For the United States to become energy independent, the Federal government needs to get out of the way and stop micromanaging the economy by picking winners and losers in business and technologies.

The private sector should be unleased from government regulations to explore and produce oil and national gas for the economy’s transportation, heating and electricity needs.

More coal and nuclear plants need to be built to meet the nation’s rising demand for electricity.

Currently about 50% of electricity in the United States is produced coal powered plants and another 20%  is produced by 105 nuclear powered plants.

Since it takes about 8 to 10 years to design and build a new nuclear plant, for now any new power plants will need to be powered by coal or natural gas.

One alternative is to follow the example of France and produce about 80% of future electricity needs of the United States from nuclear power plants.

This would require the building of about 400 nucelar plants over a forty year period or about ten per year beginning in 2010 and ending in 2050.

Over these forty years both cars and trucks could gradually transition to an all electrical powered vehicles as scientific breakthroughs are made in batteries and other technologies.

Alternative energy from wind turbines and solar power simply cannot compete in terms of price with coal, nuclear power and natural gas. A manufacturing sector cannot compete globally if it cannot get inexpensive power from coal and nuclear plants.

Both China and India are building a large number of  both coal and nuclear powered plants to produce electricity to expand their manufacturing base.

The United States should be following their example given our massive supply of coal and understanding of the science and technology of nuclear power.

If a cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions tax were enacted, more and more manufactures will flee the United States to where both energy and labor are much cheaper. 

The cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions tax will mean the loss of millions of jobs and significantly higher energy prices for all Americans.

Peter Huber who understands and writes books about energy and the environment tells it like it is, pay attention to this man, he knows what he is talking about:

(4 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER 

Capping Carbon Emissions Is Bad, No Matter How You Slice the Revenue

by Nicolas Loris and Ben Lieberman

“…The problem with these efforts is that they do not resolve the central problem that will continue to plague attempts to cap CO2: All carbon capping plans are costly energy taxes in disguise that will raise energy prices and unemployment with little environmental benefit.

Cap and Trade

Under a cap-and-trade program, each power plant, factory, refinery, and other regulated entity will be allocated allowances (rights) to emit six greenhouse gases. However, only a certain percentage of the allowances will be allocated to these entities. The remaining percentage will be auctioned off or distributed to other emitting entities. Emitters who reduce their emissions below their annual allotment can sell their excess allowances to those who do not. Over time, the cap would be ratcheted down, requiring greater cuts in emissions and more harm to the economy.

There are plenty of reasons why a cap-and-trade program is a bad idea, including lack of transparency and potential for fraud and abuse. But above all it is an economic burden and jobs killer. …”

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2443.cfm

The Heritage Foundation’s analysis concludes:

• Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $7.4 trillion,
• Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs,
• Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation,
• Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent,
• Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent,
• Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500, and
• Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.  …”

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2438.cfm

The Economic Impact of Waxman–Markey 

By William W. Beach, David Kreutzer, Ph.D., Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and Ben Lieberman 

Yet President Obama and his Energy Czar persist in misleading and lying to the American people about greenhouse gas being pollutants and man is causing climate change by emitting carbon dioxide from their cars they drive and from the electricity they use from coal and natural gas powered plants.

CO2 is a trace gas.

Climate Change – Water Vapor 

The most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor which again is not a pollutant. Nor for that matter is carbon dioxide.

The climate has been warming primarily due to natural causes over the last 150 years.

This is turn is usually followed by rising levels of carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmoshere.

Carbon dioxide emissions do not cause the temperature to rise, it is just the opposite.

Greenhouse Gases

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change pt 1

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change pt 2

The imposition of higher CAFE standards for the purpose of lowering carbon dioxide emmissions in turn to lower temperature of the planet is to put it bluntly crazy.

The American people are not buying this radical socialist silliness and stupdity.

These CAFE standards will result in significantly higher car prices to recoup the cost of retooling and redesigning cars that are smaller, lighter and yes more dangerous to your life and limbs.

The American people should decide what type of cars or trucks they want to drive and not government bureaucrats and lawyers.

In the United States the American people are free to chose to buy the products and services they need and want.

They do not want any help from busy-body nanny radical socialists and government bureaucrats.

The American people are adults and will buy what they want and can afford not what a unqualified and inexperience President wants us to buy to payoff his political friends and backers.

Consumer sovereignty rules in America and not government Energy Czars or commissars telling the American people what types of cars they should buy.

It is simply none of the government’s business nor for that matter is it constitutional for the Federal government to dictate how many miles a vehicle get.

Higher CAFE standards mean lighter and smaller cars that would result in higher deaths and injuries when they collide with heavy and larger trucks and older and bigger cars on the roads and highways of America.

This in turn would mean higher medical bills for doctor and hospital care resulting from accidents where you are driving an Obama lightweight car and hit and crushed by a large and heavy truck.

The American political elites are killing tens of thousands of Americans each year with their mandated CAFE standards. President Obama first kills babies with his radical pro abortion position and policies, then kills you and your family as you drive your small car, and when you are old will kill you by rationing health care if his proposed universal health care plan is enacted. If you value your life you must act to stop this radical socialist killer of the American dream and market capitalism.

Boycott the purchase of any good or service from companies that were bailedout by the Federal government–that includes banks, insurance companies, auto companies, unions and governments.

Greenhouse gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide are not pollutants no matter how many times President Obama and his Energy Czar say greenhouse gases are pollutants. They are misleading you to confuse you.

Climate change is unstoppable and is naturally caused.

Any politicians that believes man is the primary cause of climate change is a fool or fanatic.

Vote out of office any politician of either political party that votes for the new cap and trade carbon dioxide tax based on the junk science of computer climate models.

The radical socialists are planning to use the hidden cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions tax to finance massive government intervention into the US economy and to fund their crimes against the American people.

The radical socialists elites could care less about the American people and their needs, wants, preferences and liberty.

The radical socialist are screwing the American people by raising the costs of all energy consumed including electricity, heating oil, and gasoline for transportation as well as increasing the prices of new smaller and lighter cars.  Cars that most Americans do not want to buy nor want to pay higher prices for.

Government control and intervention into the economy leads slowly and surely to government tyranny. 

President Obama is an economic illiterate who is wrecking the economy and destroying jobs.

He is also a radical socialist who routinely tells bold face lies.

He should not be trusted nor believed.

The American Dream, market capitalism and your life are in danger. 

You are invited to attend a Tea Party on July 4, 2009, Indepedence Day!

Join the Second American Revolution

The Meaning of Independence Day

Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

Second American Revolution–Tea Party Celebrations–Washington Fair–July 4, 2009–An Open Invitation To The American People 

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009!

Millions of Rightwing Extremists To March On Washington D.C. Fair–Celebrating Independence Day Tea Parties and Chanting “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!” 

Please Spread The Message of Liberty

 “Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants.”

 Let Freedom Ring 

An Inspirational Video 1 – The Law Of Attraction

“Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends. And whoever has sole control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower, in short what men should believe and strive for.

~Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom 

“Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management.”

~Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy, p. 10. 

Background Articles and Videos

 Gross Domestic Product

The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI), a basic measure of an economy’s economic performance, is the market value of all final goods and services produced within the borders of a nation in a year. ^[1] GDP can be defined in three ways, all of which are conceptually identical. First, it is equal to the total expenditures for all final goods and services produced within the country in a stipulated period of time (usually a 365-day year). Second, it is equal to the sum of the value added at every stage of production (the intermediate stages) by all the industries within a country, plus taxes less subsidies on products, in the period. Third, it is equal to the sum of the income generated by production in the country in the period—that is, compensation of employees, taxes on production and imports less subsidies, and gross operating surplus (or profits).^{[2] [3]}

The most common approach to measuring and quantifying GDP is the expenditure method:

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or,
GDP = C + I + G + (X − M).

“Gross” means that depreciation of capital stock is not subtracted out of GDP. If net investment (which is gross investment minus depreciation) is substituted for gross investment in the equation above, then the formula for net domestic product is obtained. Consumption and investment in this equation are expenditure on final goods and services. The exports-minus-imports part of the equation (often called net exports) adjusts this by subtracting the part of this expenditure not produced domestically (the imports), and adding back in domestic area (the exports).

Economists (since Keynes) have preferred to split the general consumption term into two parts; private consumption, and public sector (or government) spending. Two advantages of dividing total consumption this way in theoretical macroeconomics are:

• Private consumption is a central concern of welfare economics. The private investment and trade portions of the economy are ultimately directed (in mainstream economic models) to increases in long-term private consumption.
• If separated from endogenous private consumption, government consumption can be treated as exogenous,^{[citation needed]} so that different government spending levels can be considered within a meaningful macroeconomic framework.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

Consumer sovereignty

“…Consumer sovereignty is a term which is used in economics to refer to the rule or sovereignty of purchasers in markets as to production of goods. It is the power of consumers to decide what gets produced. People use the this term to describe the consumer as the “king,” or ruler, of the market, the one who determines what products will be produced. ^[1] Also, this term denotes the way in which a consumer ideologically choices to buy a good or service. Furthermore,the term can be used as either a norm (as to what consumers should be permitted) or a description (as to what consumers are permitted).

In unrestricted markets, those with income or wealth are able to use their purchasing power to motivate producers as what to produce (and how much). Customers do not necessarily have to buy and, if dissatisfied, can take their business elsewhere, while the profit-seeking sellers find that they can make the greatest profit by trying to provide the best possible products for the price (or the lowest possible price for a given product). In the language of cliché, “The one with the gold makes the rules.”

To most neoclassical economists, complete consumer sovereignty is an ideal rather than a reality because of the existence — or even the ubiquity — of market failure. Some economists of the Chicago school and the Austrian school see consumer sovereignty as a reality in a free market economy without interference from government or other non-market institutions, or anti-market institutions such as monopolies or cartels. That is, alleged market failures are seen as being a result of non-market forces. However, it has also been argued (e.g., by Goutam U. Jois) that even a “pure” market system violates the consumer sovereignty norm. …”

Greenhouse gas

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Greenhouse_gas

The Global Warming Report

Global Warming: How Hot Air and Bad Science Will Give You Staggeringly Higher Taxes and Prices.

Roy Spencer at the climate change contrarian conference

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 1 of 6

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 2 of 6

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 3 of 6

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 4 of 6 

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 5 of 6

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 6 of 6

Recent Evidence for Reduced Climate Sensitivity

Obama’s $1,300 car tax

By Michelle Malkin 

CAFE Standards Kill: Congress’ Regulatory Solution to Foreign Oil Dependence Comes at a Steep Price

by Ryan Balis

“…On the heels of the Arab oil embargo, in 1975 Congress enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards as a regulatory solution to reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil and gasoline consumption.1  CAFE standards mandate that vehicles sold in the U.S. meet fuel efficiency – or “fuel economy” – standards. Current standards require an average of 27.2 miles per gallon (mpg) for cars and 21.6 mpg for light trucks.2

Beginning in 2008, “one-size-fits-all” CAFE standards for light trucks will be phased out.  New regulations will divide light trucks into six categories based on vehicle size – each category having its own mpg target.3  However, the fuel economy for these vehicles will be raised from the current 22.2 mpg to 24.0 mpg in model year 2011.4

According to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimate, implementing this change will cost American consumers over $6.71 billion in added vehicle expenses from 2007-2011.5  Yet Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, calculates that the fuel savings will be a mere 0.44 billion gallons of gasoline annually.6  On average, U.S. cars and light trucks consume some 11 billion gallons of gasoline each month.7  …”

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html 

In-Depth Look – White House Reacts On GDP Report – Bloomberg

In-Depth Look – First Read Of 1Q GDP – Bloomberg

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

President Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy of Controlled Crisis Creation Crippling Capitalism–Coup D-Etat On America

Gore Grilled & Gingrich Gouged–American People Oppose Massive Carbon Cap and Trade Tax Increase–Videos

Save Your Job and Life–Abolish The Environmental Protection Agency!

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE–Videos

Barrack Obama’s Kansas Values–Killing Babies in Cold Blood?

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

Cap and Trade Carbon Dioxide Tax: Gore’s and Obama’s Revenge on The American People–Let Them Freeze and Sweat!

Barack Obama’s Socialist Green Commissar Carol Browner

ANWR: Pristine–Pristine–Pristine–Desolute–Desolute–Desolute–Drill–Drill–Drill– McCain/Romney: Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less!

Al Gore 2.0 and The Coming Renewable Energy Ice Age–The Big Chill

National Center for Policy Analysis–A Global Warming Primer

Global Warming is The Greatest Hoax, Scam and Disinformation Campaign in History

Global Warming Videos

Global Warming Books

Global Warming Sites

Al Gore: Agent of Influence or Useful Idiot of Disinformation

Al Gore: Agent of Influence and Planetary Propeller Head!

Al Gore’s Little White Lie: Man-Made Global Warming Causing Polar Bears To Drown

Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet?

Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

Facing Fundamental Facts

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Going Deep–Cool–Deep Ocean Water (DOW)–Ocean Power!

Saving The World: The Importance of Getting The Priorities Right

US Federal Government Fails Stress Test–Insolvent: Time Has Arrived For Downsizing–Departments and Subsidies To Be Eliminated!

The 12 Trillion–$12,000,000,000,000 Crime of The Century: The Decline and Fall of United States of America By Radical Socialist Spending–Look Before You Leap!

The Financial Crime of The Century: William K. Black On Massive Mortgage Fraud –Videos

Bailed Out Bank Trillion Dollar Derivative Exposure

The Mother of All Bailouts–2 to 3 Trillion Dollars–$2,000,000,000–$3,000,000,000!–Rewarding Greed, Arrogance and Stupidity–Pay for Play!

Federal Government Extortion Of Sound Banks–You Decide?–Take This TARP and Shove It!

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now! 

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE–Videos

Barack Obama’s Socialist Green Commissar Carol Browner

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

ANWR: Pristine–Pristine–Pristine–Desolute–Desolute–Desolute–Drill–Drill–Drill– McCain/Romney: Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less!

Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

Facing Fundamental Facts

Presidential Election 2008: American Elites Vs. American People

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Going Deep–Cool–Deep Ocean Water (DOW)–Ocean Power!

Saving The World: The Importance of Getting The Priorities Right

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Millions of Rightwing Extremists To March On Washington D.C. Fair–Celebrating Independence Day Tea Parties and Chanting “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!”

The Empty Suit or Hollow Man–Barrack Obama–An Legend In His Own Mind

Cap and Trade Carbon Dioxide Tax: Gore’s and Obama’s Revenge on The American People–Let Them Freeze and Sweat!

President Obama Delays E-Verify–Shame On You Mr. President!

The Cost of Comprehensive Immigration Reform–McCain and Obama Are Hopeless–It is the Economy Stupid!

Presidential Candidates on Illegal Immigration, Criminal Alien Removal and Social Service Benefits

US Immigration Videos

Why immigration will be the number 1 political issue in the 2008 Presidential Election! — Gum Balls

One Big Awful Mistake America (OBAMA): Veterans Will Now Lead The Fight To Defeat Radical Socialism!

The Signed “Stimulus Package” Did Not Include Funding for E-Verify and Border Fence Construction–Less Jobs And Security for American Citizens

Inside the Meltdown: Who Was Withdrawing From Money Market Funds On September 16-18, 2008 and Why?

Bad Government Intervention Requires Bad Government Bank-The Road Map Out Of The World Economic Crisis–Stabilize–Stimulate–Strengthen–Simultaneously! 

President Obama’s Sales Pitch–Buy My Government Dependency Package–I Won The Election!–No Sale–The American People Want Their Money Back!

President Barack Obama Peddling The Government Dependency Package (GDP) and Fear Mongering The Raw Deal!

Pelosi’s Porky Pigout Poison Package–Economy Wrecker and Job Destroyer–Have A Blue Christmas 2009! 

BO’s Raw Deal: Obama’s Two Year Recession and Two Year Hyperinflation–Hopeless & Small Change!

Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

The Sovereign Wealth Fund Threat: Are Chinese Communists Behind Rush In Passing Bailout Bill?

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now!

Recession–Recession–Recession–Scaring People–Have A Hot Dog!

It Is Official–The U.S. Economy Has Been In A Recession for 11 Months and Continuing! 

Glenn Beck Listens To Tea Party Americans–Videos

Second American Revolution–Tea Party Celebrations–Washington Fair–July 4, 2009–An Open Invitation To The American People

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009!

Tea Parties Take Off In Texas–Spreading Nationwide–Are You Going To Washington Fair? Millions Celebrate The Second American Revolution–Saturday, July 4, 2009

Operation Family Freedom (OFF): Millions Celebrate Washington Fair, Saturday, July 4, 2009–The Second American Revolution  

ELINE VAN DEN BROEK:

Na mijn eerdere artikel over Europa en de nieuwe partij Libertas van Declan Ganley, kreeg ik een tip over de Nederlandse lijsttrekker van Libertas “Eline van den Broek” en haar blog.

( Eline stelt zich en haar partij Libertas in de volgende videoclip voor LINK. )

12-05-2009 Heiligt het doel alle middelen!

Hierin claimt zij dat hoewel zij tegen marteling zou zijn, zij in het kader van veiligheid toch voorstander zou zijn als dit mensen zou redden.

Een blog naar aanleiding van martelmethoden in de Verenigde Staten en het “feit” dat voormalig vice president Dick Cheney verklaarde dat de harde verhoormethodes vele levens zouden hebben gered?!?.

10-05-2009 Cheney: Interrogation saved lives!

Persoonlijk deel ik deze mening niet.

Blijkbaar is deze jonge en nogal dromerige gemakkelijke te beïnvloeden jonge dame ( 28 ) niet goed geïnformeerd over martelpraktijken en hun uitwerking op de slachtoffers, anders had zij mogelijk niet zo’n domme blog geschreven.

HET VOC VERLEDEN HERLEEFT:

Bij dit soort martelpraktijken waaronder het net niet laten verdrinken van de ondervraagden, het continue wakker houden van ondervraagden om die hun benodigde rust / slaap te ontnemen en daarmee de regeneratieve functies van het lichaam uit te schakelen, is het slechts een kwestie van tijd voordat zelfs de mentaal en fysiek meest geharde mensen een bekentenis afgedwongen kan worden voor misdaden die zij niet hebben gepleegd.

Haar claim dat martelen de veiligheid van burgers kan garanderen is absolute flauwekul!

Mijn claim luidt dan ook dat wanneer mensen worden gemarteld, dat niet alleen aanzet tot meer haat van de kant van familie en vrienden van de gemartelde, maar dat er meer onschuldige slachtoffers vallen.

Niettemin kunnen we van haar ( en de partij Libertas die zij claimt te vertegenwoordigen, tenminste als die dezelfde mening is toegedaan ) hetzelfde verwachten als van alle andere partijen tot dusver.

Een steeds meer gecontroleerde maatschappij met steeds meer biometrische kenmerken, steeds meer rfid- en verichip toepassingen, steeds meer cameratoezicht door “voorspellende” camerasystemen aangesloten op enorme wereldomvattende ONLINE databases waarbij deze dictatoriale heersers ( bijna ) niets ontgaat.

DE MOGELIJK DUBBELE AGENDA:

Een claim die ik overigen staaf met de volgende bewijslast.

Declan Ganley beter bekend als diegene die zich inspande voor het Ierse NEE tegen de Grondwet ( waarvoor we hem zeker dankbaar mogen zijn ) zou er overigens wel eens een totaal andere agenda op na kunnen houden.

Ik spreek hier over zijn Amerikaanse bedrijf Rivada Networks dat zich richt op hoogwaardige communicatie voor het leger.

Een bedrijf met een aantal bekende namen in de ondernemingsraad.

Declan Ganley – John J. Kelly – Michael Jackson ( nee, niet de zanger ) - General Richard B. Meyers - General Dennis McCarthy – Admiral Bob Duncan – General Baron Charles Guthrie - George Foresman en Admiral Jim Loy!

Behalve de namen Declan Ganley die de oprichter is van het bedrijf, vallen ook de Amerikaanse Generaal Richard Meyers en de Britse Baron Charles Guthrie op.

Richard B. Meyers – Zou mogelijk wel eens een insider kunnen zijn van de aanslagen op 11-september 2001, had in ieder geval “de touwtjes” in handen en zou voor communicatie verwarring hebben gezorgd dankzij een “toevallig” op de dagen van de aanslagen gehouden oefening genaamd “Global Guardian” ( in samenhang met “Vigilant Guardian” ).

Charles Guthrie – Heeft banden met de investeringsbank N.M.Rothschild & Sons.

In feite zou het me niets verbazen, als Declan Ganley eenzelfde kunstje zou flikken in Europa, als Barack Obama heeft geflikt in Amerika, die als held en redder wordt vereert vanwege een paar “loze beloftes” die nooit waargemaakt kunnen worden, de Amerikaanse staatsschuld is intussen hopeloos opgelopen.

Beiden komen zowat uit het niets naar voren en presenteren zich als een volksheld.

Interessant is de volgende TAGESCHAU videofilm, waar vanaf zo’n 17.15 min wordt gesproken over de EU en Ierland, en waar Declan Ganley rond 18.00 min ter sprake komt als Amerikaans hightech zakenman, multimiljonair en de man die voor het Ierse NEE heeft gezorgd omdat het in Europa ondemocratisch zou zijn.

De Ierse minister Micheál Martin ( BuZa ) claimt dat Declan Ganley er een andere agenda op na zou houden, aangezien Europa ( volgens hem ) meer democratie zou brengen.

Decan is met een Amerikaanse getrouwd en handelt met het leger en veiligheidsdiensten in Amerika.

Rond 18.45 min. is te zien hoe Declan Ganley de Amerikaanse vlag oprolt en wegstopt omdat hij officieel als trotse Europeaan wil overkomen.

Declan Ganley zou in juli aanwezig zijn in “The Heritage Foundation”, een organisatie opgericht in 1973 met gastsprekers ( waaronder Sally mcNamara ( van het Margareth Thatcher Center for Freedom ( doel betere samenwerking tussen Amerika en Groot-Brittannië en gelijkwaardige samenwerking in de “strijdt tegen het terrorisme” ))) die aangeven waarom ze tegen een Europese Unie zijn.

Een Citaat van Sally mcNamara 19.30 min.: “Daar waar alle Europeaanse leiders op één lijn liggen, verliest Amerika haar invloed!”

Een 2^e citaat luidt: “Verdere Europese integratie bedreigt de strategische Amerikaanse interesses!”

Amerika zou de roep naar Europese referenda moeten ondersteunen, en daar zou Declan Ganley waarschijnlijk moeten inspringen, ben benieuwd wat hij hier ( financieel ) aan overhoudt?!?

Dick Cheney zou tegen een Europese Unie zijn, terwijl Bush wel voor een sterker Europa zou zijn, maar niet voor een sterke Europese Unie?!?

Enkele “geruchten” gaan dat Declan Ganley gesteund zou worden met geld afkomstig uit wapenhandel vanuit Amerika voor zijn anti Europese campagne?!?

Interessant om te weten is dat de Franse Viscount Philippe de Villiers ( oorspronkelijk afkomstig van de MPF LINK 01 en LINK 02 ) bepaalde uitspraken tegenover moslims en islamisering zou hebben gedaan, waarmee de indruk wordt gewekt dat Declan Ganley eenzelfde soort gedachtegoed aanhangt als Geert Wilders, maar dan mogelijk wat geniepiger!

Allemaal nogal verwarrend, aangezien CanadaFreePress in haar artikel over de Bilderberg vergadering in 2009 claimt dat Ierland gepusht zou worden tot een JA in een 2^e referendum in september of oktober en dat de Bilderbergers zich tegen Declan Ganley zouden keren door hem van wapenhandel met Amerika te beschuldigen, zoals reeds in de video van de TAGESCHAU te zien was.

Wat is waar, en heeft Declan Ganley een verborgen agenda?!?

Wat denkt U?!?

In this era of “permanent fiscal crisis,” local governments have no choice but to seek out new and better ways of providing the services citizen’s demand within the constraint of available resources. (1) This may explain why nearly twice as many (58 percent to 31 percent) local governments in 2002 as in 1992 contemplated alternative service delivery methods such as privatization. This article examines one particular method that has long been used by governments but receives much less public discourse than privatization–shared services.

Considering the extensive library of resources I have accumulated over the years regarding shared services in the public sector, it is interesting that the above excerpt from an article published in February 2006 would catch my attention.

This of course led me to think about a Procurement Insights post from October 2007 titled “Can present day PWGSC woes be traced back to a 1995 article on the General Services Administration in the U.S.?”  It was an interesting piece in that it touched on some of the very same problems we continue to face today, and are reflected in comments from individuals such as David Marshall who in 2007 said “that Tipple’s proposals were creating upheaval in the department among employees and unions who feared job losses.”

Certainly the recent economic climate that threatens to delay retirement for many has complicated the 2005 Alcock prognostication that said (job) losses will be “easily managed without layoffs because of the massive wave of baby boomers who will be retiring over the next five to seven years.”  Well here we are almost four years later and a March 26, 2009 article in the Financial Post reported that “The government has been on the biggest youth recruitment drive since the 1970s as it copes with waves of baby boomers retiring between now and 2012. It hired more than 4,000 graduates in 2007-08 and another 4,200 for 2008-09.”  Perhaps my math is a little rusty but weren’t the jobs being vacated by the retiring public sector workers the very same one’s that were targeted for replacement under a shared services strategy?  Yet according to the Financial Post, the government is in hiring mode.  In basic home finance, this is a situation where you can’t make both ends meet.

I wonder if this came up in the November 2005 Ottawa Shared Services Conference conducted by the Conference Board of Canada in partnership with Accenture?  I will have to review my notes.

That said I thought that I would once again share with you the following October 2007 Procurement Insights post.  I am not suggesting that privatization is on the near (or even far) horizon, at least not at this point.  However, I have learned that anything and everything is possible.  If only the Government hierarchy would talk to us more, and let us in on what they are really thinking.  Then again if they did, what would we write about?

Can present day PWGSC woes be traced back to a 1995 article on the General Services Administration in the US?” (REPRINT)

“Of all the agencies and departments that have been discussed for privatization this year, the GSA would be one of the easiest to privatize.  Its many services are available from the private sector, whose more successful firms offer a blueprint for how a privatized GSA could survive and thrive in a competitive environment.  Moreover, because of the routine and commercial nature of most of its operations, as well as the performance benchmarks provided by its private sector counterparts, GSA is amenable to forms of privatization that allows for substantial and active participation by the existing federal workforce.  Thus, besides saving a considerable sum for the taxpayer, privatization of the GSA could become a model for many of the other privatizations lawmakers and Administration officials say they intend to pursue.

Dr. Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.

Privatize the General Services Administration through an Employee Buyout

May 26, 1995 – The Heritage Foundation

In my October 6^th posting (NPM’s guiding principles for creating a “Slim” State: What Marshall, Tipple and Rotor should have known?) I indicated that David Marshall’s decision to look outside of the government for transformation leadership (a decision he later admitted was a mistake), was centered on “private sector bigotry.”

What is interesting about the Utt article (besides the fact that many of the challenges referenced in 1995 still apply to the GSA today), is that technically his observations surrounding the apparent shortfalls in public sector procurement practice have a high degree of merit.  However, his suggested methods for addressing said challenges are based on the perceived superiority of the private sector.  This of course is problematic, especially when a hybrid version of privatization principles are introduced into a public sector environment such as with the GoC shared services agenda.

For example, citing the principle behind the GSA’s creation in 1949 whereby the centralization of the buying mechanism could achieve significant savings through “specialization and economies of scale,” Utt maintained that “any cost advantages from the government’s vast buying power was more than offset by bureaucratic inefficiencies and rigidities.”

Utt’s position that the resulting problems are a characteristic of “any government monopoly,” that attempts to do “what is often done better and cheaper by leaner more flexible” organizations is a reasonable evolution in his thought process.  Unfortunately, it is his definition of a leaner and more flexible organization that is flawed, specifically Utt’s assertion that the ideal vehicle for addressing GSA inefficiencies is a “profit-making private company.”

In reality, I believe that the flexibility to which Utt had referred is better accomplished through a decentralized operational collaboration at the department or agency level within an existing bureaucratic framework.  (The key word being collaboration as it is imperative to understand the nature of the individual pieces before you can reliably bring them together under a cohesive and sustainable program.)

A fork in the road

Perhaps it is the very premise of private sector superiority that has led the GoC to continually “go to the well” of purported private sector expertise in an effort to define its current procurement practice.  Certainly, the Henry – Blank presentation on “The Role of Governance in Transformation” at last week’s GTEC conference would seem to indicate that this viewpoint is very much alive within the bureaucracy.

Ironically, it was the suggestion of privatization, either in practice or principle that was likely at the heart of David Marshall’s testimony that Tipple’s proposals were “creating upheaval in the department among employees and unions who feared job losses.”

The fallout from this atmosphere of fear is that the self-preservation instinct kicks in, and with it a shift in focus from improving operating efficiencies to one of position justification.  And it is this mindset that needs to be addressed and diffused before any meaningful progress can be made with procurement reform.

What is unfortunate about the entire “privatization” concept is that it doesn’t recognize the fact that there is a distinct and significant difference between public and private sector procurement practice.

In the summer of 2006, I chaired the Summit Roundtable that reviewed the critical elements of the Federal Government’s Way Forward initiative.  Based on the input that was received through a series of meetings in which representatives from both the public and private sectors were in attendance, I drafted a procurement blueprint.

An excerpt from that blueprint indicated that a general consensus was reached in terms of the purchasing guidelines that define public sector practice.  And I quote, “it is also generally agreed that government is not a corporation and therefore has different priorities and imperatives to meet when procuring goods and services.  This acknowledgment takes into account socioeconomic implications including the importance of developing key Canadian business sectors or industries.  Examples of key sectors or industries include the SME/minority-owned business community, or Canadian-based manufacturing sectors such as shipbuilding where job creation and community financial stability are taken into consideration.”

Dr. Utt’s 1995 article’s lack of understanding or recognition of this key tenet is where he misses the mark.  It is also through the introduction of an ersatz private sector mandate on the part of the GoC that has created what some have referred to as a rudderless PWGSC ship.

Inefficiency is not an issue to be conquered!

Many within the public sector ranks point to the “media’s exploitation of past anecdotes of alleged incompetent buying,” such as the U.S. Department of Defense paying $436 for a hammer, that is often behind the seemingly pervasive bureaucratic fear of ending up on the front page of the local newspaper.  Some even perceive this to be one of the key drivers of public sector procurement policy.

Fanning this fire are contentions such as the one expressed by Utt that the reason for GSA inefficiencies and high costs is that it “suffers from fundamental flaws in its operation, from the contradictory nature of its tasks, to the monopoly it enjoys over services provided to federal agencies.”  And while the General Accounting Office (GOA) was able to provide documented proof of these “flaws and excessive costs,” it only acts to highlight rather than address the problems.  As an advocate of Jim Collins’ “autopsies without blame” (please read Good to Great) criticism without the provision of a viable alternative is ultimately counter-productive.  And privatization or a privatization mentality is not a viable alternative.

Notwithstanding Ms. Blank’s “divide and conquer” reference in her 2004 presentation, inefficiencies within the bureaucratic process are not issues to be conquered.  Instead, they need to be understood and addressed through a collaborative effort involving key stakeholders both within and external to the government itself.

Until this critical fact is recognized and acted upon within the framework of the guiding principles that define public sector procurement, the bureaucracy and the taxpayers that fund it will continue to “twist in the wind” of uncertainty and disillusionment.

When a shared services strategy makes sense?

As I have always maintained, the broad application of any strategy, regardless of how effective it is in one area of a procurement practice does not mean that it is scalable on an enterprise-wide basis.

One example is the January 2007 joint press release by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the GSA.  In the release both organizations announced that they had “established the technical specifications for private sector firms to be certified as private sector Human Resources Line of Business (HR LOB) Shared Services Centers.”

While I have not yet had the opportunity to review the new program in detail, the stakeholders claim that this move will “lower the operational cost of federal human resources offices.”   The point I would like to make is that there are circumstances or areas of operation that may be very well suited to a “privatized” shared services platform.

However, determining the true viability of this or any strategy will continue to be an illusive (and elusive) quest as long as a collaborative (not combative) element is absent from the present initiative.

PI Window on Business Special (For Want of a Nail: The Pandemic Effect)

Be sure to mark Tuesday, May 26^th on your calendars so that you will remember to tune in to the first of four PI Window on Business 90-minute Specials.  In this initial Special titled “For Want of a Nail: The Pandemic Effect,” I will be joined by Nick Kelley, a researcher from the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, and the lead author of the November 2008 white paper “Pandemic Influenza, Electricity, and the Coal Supply Chain (Addressing Crucial Preparedness Gaps in the United States), to discuss the true nature of the latest swine flu crisis in terms of its potential impact on supply chains.  It is a show you will not want to miss!

The Procurement Insights Blog reaches more than 300,000 syndicated subscribers each month worldwide.

If you are interested in becoming a Sponsor for either the Procurement Insights Blog or PI Window on Business, please contact Jennifer Cameron at thesenses@ymail.com, or call at (819) 986-8953.

When I was a kid, Nolan Ryan became the first million-dollar pitcher in baseball. A million dollars entered our national dialogue in terms of sports salaries.  It was hard to grasp a number that big.  In recent years, politicians have added “Billion” to our national dialogue concerning spending, often clarifying “that’s a B for billion” to emphasize the size of the number.  

In 2005, New Orleans, with roughly 188,000 households, received $200 Billion.  The government spent $1,063,829 per household.  Somehow I doubt people received that full benefit.  September 11^th created $27.2 Billion in damages. Two massive, unexpected disasters during the Bush administration led to spending of billions. 

Obama arrives and shifts the decimal points from Billions to Trillions with a “T”. He counters “bad” spending with spending on an unprecedented scale.  Much of it goes to support his political allies ($3 Billion to ACORN. That’s equivalent to the cost of building 85 Astrodomes).  What banker would lend someone in bankruptcy 10 times what is owed to solve the indebtedness?  Taxpayers are the government’s banker.  Let’s stop the overdrafts – Congress has overdrawn its account.  You can’t get out of a hole by digging deeper.  Government needs to shrink, not expand, to solve the problem of spending.    

Through an incremental approach, $79 Billion here, $79 Billion there, Congress has flown under the common sense radar.  Add it up.  $12 Trillion is what Obama is spending.  $12  T R I L L I O N !  $12,000,000,000,000. Obama’s philosophy: No company can fail so we all will.  That’s a Communist concept.  Everyone gets a trophy, not just the winners.  We’ll buy the world a Coke and give it a hug. Yeah, that’ll make it all better. 

Is it apparent that Obama wants to undo America, wants us to suffer, wants to punish us for being the most successful country in history?  If you take a “Punish America” mindset in thinking about his policies, you can predict his actions.  We need to stop him.   

Frustrated?  I am.  Here are actions for people asking, “What can I do?”

ACTIONS:

Visit this site: http://stopspendingourfuture.org/   Learn the spending issue.

Put your Congressman’s phone numbers in your cell and call them, daily.  (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt) Call Congressional leaders, too.

Join The Heritage Foundation  (as little as $25) (http://www.myheritage.org/donate/printerfriendly.pdf )  They champion the America you grew up in and the American of the Founding Fathers’ vision.

Read the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html           

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html           

Protect your Second Amendment right.    Join the NRA.  (http://membership.nrahq.org/default.aspx?campaignid=nranews )  Socialist and Communist revolutions always involve disarming citizens.  Recognize that as a symptom of losing all your rights and protect your Second Amendment right. 

REDEPLOY CONGRESS. Demand term limits to eliminate pork that comes from long-term political service.

Kill the liberal press.  Cancel subscriptions to liberal magazines or newspapers.  Mute the anti-American voices that have been so loud.  They are all on the ropes financially; push them the rest of the way to the grave.  The Wall Street Journal and Investor’s Business Daily do a good job of old-fashion, solid reporting – reward them with your business and send the liberal press packing.

http://www.investors.com/

https://www.wallstreetjournal.com/Gryphon/jsp/retentionController.jsp?page=10105

Write to advertisers on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN.   Express indignation that the stations they advertise with have news organizations unwilling to act in the public’s interest by asking tough questions. Tell them you’re angry they focus on the nonsense such as fashion instead of big issues, such as the power grab pushing us to Socialism and Communism.  

Read Mark Levin’s book Liberty and Tyranny and spread its message by gifting it to others. 

http://www.marklevinshow.com/

Get involved in local politics.  The liberals have.  Stop liberals in your schools, liberal spending and programs in your cities, and liberal ideas in your state legislature and courts.  Pay attention.  Your future depends on it.  Vote May 9^th.  Commit an hour a day to your country to do the things mentioned. God Bless America. 

 THETOMPAINE1776

From Alex Adrianson at the InsiderOnline Blog.

Tonyfrom Oz prefaces …..

It would seem that even those new green initiatives are hampered by existing green policy.

The environmentalist movement to stamp out the use of fossil fuels may find itself lined up against other environmentalists, reports the Washington Post. That’s because the infrastructure needed for renewable energy eats up a lot more land than does the infrastructure needed for traditional fuels such as natural gas, coal, and nuclear. So requiring utilities to make use of wind and solar power will create new stresses on lands that naturalists would like to preserve as wilderness.

As the Post reports (see chart accompanying story), producing a terawatt-hour per year of electricity requires 210 square miles of biomass, 18 square miles of wind turbines, and 14 square miles worth of photovoltaic cells. The equivalent amount of energy produced by natural gas eats up only 7 square miles; by coal, only 4 square miles; and by a nuclear plant, less than 1 square mile.

The Post reports that building a transmission line connecting wind power from the desert in New Mexico to cities in Arizona is already proving to be an environmental challenge, because:

… the line would … cross grasslands, skirt two national wildlife refuges and traverse the Rio Grande, all habitat areas rich in wildlife. The graceful sandhill crane, for example, makes its winter home in the wetlands of New Mexico’s Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, right next to the path of the proposed power line. And much of the area falls under the protection of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM). … “Everybody in New Mexico loves the sandhill cranes,” said Ned Farquhar, a former aide to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D). “We also love our renewable energy. So we have to figure this out.”

Another problem, says the Post:

Grassland birds such as the lesser prairie chicken and the greater sage grouse, both of which are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act, appear to avoid vertical structures such as wind turbines and transmission-line towers. This is proving to be a problem in states such as Kansas, an ideal site for wind power, because as more turbines are built, lesser prairie chickens will confine themselves to narrow ranges, fragmenting a population that must be connected to survive.

The title of the Post article uses the word “paradox” to describe these situations, but, as Reason’s Ron Bailey points out, what we have here is really just the pedestrian reality that different people have different values and those values usually conflict at some point. That will require environmentalists to learn how to do what most normal people do every day: make tradeoffs. On the other hand, a danger not mentioned by the article is that environmentalists might try to mitigate the conflict between renewable energy and public lands by using eminent domain to build transmission lines across private land. Watch out, property owners.

Read More articles from InsiderOnline Blog, one of the blogs for The Heritage Foundation.

This Heritage Foundation trailer for a “documentary” pushing missile defense is a pretty impressive piece of fearmongering:

You know, even if it were the case Iran or North Korea possessed the technical know-how to successfully launch an intercontinental ballistic missile and obliterate a major U.S. city, I would still support shelving our missile defense program and ending any further research. Why?  Because I’m inclined to think that the United States’ massive nuclear arsenal serves as a pretty effective deterrent, all things considered.  Simply put, any missile attack on the United States would be swiftly met with full-scale, Alderaan-style annihilation of the country in question, and (more importantly) everyone knows it.  Any country with that sort of power just doesn’t need a missile defense system.  And if that’s the case in a hypothetical world where Iran and North Korea possess ICBM’s, it is certainly the case in the real world where neither country has the technology to deliver a nuclear device very far, and the United States is in a position of military supremacy.

If anything, this trailer (and presumably the documentary itself) doesn’t make the case for a missile defense system, it simply illustrates the extent to which the Heritage Foundation is a vehicle for cranks and fools.

By Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris

TonyfromOz prefaces …..

The reference numbers in red in the body of the text refer to links that are listed below the main body of the text. To go to the reference, press on the link in the text alongside the number that corresponds with the number in the main text.

This Saturday marks the 30th anniversary of the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear reactor. This occasion is a good time to consider the advances in nuclear power safety since that time and discuss the misinformation about this incident and the 1986 nuclear accident in Chernobyl, Ukraine, which is often associated with TMI.

Three Mile Island: What Happened

On March 28, 1979, a cooling circuit pump in the non-nuclear section of Three Mile Island’s second station (TMI-2) malfunctioned, causing the reactor’s primary coolant to heat and internal pressure to rise. Within seconds, the automated response mechanism thrust control rods into the reactor and shut down the core. An escape valve opened to release pressure but failed to close properly. Control room operators only saw that a “close” command was sent to the relief valve, but nothing displayed the valve’s actual position.[1] With the valve open, coolant escaped through the pressurizer, sending misinformation to operators that there was too much pressure in the coolant system. Operators then shut down the water pumps to relieve the “pressure.”

Operators allowed coolant levels inside the reactor to fall, leaving the uranium core exposed, dry, and intensely hot. Even though inserting control rods halted the fission process, the TMI-2 reactor core continued to generate about 160 megawatts of “decay” heat, declining over the next three hours to 20 megawatts. [2] Approximately one-third of the TMI-2 reactor was exposed and began to melt.

By the time operators discovered what was happening, superheated and partially radioactive steam built up in auxiliary tanks, which operators then moved to waste tanks through compressors and pipes. The compressors leaked. The steam leakage released a radiation dose equivalent to that of a chest X-ray scan, about one-third of the radiation humans absorb in one year from naturally occurring background radiation. [3] No damage to any person, animal, or plant was ever found. [4]

The Outcome

The local population of 2 million people received an average estimated dose of about 1 millirem–miniscule compared to the 100-125 millirems that each person receives annually from naturally occurring background radiation in the area. Nationally, the average person receives 360 millirems per year. [5]

No significant radiation effects on humans, animals, or plants were found. In fact, thorough investigation and sample testing of air, water, milk, vegetation, and soil found that there were negligible effects and concluded that the radiation was safely contained. [6] The most recent and comprehensive study was a 13-year evaluation of 32,000 people living in the area that found no adverse health effects or links to cancer. [7]

Technological Improvements and Lessons Learned

A number of technological and procedural changes have been implemented by industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to considerably reduce the risk of a meltdown since the 1979 incident. These include:

• Plant design and equipment upgrades, including fire protection, auxiliary feedwater systems, containment building isolation, and automatic plant shut down capabilities;
• Enhanced emergency preparedness, including closer coordination between federal, state, and local agencies;
• Integration of NRC observations, findings, and conclusions about plant performance and management into public reports;
• Regular plant performance analysis by senior NRC managers who identify plants that require additional regulatory attention;
• Expansion of NRC’s resident inspector program, whereby at least two inspectors live nearby and work exclusively at each plant;
• Expanded performance- and safety-oriented inspections;
• Additional accident safety equipment to mitigate and monitor conditions during accidents; and [8]
• Establishment of the Institute for Nuclear Power Operators, an industry-created non-profit organization that evaluates plants, promotes training and information sharing, and helps individual plants overcome technical issues.

Chernobyl: What Happened

Seven years after the incident at Three Mile Island, on April 25, 1986, a crew of engineers with little background in reactor physics began an experiment at the Chernobyl nuclear station. They sought to determine how long the plant’s turbines’ inertia could provide power if the main electrical supply to the station was cut. Operators chose to deactivate automatic shutdown mechanisms to carry out their experiment. [9]

The four Chernobyl reactors were known to become unstable at low power settings, [10] and the engineers’ experiment caused the reactors to become exactly that. When the operators cut power and switched to the energy from turbine inertia, the coolant pump system failed, causing heat and extreme steam pressure to build inside the reactor core. The reactor experienced a power surge and exploded, blowing off the cover lid of the reactor building, and spewed radioactive gasses and flames for nine days.

The episode was exacerbated by a second design flaw: The Chernobyl reactors lacked fully enclosed containment buildings, a basic safety installation for commercial reactors in the U.S. [11]

The Outcome

Chernobyl was the result of human error and poor design. Of the approximately 50 fatalities, most were rescue workers who entered contaminated areas without being informed of the danger.

The World Heath Organization says that up to 4,000 fatalities could ultimately result from Chernobyl-related cancers. Though these could still emerge, as yet, they have not. The primary health effect was a spike in thyroid cancer among children, with 4,000-5,000 children diagnosed with the cancer between 1992 and 2002. Of these, 15 children unfortunately died. Though these deaths were unquestionably tragic, no clear evidence indicates any increase in other cancers among the most heavily affected populations.

Interestingly, the World Health Organization has also identified a condition called “paralyzing fatalism,” which is caused by “persistent myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation.” [12] In other words, the propagation of ignorance by anti-nuclear activists has caused more harm to the affected populations than has the radioactive fallout from the actual accident. Residents of the area assumed a role of “chronic dependency” and developed an entitlement mentality because of the meltdown. [13]

Technology Improvements and Lessons Learned

Comparing the technology of the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl to U.S. reactors is not fair. First, the graphite-moderated, water-cooled reactor at Chernobyl maintained a high positive void coefficient. While the scientific explanation [14] characteristic is not important, its real-life application is. Essentially, it means that under certain conditions, coolant inefficiency can cause heightened reactivity. In other words, its reactivity can rapidly increase as its coolant heats (or is lost) resulting in more fissions, higher temperatures, and ultimately meltdown. [15]

This is in direct contrast to the light-water reactors used in the United States, which would shut down under such conditions. U.S. reactors use water to both cool and moderate the reactor. The coolant keeps the temperature from rising too much, and the moderator is used to sustain the nuclear reaction. As the nuclear reaction occurs, the water heats up and becomes a less efficient moderator (cool water facilitates fission better than hot water), thus causing the reaction to slow down and the reactor to cool. This characteristic makes light water reactors inherently safe and is why a Chernobyl-like reactor could never be licensed in the U.S.

Given the inherent problems with the Chernobyl reactor design, many technological changes and safety regulations were put in place to prevent another Chernobyl-like meltdown from occurring. Designers renovated the reactor to make it more stable at lower power, have the automatic shutdown operations activate quicker, and have automated and other safety mechanisms installed. [16]

Chernobyl also led to the formation of a number of international efforts to promote nuclear power plant safety through better training, coordination, and implantation of best practices. The World Association of Nuclear Operators is one such organization and includes every entity in the world that operates a nuclear power plant.

Myths Persist

The circumstances, causes, and conditions of the Chernobyl meltdown are far removed from the American experience. Important lessons should be taken from both accidents. Thankfully, many improvements in the technology and regulatory safety of nuclear reactors are among them.

Contributing Author Jack Spencer writes at The Heritage Foundation and he is a Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.

Contributing Author Nick Loris writes at The Heritage Foundation and he is a Research Assistant at The Heritage Foundation’s Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.

Read more informative articles at Heritage – The Foundry.

[1] World Nuclear Association, “Three Mile Island: 1979,” March 2001, at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf36.html (March 26, 2009).

[2] Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of American History, “Three Mile Island: The Inside Story,” at http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi03.htm (March 26, 2009).

[3] American Nuclear Society, “What Happened and What Didn’t in the TMI-2 Accident,” at http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/sptopics/tmi/whathappened.html (March 26, 2009).

[4] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Fact Sheet on the Three Mile Island Accident,” http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html (March 26, 2009).

[5] United States Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, “Facts About Radiation,” OCRWM Fact Sheet, January 2005, at http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0403.shtml (November 6, 2008).

[6] Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Fact Sheet on the Three Mile Island Accident.”

[7] World Nuclear Association, “Three Mile Island: 1979.”

[8] Fact Sheet on the Three Mile Island Accident” Nuclear Regulatory Commission at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html (June 24, 2008).

[9] For full description of what caused the accident at Chernobyl, see Richard Rhodes, Nuclear Renewal (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), ch. 5.

[10] World Nuclear Association, “Chernobyl Accident,” May 2008, at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html (March 26, 2009).

[11] Simon Rippon et al., “The Chernobyl Accident,” Nuclear News, June 1986, at http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/sptopics/chernobyl/docs/nn-1986-6-chernobyl-lores.pdf (March 26, 2009).

[12] Press release, “Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident,” World Health Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, and U.N. Development Programme, September 5, 2005, at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/print.html (November 6, 2008).

[13] World Nuclear Association, “Chernobyl Accident.”

[14] “Neutron Kinetics of the Chernobyl Accident,” ENS News, Summer 2006, at http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-13/neutron-kinetics.htm (March 27, 2009).

[15] International Atomic Energy Agency, “The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1,” 1992, at http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub913e_web.pdf (August 27, 2008).

[16] Ibid.

Cross posted from K Street Cafe.

Surprise! That Facebook fan page you built for your organization has totally changed, and it may have happened right under your nose.

If you’re like many organizations with a Facebook presence, you probably spent a day months (or years) ago carefully crafting your Facebook fan page to look like an institutionally approved multimedia brochure. Your blog’s RSS feed was automatically posting on the side panel; your YouTube videos were displayed handsomely in the center; and the description of your organization’s goals, policy positions and political philosophy were clear and brilliant. Anyone who clicked on your page was greeted with a clean, carefully crafted page.

Perhaps there were a few comments here and there, but not much of a discussion.

You were in control.

Then you woke up one morning last month and found that all your work had been turned upside down.

Facebook decided that it wanted to be “new.”

Now it’s back to the drawing board. Here are a few things you can do to make your page shine again:

The first thing you’ll notice is that your page looks a lot less like a brochure, and more like a discussion forum. Gasp! You’re no longer in control of how your page looks every minute of the day. In one fell swoop, the masses have taken power over the content and the look of your page.

Wisely adopting one of the cardinal rules of social media, (It’s not about you, it’s about them), Facebook made your page a hot bed of discussion and interactivity. While you can still post your policy papers, advocacy alerts, events and blog posts, your audience’s comments are now displayed front and center.

If you haven’t already, start by setting up an RSS feed that will automatically post your content to the page. This will allow a steady flow of content for your fans to digest and discuss. If you have more than one RSS feed, you can combine them all into one feed using Yahoo Pipes.

Now for the best part: The “status update” feature is by far the most effective way to engage your users. Facebook has made it so that this portion is included on your fans’ news feeds alongside their friends’ status updates. Facebook has also made it very easy for people to give feedback and comment on what you post, so this should be one of your most important tools on the new format.

At this time, there is no way to sync status updates with your Twitter feed, but maybe this is for the better. The last thing we need is for our news feeds to be clogged with robot tweets full of hashtags and ‘@’ signs that mean nothing to the Facebook community. So you’ll have to do it manually.

The main thing to keep in mind with the new format is that it craves information. If you don’t have fresh content flowing through your page on a constant basis, it’s going to look dated and dead very fast. Gone are the days when you can neglect your Facebook presence, because first-time visitors will now be greeted with irrelevant information.

Remember, New Facebook is needy, so give it love.

In the end, this is all for the better. It puts your fans in control and allows you to interact with them with a lot more ease. You’ll also be able to gauge your success much easier than before, based upon the amount of comments and “thumbs up” signs you get from people who like what you’ve posted.

So go back to that dusty Facebook page you haven’t touched in a while, and give it a cleaning.

After seeing how much traffic it can bring to your site, you’ll be glad you did.

For a few examples, check out The Heritage Foundation, The Center for American Progress or the Cato Institute. (If you are not a fan of these pages, Facebook will probably take you to the “Boxes” tab. Click on the “Wall” tabs to see how the page looks to fans.)