Democrats accused President Trump of a quid-pro-quid deal with Ukraine in a veiled move to distract media attention from a controversy engulfing Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Details continue to emerge about the son's involvement with a Ukrainian oligarch's corruption-plagued gas company.
The former vice president and Democratic Party presidential candidate initially shooed away reporters asking questions about his son's questionable activities and the apparent conflict of interest. The stonewalling ended when Biden was finally prodded into publicly proclaiming to the media:
"I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings." However, Biden is on shaky ground based on credible information in the public domain.
To set the stage, President Obama appointed the vice president his "point person" on Ukraine in February of 2014. From 2014-2017, he made five trips to the Ukraine in his official capacity as vice president as Russian aggression escalated tensions in the Eastern European country.
During the diplomatic shuttling, Biden's son with two business partners were deep in discussions about a deal with the scandal ridden natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. One of Hunter's partners, Devon Archer, arranged for a meeting with the elder Biden on April 16, 2015 at the White House.
Official White House records show the meeting lasted until 11:59 p.m. There are no details on the subject of the discussion. However, less than a week after their chitchat Archer was invited to join the Burisma board Three weeks later Hunter Biden became a board member, too.
It is not credible to think the vice president knew nothing about his son's Ukraine dealings after the meeting with Hunter's business partner, especially given the timing of the appointments to the Burisma board. Unless of course, they just talked about grandchildren. (Sarcasm intended.)
After the board appointments, Burisma touted its newest member, Hunter Biden. It prominently mentioned he was the vice president's son. His official role, as vaguely described by Burisma, was to provide "consulting" for the company on "various matters" and to offer "strategic guidance."
Even while the younger Biden had been negotiating with Burisma, the natural gas company was the subject of an investigation into suspected fraud. Great Britain's Serious Fraud Office froze assets of Burisma as part of a money laundering probe. The assets were later unfrozen when Ukraine sued.
This wasn't the only brush with controversy for Burisma. It had been suspected of corruption both inside Ukraine and by the United States. The secretive company's founder Mykola Zlochevsky was also the subject of official Ukrainian inquiries, including for tax evasion.
None of this appeared to matter to Hunter Biden. Bank records from 2014 and 2015 show Hunter Biden was personally paid more than $850,000. Burisma does not release compensation details for board members, but the records were uncovered in U.S. litigation into an unrelated case.
Seneca Partners LLC, which included Biden and his two associates, received regular transfers of usually more than $166,000 per month during the 2014-2015 period, according to the same banking records cited above. These payments came under scrutiny by the Ukraine's general prosecutor.
It was reported that the prosecutor had made plans to "include interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." Both Hunter Biden and the former vice president have declined to comment on this allegation.
This is where the story about the vice president's unawareness of his son's business dealings begins to crumble. In March of 2016, Biden addressed a public meeting of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, bragging how he had bullied Ukrainian officials into firing the general prosecutor.
Biden described in detail as news cameras rolled how he threatened to pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if Ukraine didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. In Biden's own words, here is what he remembered telling Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016:
"I am going to be leaving here in I think about six hours....If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money," he recalled telling Poroshenko. "Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
There was one tiny fact Biden omitted. The prosecutor who was summarily fired was leading a far ranging corruption probe into the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, which employed his son as a board member. And there is more proof that the elder Biden had to know what was happening.
A New York Times article on December 8, 2015, appeared four months before the firing of the general prosecutor and included information about Hunter Biden's role in Burisma. Biden's office was quoted as acknowledging that the younger Biden was indeed a Burisma board member.
Bloomberg News recently reported the following: "Joe Biden has said that he's never spoken with his son about his foreign business dealings. Hunter told the New Yorker earlier this year that he once touched on Ukraine obliquely. "Dad said, 'I hope you know what you are doing' and I said, "I do."
There is no better example of a possible quid-pro-quid arrangement between a top U.S. official and a foreign government than this case. The former vice president has publicly admitted he threatened to withhold U.S. foreign aid if a Ukrainian prosecutor was not dismissed.
Joe Biden has skated around this issue by repeatedly claiming he was clueless about his son's business dealings. Now it is time for the Department of Justice to open an official inquiry to determine if the former veep used his office and American aid to spare his son from prosecution.
There is far more evidence in the public record about influence peddling by Joe Biden than the thin accusations against Mr. Trump for his discussion with the Ukraine president about Hunter Biden. The media and Democrats can no longer cover up for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.
It would be ironic if the Democrats pursuit of the Ukraine connection with Mr. Trump would instead force the party of impeachment to reconsider the candidacy of Joe Biden, whose interference in a foreign country's justice system weakens his chances in the presidential race.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Monday, September 23, 2019
Democrats' Kavanaugh Impeachment Tactic
Democrats are thumping the drums for impeachment after a New York Times smear article about Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Even after the once noble Times was forced to admit pertinent facts were omitted thereby shredding the credibility of the allegations, Democrats stubbornly plowed ahead.
To recap, the Times recently carried a thinly sourced article purporting that Justice Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct at a party while an undergraduate at Yale. For the prurient, the specific unverified allegation was Kavanaugh exposed his penis to college-age women at a drunken party.
Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelley, who are shilling their book about Kavanaugh, used as their source a former Clinton lawyer who was not a witness to the alleged incident. His information was third-hand. Even the victim refused to corroborate the event for the reporters.
However, the article did not mention the alleged victim had denied any knowledge of the incident to her friends. None of the victim's friends came forward to offer any supporting testimony. This smacks of nothing less than a deliberately vicious attempt to blacken Justice Kavanaugh's reputation.
Putting aside the appalling lapse in journalistic ethics, the Times tried to save its red face by blaming the fiasco on the editing of the article rather than indict the two biased reporters. Any person with a modicum of understanding of newsroom operations knows this is a canard.
Putting aside the appalling lapse in journalistic ethics, the Times tried to save its red face by blaming the fiasco on the editing of the article rather than indict the two biased reporters. Any person with a modicum of understanding of newsroom operations knows this is a canard.
Copy editors do not delete relevant evidentiary information without consulting the writers. In a story flaunting such damaging allegations, even a senior editor likely would check with the writers before reaching a decision to remove significant revelations. That's why the explanation is rubbish.
The Gray Lady, as the Times was known in its heyday, has become the Scarlet Tramp.
Only after being exposed by another reporter, the Times' offered a correction on Monday conceding key facts were missing. Nonetheless, Democrat presidential candidates raced to the microphones to demand impeachment of Kavanaugh. Others called for his immediate resignation.
Democrats tried to justify their renewed effort to remove Kavanaugh based on the fact the FBI never interviewed the alleged victim at the Yale party during the agency's probe for the confirmation hearings. That is a flimsy excuse because it is apparent the victim had no intention of testifying.
Kavanaugh's background, including his college days, has been investigated during at least five federal background checks. No current sitting justice or former Supreme Court justice has been subjected to such scrutiny. It strains credulity to imagine investigators missed the improprieties five times.
There is no secret about the Times motive. From the second Kavanaugh, a practicing Catholic, was nominated, liberals have operated on the political assumption that the justice will take "a scalpel" to the Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling once he assumed his seat on the Supreme Court.
The assault began when Democrats ambushed Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings with sexual misconduct allegations by Christine Blasey Ford. Since her testimony, every single person she claimed could verify her story has disavowed knowledge, including her best friend Leland Keyser.
Despite this fact, Democrats lamely assert that Ms. Ford's account deserves to be believed.
That is why the Times latest hit job on Kavanaugh was needed to provide cover for those Democrats hell bent on forcing Kavanaugh off the court by whatever means. Their efforts have taken on a new desperation because at least 20 abortion cases are flowing in the pipeline to the Supreme Court.
Democrats are wading in hazardous and uncharted political waters. If a party can remove a sitting justice based on unsubstantiated allegations, then it will set a precedent that will be used to intimidate members of the court who do not see eye-to-eye on judicial matters with members of Congress.
In fact, the only sitting justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804 for partisan reasons. Chase, appointed by President George Washington, irked Thomas Jefferson's allies with his opinions, leading to the justice's impeachment. The Senate acquitted Chase of all charges.
There is a reason Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments. It is to remove the judges from being influenced by politics so they can rule impartially without fear of political retribution. That was the clear intent of our founding fathers. It remains a valid protection today.
In the event impeachment craters, Democrats have another scheme to bully the conservative majority. Several presidential hopefuls have floated the idea of expanding the court under a Democrat president. Even liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pooh-poohed the idea.
Democrats should remember the lesson of the Senate's nuclear option invoked by Majority Leader Harry Reid, who broke decades of tradition. Once Republicans returned to power, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell employed the same tactic. Democrats fumed. They shouldn't have been surprised.
Political intimidation of justices, if the Democrats succeed, surely will be used by Republicans against Democrat appointed judges in the future. It is a dangerous precedent that should be rejected by even those who hold opposing views to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The assault began when Democrats ambushed Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings with sexual misconduct allegations by Christine Blasey Ford. Since her testimony, every single person she claimed could verify her story has disavowed knowledge, including her best friend Leland Keyser.
Despite this fact, Democrats lamely assert that Ms. Ford's account deserves to be believed.
That is why the Times latest hit job on Kavanaugh was needed to provide cover for those Democrats hell bent on forcing Kavanaugh off the court by whatever means. Their efforts have taken on a new desperation because at least 20 abortion cases are flowing in the pipeline to the Supreme Court.
Democrats are wading in hazardous and uncharted political waters. If a party can remove a sitting justice based on unsubstantiated allegations, then it will set a precedent that will be used to intimidate members of the court who do not see eye-to-eye on judicial matters with members of Congress.
In fact, the only sitting justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804 for partisan reasons. Chase, appointed by President George Washington, irked Thomas Jefferson's allies with his opinions, leading to the justice's impeachment. The Senate acquitted Chase of all charges.
There is a reason Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments. It is to remove the judges from being influenced by politics so they can rule impartially without fear of political retribution. That was the clear intent of our founding fathers. It remains a valid protection today.
In the event impeachment craters, Democrats have another scheme to bully the conservative majority. Several presidential hopefuls have floated the idea of expanding the court under a Democrat president. Even liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pooh-poohed the idea.
Democrats should remember the lesson of the Senate's nuclear option invoked by Majority Leader Harry Reid, who broke decades of tradition. Once Republicans returned to power, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell employed the same tactic. Democrats fumed. They shouldn't have been surprised.
Political intimidation of justices, if the Democrats succeed, surely will be used by Republicans against Democrat appointed judges in the future. It is a dangerous precedent that should be rejected by even those who hold opposing views to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Monday, September 16, 2019
Climate Predictions Hinder Environmental Efforts
Discredited predictions about climate cataclysm are promoting an ideological tug-of-war over the issue. Global organizations, academics and scientists have been guilty of grossly inaccurate forecasts, reducing the debate over the environment to gratuitous scaremongering.
Climate change, closely identified with liberalism, has become a political catechism, crippling chances of a bipartisan approach. That is tragic because the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of clean air, clean water and conservation. Virtually no one opposes that ideology.
However, spreading apocalyptic prophecies to urge action has invited criticism instead of cooperation. Environmentalists need to practice more education and less proselytizing. Everyone should be able to agree the current approach has failed miserably to gain bipartisan traction.
One of the worst offenders of wildly misleading forecasts has been the often-cited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the U.N. Environment Program. It counts among its members more than 1,500 scientists.
For example, the IPCC issued a report this month maintaining global warming has devastated crop production. The document sounded the alarm of a impending disaster of epic proportions. But the report parsed language and relied on heresy instead of evidence.
"Based on indigenous and local knowledge, climate change is affecting food security in dry lands, particularly those in Africa and high mountain regions of Asia and South America," the report claimed. Note the lack of hard data to justify the original premise about drastic consequences.
Another agency in the same building, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, issued a report citing record-setting production of global corn, wheat and rice crops five years running through 2017, the most recent available data. This is the latest contradiction to calamitous claims.
Here are a few other doozies. A Department of Oceanography professor of the U.S. Navy predicted in 2007 an ice free Arctic Ocean by 2013. That same year the IPCC predicted that by 2020 there would be increasing droughts worldwide. It later was forced to admit the forecast was overstated.
Even when predictions are found baseless, the proponents refuse to budge. James Hansen, who headed NASA's Goddard Institute for three decades, has a long and shameful record of counterfeit predictions. Despite the facts, Hansen's forecasts are still repeated by climate alarmists.
Lead IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund was pressed once on his debunked forecasts. His reply: "On the whole I would stand by these predictions--not predictions, sorry, scenarios--as having at least in a general way actually come true."
Oppenheimer's most glaring error was predicting greenhouse gases would desolate the heartlands of America, "causing crop failures and food riots," adding the situation would send Americans fleeing to Mexico to work as "field hands." He once served as an advisor to Al Gore on climate matters.
Liberals and conservatives need to start fresh, armed with facts not spurious forecast models and outlandish predictions. That means putting aside a polemic that suggests saving the environment is an either or proposition: do you want oil or a clean environment; economic growth or pure water, etc.
Here's a novel approach: stop arguing about climate change and pursue policies that are good for the environment. There are literally hundreds of ways to decrease waste and reduce air and water pollution. Many are far less expensive and require far less government intrusion than current ideas.
University of Central Oklahoma research found that if manufacturers used recycled paper, it would cut air pollution 73% and water pollution by 35% compared to current methods. Recycling glass would reduce mining waste by 80% and air pollution by 20%.
A U.S. Forest Service study estimates the U.S. loses around 36 million trees every year. Many of those trees are in urban areas, where temperatures tend to be higher because of a phenomenon known as the heat island effect. Urban reforestation would reduce energy use and carbon dioxide.
Recycling steel would trim 97% of the mining waste produced through traditional manufacturing and cut 86% of air pollution and 76% of water pollution in the country. Non-biodegradable plastic is clogging landfills and polluting oceans. Reducing plastic waste is a no brainer.
The good news is America is making progress. A study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 12.2% since 2007. In the same period, China's emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons and India's surged 1 billion tons.
That last point deserves underscoring: India and China are creating environmental havoc. The Health Effects Institute (HEI) of Boston reported in 2017 that the two countries had the deadliest air pollution in the world. Cleaning up America is just one solution of the global climate we all share.
American ingenuity is a transformative force when it is unleashed to tackle thorny issues. As a country, we need to agree to put aside differences and harness that creativity to make our environment cleaner tomorrow and for future generations. There should be no debate about that.
Climate change, closely identified with liberalism, has become a political catechism, crippling chances of a bipartisan approach. That is tragic because the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of clean air, clean water and conservation. Virtually no one opposes that ideology.
However, spreading apocalyptic prophecies to urge action has invited criticism instead of cooperation. Environmentalists need to practice more education and less proselytizing. Everyone should be able to agree the current approach has failed miserably to gain bipartisan traction.
One of the worst offenders of wildly misleading forecasts has been the often-cited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the U.N. Environment Program. It counts among its members more than 1,500 scientists.
For example, the IPCC issued a report this month maintaining global warming has devastated crop production. The document sounded the alarm of a impending disaster of epic proportions. But the report parsed language and relied on heresy instead of evidence.
"Based on indigenous and local knowledge, climate change is affecting food security in dry lands, particularly those in Africa and high mountain regions of Asia and South America," the report claimed. Note the lack of hard data to justify the original premise about drastic consequences.
Another agency in the same building, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, issued a report citing record-setting production of global corn, wheat and rice crops five years running through 2017, the most recent available data. This is the latest contradiction to calamitous claims.
Here are a few other doozies. A Department of Oceanography professor of the U.S. Navy predicted in 2007 an ice free Arctic Ocean by 2013. That same year the IPCC predicted that by 2020 there would be increasing droughts worldwide. It later was forced to admit the forecast was overstated.
Even when predictions are found baseless, the proponents refuse to budge. James Hansen, who headed NASA's Goddard Institute for three decades, has a long and shameful record of counterfeit predictions. Despite the facts, Hansen's forecasts are still repeated by climate alarmists.
Lead IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund was pressed once on his debunked forecasts. His reply: "On the whole I would stand by these predictions--not predictions, sorry, scenarios--as having at least in a general way actually come true."
Oppenheimer's most glaring error was predicting greenhouse gases would desolate the heartlands of America, "causing crop failures and food riots," adding the situation would send Americans fleeing to Mexico to work as "field hands." He once served as an advisor to Al Gore on climate matters.
Liberals and conservatives need to start fresh, armed with facts not spurious forecast models and outlandish predictions. That means putting aside a polemic that suggests saving the environment is an either or proposition: do you want oil or a clean environment; economic growth or pure water, etc.
Here's a novel approach: stop arguing about climate change and pursue policies that are good for the environment. There are literally hundreds of ways to decrease waste and reduce air and water pollution. Many are far less expensive and require far less government intrusion than current ideas.
University of Central Oklahoma research found that if manufacturers used recycled paper, it would cut air pollution 73% and water pollution by 35% compared to current methods. Recycling glass would reduce mining waste by 80% and air pollution by 20%.
A U.S. Forest Service study estimates the U.S. loses around 36 million trees every year. Many of those trees are in urban areas, where temperatures tend to be higher because of a phenomenon known as the heat island effect. Urban reforestation would reduce energy use and carbon dioxide.
Recycling steel would trim 97% of the mining waste produced through traditional manufacturing and cut 86% of air pollution and 76% of water pollution in the country. Non-biodegradable plastic is clogging landfills and polluting oceans. Reducing plastic waste is a no brainer.
The good news is America is making progress. A study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 12.2% since 2007. In the same period, China's emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons and India's surged 1 billion tons.
That last point deserves underscoring: India and China are creating environmental havoc. The Health Effects Institute (HEI) of Boston reported in 2017 that the two countries had the deadliest air pollution in the world. Cleaning up America is just one solution of the global climate we all share.
American ingenuity is a transformative force when it is unleashed to tackle thorny issues. As a country, we need to agree to put aside differences and harness that creativity to make our environment cleaner tomorrow and for future generations. There should be no debate about that.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Unhappy Crowd: Spare Us the "Woe is Me" Lament
Squawking about America has never been shriller. Gun violence is spiraling out of control. Racism is seething. Trade wars are spiking prices. The nation's political climate is toxic. Homeless people are camped on streets of cities. The whole country is a rotten stinking dung heap.
Day after day the piercing chorus is deafening. For many Baby Boomers, including this writer, it has become nauseating. The contempt, disgust and loathing from our fellow Americans is too much to stomach. This country needs perspective, a quality missing in today's warped media reporting.
If you honestly believe America has never been this foul, you just haven't lived long enough. Not too many decades ago, this country was in the throes of race riots, soaring interest rates, double-digit inflation, high unemployment and one of the deadliest wars ever fought by our military.
Americans, especially Millennials, have either forgotten or never been taught American history. As a timely reminder, here is a refresher on the turmoil that roiled the country from 1962 to 1981, a period that included political assassinations, cities in flames, an oil embargo and economic Armageddon.
During the Cold War with Russia in the 1960's, President John F. Kennedy advised Americans to build bomb shelters as a precaution. By 1965, 200,000 underground shelters speckled the American landscape. As school children, we were drilled to hide under a desk in the event of a nuclear attack.
Tensions boiled over in October 1962 when the U.S. discovered Soviet nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba. The military blockaded Cuba to prevent Soviet ships from reaching the island. Nuclear war appeared imminent. After a nerve-racking 13-day standoff, the Soviets agreed to remove the missiles.
Not long after, President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 by a gunmen who had visited Russia. Less than 20 years later, President Ronald Reagan was shot, the bullet just missing vital organs sparing his life. If a closely-guarded president could be killed or wounded, none of us felt safe.
During the period after 1963, ugly race riots broke out in major U.S. cities as African-Americans battled police in the streets. National guard units had to be called up to restore peace. Historians have called the riots the "most serious and widespread" ever in the U.S.
The social unrest flared in 1968 after civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King was struck down by an assassin's bullet. The news ignited riots in 110 cities across the country in a single night. That same year Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy was murdered.
His death and the simmering anger over the Vietnam War combusted into the worst incident in American politics. At the Democratic Party convention in Chicago, violent confrontations exploded as police and protesters fought. Demonstrators were beaten and tear gassed on national television.
The unpopular war in Asia, which lasted almost 20 years, ended with 58,220 American military causalities. Another 304,000 soldiers returned home with crippling wounds. Many of my generation lost college mates, friends and family members. Too many died forgotten in a war run by politicians.
For perspective, only the Civil War, World War I and World War II, eclipsed Vietnam as the deadliest conflicts in our history.
On the heels of the war, impeachment proceedings were launched by the House Judiciary Committee against President Richard M. Nixon, who was implicated in the break-in at a Democratic Party facility in the Watergate Hotel in Washington. Under pressure, Nixon was forced to resign in 1974.
The nation barely exhaled when a Middle-East oil embargo kindled a gasoline shortage in the country. Prices quadrupled at the pump overnight, shredding family budgets and triggering a nationwide panic. Stations ran out of gas. Fuel-starved cars were abandoned on the road.
During the height of the crisis, price gouging was rampant. We waited in long lines of cars idling on roads leading to stations, snarling traffic and shortening tempers. Mandatory limits of five-gallons of fuel per car were imposed by gas stations. Daily commutes were often sidelined by empty gas tanks.
Then galloping inflation and high unemployment detonated. From 1976 to 1980, car prices zoomed 72%. The cost of new homes soared 67%. In a single year 1979, gasoline prices rocketed up 60%. Inflation spurted to 12.4% in 1980. The prime interest rate topped 21% that same year.
Unemployment jumped to 9%. Many firms laid off workers. A new term was coined, The Misery Index, to quantify Americans' fears and anxieties over the economic morose. Government wage and price controls, introduced to stem inflation, instead stunted an economic recovery.
During this era in the 1970's, the nation recorded the worst crime rate in its history. There were 115.2 million crimes reported in that decade. The highest murder rate in the country's history was in 1980, far outdistancing today's FBI homicide rate-per-population. Crime became a hot political issue.
Perhaps, this brief history lesson will remind all Americans that our country has undergone more dire economic, political, race and violence-marred eras. That doesn't mean we should be sanguine about these times. However, today's Americans deserve to have current events put into historical context.
It may not be the best of times but it certainly isn't the worst. Not even close. Someone has to spread that message to quell the incessant wallowing in self-pity. The media will not. We must do it.
Day after day the piercing chorus is deafening. For many Baby Boomers, including this writer, it has become nauseating. The contempt, disgust and loathing from our fellow Americans is too much to stomach. This country needs perspective, a quality missing in today's warped media reporting.
If you honestly believe America has never been this foul, you just haven't lived long enough. Not too many decades ago, this country was in the throes of race riots, soaring interest rates, double-digit inflation, high unemployment and one of the deadliest wars ever fought by our military.
Americans, especially Millennials, have either forgotten or never been taught American history. As a timely reminder, here is a refresher on the turmoil that roiled the country from 1962 to 1981, a period that included political assassinations, cities in flames, an oil embargo and economic Armageddon.
During the Cold War with Russia in the 1960's, President John F. Kennedy advised Americans to build bomb shelters as a precaution. By 1965, 200,000 underground shelters speckled the American landscape. As school children, we were drilled to hide under a desk in the event of a nuclear attack.
Tensions boiled over in October 1962 when the U.S. discovered Soviet nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba. The military blockaded Cuba to prevent Soviet ships from reaching the island. Nuclear war appeared imminent. After a nerve-racking 13-day standoff, the Soviets agreed to remove the missiles.
Not long after, President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 by a gunmen who had visited Russia. Less than 20 years later, President Ronald Reagan was shot, the bullet just missing vital organs sparing his life. If a closely-guarded president could be killed or wounded, none of us felt safe.
During the period after 1963, ugly race riots broke out in major U.S. cities as African-Americans battled police in the streets. National guard units had to be called up to restore peace. Historians have called the riots the "most serious and widespread" ever in the U.S.
The social unrest flared in 1968 after civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King was struck down by an assassin's bullet. The news ignited riots in 110 cities across the country in a single night. That same year Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy was murdered.
His death and the simmering anger over the Vietnam War combusted into the worst incident in American politics. At the Democratic Party convention in Chicago, violent confrontations exploded as police and protesters fought. Demonstrators were beaten and tear gassed on national television.
The unpopular war in Asia, which lasted almost 20 years, ended with 58,220 American military causalities. Another 304,000 soldiers returned home with crippling wounds. Many of my generation lost college mates, friends and family members. Too many died forgotten in a war run by politicians.
For perspective, only the Civil War, World War I and World War II, eclipsed Vietnam as the deadliest conflicts in our history.
On the heels of the war, impeachment proceedings were launched by the House Judiciary Committee against President Richard M. Nixon, who was implicated in the break-in at a Democratic Party facility in the Watergate Hotel in Washington. Under pressure, Nixon was forced to resign in 1974.
The nation barely exhaled when a Middle-East oil embargo kindled a gasoline shortage in the country. Prices quadrupled at the pump overnight, shredding family budgets and triggering a nationwide panic. Stations ran out of gas. Fuel-starved cars were abandoned on the road.
During the height of the crisis, price gouging was rampant. We waited in long lines of cars idling on roads leading to stations, snarling traffic and shortening tempers. Mandatory limits of five-gallons of fuel per car were imposed by gas stations. Daily commutes were often sidelined by empty gas tanks.
Then galloping inflation and high unemployment detonated. From 1976 to 1980, car prices zoomed 72%. The cost of new homes soared 67%. In a single year 1979, gasoline prices rocketed up 60%. Inflation spurted to 12.4% in 1980. The prime interest rate topped 21% that same year.
Unemployment jumped to 9%. Many firms laid off workers. A new term was coined, The Misery Index, to quantify Americans' fears and anxieties over the economic morose. Government wage and price controls, introduced to stem inflation, instead stunted an economic recovery.
During this era in the 1970's, the nation recorded the worst crime rate in its history. There were 115.2 million crimes reported in that decade. The highest murder rate in the country's history was in 1980, far outdistancing today's FBI homicide rate-per-population. Crime became a hot political issue.
Perhaps, this brief history lesson will remind all Americans that our country has undergone more dire economic, political, race and violence-marred eras. That doesn't mean we should be sanguine about these times. However, today's Americans deserve to have current events put into historical context.
It may not be the best of times but it certainly isn't the worst. Not even close. Someone has to spread that message to quell the incessant wallowing in self-pity. The media will not. We must do it.
Monday, September 2, 2019
Bullet Trains: Does High Speed Rail Have a Future?
High-speed rail proponents cling to the dream of so-called Bullet Trains criss crossing America, ferrying millions of passengers. Despite limited progress in pockets of the U.S., implementation has been derailed by billion dollar cost-tags, titanic deficits, politics and the sheer size of the country.
The clamor for lightning quick rail grows louder each time another country inaugurates service for a Bullet Train, such as the one in Shanghai, China, that reaches speeds of up to 268 m.p.h and averages 143 m.p.h. Japan is testing a Bullet Train capable of reaching 249 m.p.h.
Proponents point out that public opinion polls document rising support for high-speed rail. A recent survey released by the American Public Transportation Association found that two-thirds (63%) of Americans would be likely to use high-speed transportation if it was readily available.
Millennials and young people (18-44) are the most ardent advocates of high-speed rail with 71% in favor of building a network. When researchers informed participants of the benefits of costs and time-savings of high-speed rail, the likelihood of using fast trains climbed by a few percentage points.
In recognition of the public's appetite for speedy trains, the Federal Railroad Administration recently announced it will allow passenger trains to operate at speeds up to 220 m.p.h. There's only one problem. The majority of the nation's rail network can't handle those speeds.
That hasn't stopped plans for next generation high-speed rail from being unveiled in California, Florida and Texas. In each case, progress can be described as tortoise-like. Construction has started on the privately funded route for an Orlando to Miami train, but no launch date has been announced.
Like Florida, the Houston to Dallas route plan in Texas is privately funded. The line is expected to cost at least $12 to $14 billion, however, the company admits it has raised substantially less than that amount. The most recent figure released by the firm put the funding at about $200 million.
California's concept of developing a Bullet Train from Los Angeles to San Diego was sidelined when Gov. Gavin Newsom pulled the plug on the publicly funded project as costs ballooned to between $63.2 billion and $98.1 billion. Meanwhile, work continues on a scaled-down route.
Proponents note Bullet Trains are operating over large networks in countries such as Japan, Europe and China. If those countries can build fast rail, why can't the richest country in the world do it? The answer is there are daunting obstacles in America that are not factors in those countries.
Perhaps, the biggest hurdle is replacing tracks incapable of handling higher speed trains. America's largest passenger rail firm is Amtrak, operated and funded by the federal government. It chugs over 21,300 miles of rail, covering most of the nation. Displacing the network would cost billions.
But changing the existing track isn't the only challenge. Even the fastest trains must slow down for curvatures in the rail network. Unfortunately, the aging U.S. track network is stippled with curves. That means additional land would be needed to build a straight line between stations.
Problems multiply if a plan includes a nationwide system. High speed rail is efficient in densely populated countries, such as Japan. After leaving the two U.S. coasts, there is a lot of real estate to cover. Regional tracks make more economic sense as Amtrak's experience indicates.
Amtrak operates in a sea of red ink. For decades, passenger revenues have failed to exceed operating costs. In the latest fiscal year, Amtrak's revenues hit $3.18 billion, but expenses were $4.16 billion. If you are searching for a glimmer of hope, then look no further than the Northeast corridor.
The 456-mile route running from Boston to Washington, D.C. operates at a modest profit. Amtrak's Acela Express, the fastest train in the U.S., zips along at speeds of 150-miles per hour for brief stretches. However, it averages only 68 m.p.h. because the track hugs the jagged coastline.
Although the corridor was retrofitted to accommodate higher speed trains, some areas can only handle speeds of 25 m.p.h. To fix the issue would required multi-billions of dollars in funding and require decades to complete construction. Extending it to the entire country is cost prohibitive.
Because of the nation's size, air travel is more attractive for most cross country trips. Even a high-speed rail train operating between New York and Los Angeles could not compete with airlines, America has built up a massive air travel infrastructure that rail transportation cannot match.
Of all the hurdles, the steepest is political. There is a constant struggle between the federal government and states over jurisdiction of interstate infrastructure. Regionalizing high-speed rail is a thorny issue too because lawmakers in states that don't benefit are less likely to support it.
High-speed rail may just be another idea ahead of its time. If the economics change for automobile and air travel, then the politics could swing in favor of high-speed trains. Realistically, that may take decades, maybe even longer. Intermediate steps, like regional rail, might fast track deployment.
The clamor for lightning quick rail grows louder each time another country inaugurates service for a Bullet Train, such as the one in Shanghai, China, that reaches speeds of up to 268 m.p.h and averages 143 m.p.h. Japan is testing a Bullet Train capable of reaching 249 m.p.h.
Proponents point out that public opinion polls document rising support for high-speed rail. A recent survey released by the American Public Transportation Association found that two-thirds (63%) of Americans would be likely to use high-speed transportation if it was readily available.
Millennials and young people (18-44) are the most ardent advocates of high-speed rail with 71% in favor of building a network. When researchers informed participants of the benefits of costs and time-savings of high-speed rail, the likelihood of using fast trains climbed by a few percentage points.
In recognition of the public's appetite for speedy trains, the Federal Railroad Administration recently announced it will allow passenger trains to operate at speeds up to 220 m.p.h. There's only one problem. The majority of the nation's rail network can't handle those speeds.
That hasn't stopped plans for next generation high-speed rail from being unveiled in California, Florida and Texas. In each case, progress can be described as tortoise-like. Construction has started on the privately funded route for an Orlando to Miami train, but no launch date has been announced.
Like Florida, the Houston to Dallas route plan in Texas is privately funded. The line is expected to cost at least $12 to $14 billion, however, the company admits it has raised substantially less than that amount. The most recent figure released by the firm put the funding at about $200 million.
California's concept of developing a Bullet Train from Los Angeles to San Diego was sidelined when Gov. Gavin Newsom pulled the plug on the publicly funded project as costs ballooned to between $63.2 billion and $98.1 billion. Meanwhile, work continues on a scaled-down route.
Proponents note Bullet Trains are operating over large networks in countries such as Japan, Europe and China. If those countries can build fast rail, why can't the richest country in the world do it? The answer is there are daunting obstacles in America that are not factors in those countries.
Perhaps, the biggest hurdle is replacing tracks incapable of handling higher speed trains. America's largest passenger rail firm is Amtrak, operated and funded by the federal government. It chugs over 21,300 miles of rail, covering most of the nation. Displacing the network would cost billions.
But changing the existing track isn't the only challenge. Even the fastest trains must slow down for curvatures in the rail network. Unfortunately, the aging U.S. track network is stippled with curves. That means additional land would be needed to build a straight line between stations.
Problems multiply if a plan includes a nationwide system. High speed rail is efficient in densely populated countries, such as Japan. After leaving the two U.S. coasts, there is a lot of real estate to cover. Regional tracks make more economic sense as Amtrak's experience indicates.
Amtrak operates in a sea of red ink. For decades, passenger revenues have failed to exceed operating costs. In the latest fiscal year, Amtrak's revenues hit $3.18 billion, but expenses were $4.16 billion. If you are searching for a glimmer of hope, then look no further than the Northeast corridor.
The 456-mile route running from Boston to Washington, D.C. operates at a modest profit. Amtrak's Acela Express, the fastest train in the U.S., zips along at speeds of 150-miles per hour for brief stretches. However, it averages only 68 m.p.h. because the track hugs the jagged coastline.
Although the corridor was retrofitted to accommodate higher speed trains, some areas can only handle speeds of 25 m.p.h. To fix the issue would required multi-billions of dollars in funding and require decades to complete construction. Extending it to the entire country is cost prohibitive.
Because of the nation's size, air travel is more attractive for most cross country trips. Even a high-speed rail train operating between New York and Los Angeles could not compete with airlines, America has built up a massive air travel infrastructure that rail transportation cannot match.
Of all the hurdles, the steepest is political. There is a constant struggle between the federal government and states over jurisdiction of interstate infrastructure. Regionalizing high-speed rail is a thorny issue too because lawmakers in states that don't benefit are less likely to support it.
High-speed rail may just be another idea ahead of its time. If the economics change for automobile and air travel, then the politics could swing in favor of high-speed trains. Realistically, that may take decades, maybe even longer. Intermediate steps, like regional rail, might fast track deployment.