HIGH-RISK V. LOW-RISK THREATS TO THE U.S….

October 30th, 2012

David Rothkopf writes:

Sandy also will batter the other elements of the region’s infrastructure, in which America has failed to invest for the past half century or so. She will destroy weakened roadways and bridges and breakwaters. She will lash ancient port facilities. She will paralyze an air-traffic control system and railway systems that lag behind the world in their use of modern technologies. She will say, “Why aren’t you spending your precious resources to protect your people and your economy? Why are you frittering away money building roads and airfields on the other side of the world when you should be taking care of business at home?”

2 Responses to “HIGH-RISK V. LOW-RISK THREATS TO THE U.S….”

  1. ryan says:

    it is “big guvvament” when we spend it at home.

    only war spending gets the free pass from the new generation of conservatives.

    the conservatives live in the suburbs.

    suburbia is very much a New Deal era environment.

    so, the folks who enjoy new deal type spending and regulation the most are usually the ones most emphatically against “big government”. they are worse than hippies.

  2. Jeff Hess says:

    Good morning Ryan,

    I actually believe the reality is worse.

    With the end of the Cold War, the Military-Industrial Complex found itself without a reason to exist and has successfully created that reason in the form of the Faux Global War on Terror.

    Our challenge is, always has been, but does not always have to be, economic. As long as poltical spending can be justified as a business expense, we change nothing.

    Do all you can to make today a good day,

    Jeff

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image