takings

The One Test for a Supreme Court Justice
By Daniel G. Jennings
There is one test and one test alone that I would apply to any nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court: will they vote to over Kelo et. All vs. City of New London?
Kelo et. All v. City of New London is simply the worst Supreme Court decision since World War II and the greatest assault on individual liberties since World War II. Basically this decision states that your local government can condemn your property and seize for virtually any reason. The Supreme Court’s twisted logic is that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution allows governments to this as long as there is a good reason and property owners are given a just compensation.
The Founding Fathers obviously intended the so-called takings clause to be used in extraordinary circumstances say if allowing a person to stay on their property might threaten the public safety. In Kelo, five Supreme Court justices decided that a local government could seize property and turn it over to private developers if this could be of economic benefit to the community. The Kelo case centered around a group of homeowners, mostly lower income people, whose homes were going to be condemned and torn down so developers could build an office building.
The practical result of this dreadful decision will be that if the bureaucrats and politicians at your city hall or county courthouse want to increase the property and sales tax base and the potential size of their salaries. They can condemn your house, pay you a pittance for it, then tear it down to make way for an apartment building, a big box store, a shopping center or even a casino. Joe’s Auto Body Shop pays less taxes than a McDonald’s franchise so condemn Joe’s Auto Body to make way for McDonald’s. If Joe needs work after his business is taken, McDonald’s is always hiring. The bureaucrats could tear down a church to make way for a casino, a parochial school to clear land for a shopping center and so on.
People of faith should really worry about Kelo, after all houses of worship don’t contribute to the tax base, so why not condemn them to clear land for development? Many historic churches sit on valuable properties and choice locations like busy intersections. City officials might even use Kelo takings to silence people of faith. For example, Pastor Smith doesn’t like the city’s casino plans and preaches sermons against them, so the city council rules that a new Seven Eleven would generate more taxes than Smith’s church and condemns it.
Since condominiums would generate higher property taxes than single family homes the bureaucrats could condemn a block of single family homes to make way for condos. Since yuppies pay more taxes than the poor, politicians could condemn a mobile home park or a block of tenements or small homes the poor live in to make way for loft apartments for yuppies to live in. Since subdivisions generate more property taxes than farms they could condemn a farm and subdivide it.
There are endless ways politicians could abuse this terrible decision. A politically connected developer unable to get the land he needs won’t need to pay extra for it, he can simply go down to city hall, write a few campaign donation checks, hand a little money under the table to planning and zoning officials and viola a report proving the economic value of his project will appear and city council will vote to condemn property and hand it over to the developer. The city council president and the director of planning zoning will be driving by in their new Mercedes while some citizens’ things are pitched onto the street.
Corrupt individuals might buy up worthless land, then organize a fake development project and pay officials to condemn the land for development. That way the tax payers will buy the land at an inflated price and enrich the speculators and the officials on their payroll. The government could then loan the developers money to build the development, contractors would make money, and a new shopping mall or apartment house that will sit empty will go up. The taxpayers will get stuck with the bill, the contractors, developers, realtors and city officials will laugh all the way to the bank.
If that wasn’t bad enough, politicians at city hall who want to move out the poor blacks in the ghetto, the poor Latinos in the barrio or the poor whites in the trailer park can decide that parking lots or a new industrial park would be more beneficial than the homes of the poor. Then the poor or the nonwhites could be moved out and replaced with tax generating property. Where would the poor go? Who cares we ran them out of our town.
This nightmare scenario isn’t far fetched, the homeless problem in many cities was created by urban redevelopment efforts. Local governments tore down large numbers of flophouses, low priced hotels and apartment houses in downtown areas to clear the way for redevelopment. A perfect example of this was on Bunker Hill in Downtown Los Angeles where flophouses were torn down to make way for a complex of office buildings that sits empty most of the time. The result was that many of the poorest citizens including alcoholics, drug addicts, senior citizens and the mentally ill, had no place to go and found themselves living on the streets. Now, citizens all over the country are forced to pay higher taxes to “help the homeless.”
The result of the Kelo decision could be that vast numbers of poor, working class and even middle class people could be driven from their homes and forced out of inner city areas. Since inner city areas are now desirable places to live, developers could use takings to force the poor and working class out of their homes to get buildings or land for redevelopment. I can imagine some developer arguing that loft apartments generate more property taxes than basic apartments for the poor so condemn the apartment houses the poor are living in so I can redevelop them. Already, plans are underway in Washington DC for a new baseball stadium that would involve the demolition of some homes. Working people would have longer commutes to work or might not have jobs anymore because they can’t find housing near jobs. The housing having been condemned and torn down in the name of redevelopment.
As with freeway construction, urban redevelopment and other such takings in the past the victims will be the poor and working class. When was the last time you heard of a country club or a rich man’s house being condemned for a “necessary public use?” It doesn’t happen, the rich can afford lawyers to fight condemnation, they can also afford to buy off public officials.
Obviously this is not good public policy, nor is it American. No free society can exist without property rights, yet Kelo effectively strips vast numbers of average people of their property rights.
It is imperative that any future Supreme Court nominee be pledged to overturn Kelo. If the Supreme Court doesn’t want to do this, then perhaps it is time for a Constitutional Amendment to ban takings of property except when public safety or national security is threatened. Yes, this will be an uphill battle, there are powerful interests, government officials, big corporations, wealthy developers, contractors, some labor unions, organized crime (mobsters control construction workers unions and the cement business in some parts of the country), land owners and politicians at all levels of government who stand to profit from Kelo, but it can be done.
If there can be an amendment to protect the flag from burning then surely there can be an amendment to protect the homes and businesses of average Americans from corrupt bureaucrats and greedy developers? After all only a few flags are burned each year by mental defectives. That is hardly something for the Congress to concern itself with.
One disturbing note here, the media has largely ignored the Kelo decision. They are more concerned with a ruling on anonymous sources. What will it take to get them worked up over this threat to our fundamental liberties, a few reporters’ homes bulldozed?
Yes, Kelo will be overturned like the Dread Scott decision and Plessy vs. Fergusson before it. But not until a lot of damage has been to our society and a lot of good people have seen their lives, businesses and homes destroyed by out of control bureaucrats. My guess is we will only see strong action against Kelo when the massive abuses of governmental power it paves the way for are apparent.
When a few pictures of police SWAT teams with dogs and rifles forcing poor people out of their homes to make way for a new shopping center or car dealership appear on TV a lot of Americans will get the message. I wonder when the first Kelo martyr, some poor guy who refused to leave his home, got out the shotgun and barricaded himself inside when the sheriff came to evict him from his own property then got shot dead by the police will be heard of? I just hope it doesn’t take an organized effort on the scale and scope of the Civil Rights movement to overturn this stupidity. Yet that is what it may take to deprive the developers and politicians of this power. Especially if we don’t get a Supreme Court Justice dedicated to stopping this evi

tragedy

The Tragedy of Theo Van Gogh
By Daniel G. Jennings
The horrendous tragedy of the London suicide bombings diverted our attention from an equally important news story that shows the tragic fate our civilization might suffer – the Tragedy of Theo Van Gogh.
The tragedy of Theo Van Gogh is a parable all of us need to pay attention for we may share Mr. Van Gogh’s fate. Briefly, Theo van Gogh was a Dutchman, a descendant of one of the great painter Vincent Van Gogh’s brothers. Mr. Van Gogh made the mistake of believing that as the citizen of a modern democratic country, the Netherlands; he had the right of free speech. The right to say what he wanted and express his opinions. Mr. Van Gogh believed he could express his opinions through his chosen art, he was a filmmaker.
Van Gogh dared make a film that exposed the terrible way some Muslims treat women in the Netherlands. Van Gogh thought he had a right to do this, a right guaranteed by the law, a right that his ancestors had won for him on the battlefield with their lives and blood.
Yet Theo Van Gogh didn’t have that right, he was hunted down and murdered on the streets of his own city, Amsterdam, by a welfare bum turned terrorist named Mohammad Boyei. According to media reports Boyei shot Van Gogh in the head six times, then used a butcher knife to cut Theo’s throat all the way to his spine. If that wasn’t bad enough, Boyei finished up by impaling Van Gogh in the stomach with the knife. Stuck on the knife was a five page Islamic manifesto that the murderer had written.
Last week, Boyei pled guilty to Van Gogh’s murder in a Dutch court, an event overshadowed by the slaughter in London. This murderer’s behavior in court was particularly frightening.
When he was confronted by Theo Van Gogh’s mother, Boyei’s stated, “I don’t feel your pain.” In court, Boyei boasted of his pride in committing the murder and behaved as if he would do it again.*
The Van Gogh murder and the London bombings are symptoms of a growing threat to civilization. Large numbers of young men who don’t accept the basic values of modern civilization. Men who scorn tolerance, empathy, compassion and sympathy and believe their ideology superior to all others. Men who take pride in killing those who don’t share their beliefs and are willing to die to kill their enemies real and imagined.
The frightening thing is that these men aren’t just found in the bazaars of the Middle East or the caves of Afghanistan. Many of them are found in the housing projects and industrial slums of Europe. The London bombers came from the old British industrial town of Leeds and Boyei was a second or third generation Dutch citizen. These men had enjoyed all the benefits of the vaunted European welfare states and they rejected them. Instead of being assimilated by tolerance and multiculturalism these men became alienated by it.
The Van Gogh case and the London bombings raise troubling questions. Does multiculturalism actually work and breed tolerance? Is it possible for Moslems and Christians to live side by side in a modern democratic society that gives all citizens the same freedom of speech and religion? Yes, Moslems and Christians have lived together peacefully in many countries for centuries but historically Moslems and Christians only coexisted when they were under the hobnailed boot of an absolute monarch, a military dictator or a colonial administrator of either faith. Can they live together in a free society?
This is the first time in human history that Christians, and Moslems are living together in democratic societies, an experiment and possibly a dangerous one. It is also the first time in history that large numbers of Moslems many from traditional tribal societies have been introduced into a secular modern society. Another experiment that seems dubious and may fail.
So perhaps the real tragedy of Theo Van Gogh is that Van Gogh was the victim of a social and political experiment not of his making. An attempt to have people of extremely different beliefs and values live amongst each other in peace. An attempt doomed to failure because some of those living amongst each other don’t believe in peace and tolerance.
How many more people like Theo Van Gogh will have to die before we start questioning the social and political experiment we’re inflicting on ourselves in the name of tolerance? The real tragedy of Theo Van Gogh is the way in which the world has ignored Mr. Van Gogh’s tragic death and its implications for our future.

*See Charles Kracthammer’s July 15, 2005 column at Townhall.com for an interesting take on the Van Gogh affair.

needed

Needed: New Thinking About War
By Daniel G. Jennings
If we are going to win the war in Iraq and the larger War Against Terror, all of us military and civilian alike are going to have to change our thinking about war and how it is fought.
A new way of thinking about war is needed because war itself has changed. What we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan is what America’s most astute thinker on military matters, William S. Lind of the Free Congress Foundation, would call a Fourth Generation War. A better term would be Postmodern War, that is a war completely different from the ones fought in the modern era of the 17th through 20th centuries.
Postmodern War is different from Modern War in the most basic ways. First because it is not a war between nations, although nations are often involved in the fighting. Instead many groups besides the nation and the formal military wage Postmodern War for example terrorist groups, guerrillas, religious organizations, political parties, tribes and criminal gangs. Most of the wars being fought in the world today are civil wars often involving guerrillas or terrorists.
In Iraq there is no formal or organized enemy instead bands of fighters come together attack and disperse back into the population. There is no unified command or organized opposition. Instead there are several different factions of enemies attacking the US each pursuing its own agenda. Some aim to establish local power or authority, some are fighting for religious reasons, others to prove their manhood or machismo. Some are simply fighting because they enjoy fighting.
In Modern War we were almost always facing a unified enemy with a unified command and an obvious agenda. In Vietnam for example, it was clear that the enemy were Communists intent on forcing their Communist ideology on the country and that they followed the orders of their leadership in Hanoi. In Iraq there is no enemy leadership, and no ideology beyond professions of Islam, instead there are a few shadowy figures whose capture wouldn’t stop or even hinder the insurgency. Nor is there anybody or anything the United States can negotiate a peaceful settlement with. In Vietnam we knew where the Communist leaders were and how to talk to them.
What this means is that the traditional military and diplomatic solutions that worked in Modern War are essentially useless in Postmodern War. Neither a negotiated diplomatic settlement or a military victory is possible because there is no enemy organization to negotiate with or destroy.
The motives in war have changed, in Modern War fighters whether they be soldiers or guerrillas usually fought for one unified cause to liberate the nation or create a new system of government. In Postmodern War there are different classes of fighters pursuing different agendas, there are mercenaries fighting for money, warriors fighting for personal honor, religious fanatics fighting for the faith, nationalists for the nation and many others.
Unlike the soldiers and guerrillas in Modern Wars who almost fought to impose some sort of order on the battlefield and the nation. The Communists for example fought to set up Communist governments. The Postmodern fighters often want chaos and disorder and fight for it. Criminals and warlords want lawlessness because they profit from it, religious fanatics may not care about what happens in the temporal world, mercenaries may want to prolong the war and their paychecks, local tribal leaders may want to preserve their power. In other words we are facing enemies who have little or no interest in peace.
For our military, Postmodern War represents a completely new situation that requires new ways of thinking, operating and fighting. In Modern War the basic goal of the soldier was simple and obvious: to kill the enemy or more precisely to kill enough enemy soldiers to convince the enemy to quit the war. Admiral William “Bull” Halsey stated it best during World War II when he said his mission was to kill Japanese. The enemy was also easy to spot in Modern War he was the guy across the line or over the hill wearing a slightly different uniform. Even in Vietnam, the grunt knew his mission was to kill the Communists.
In Postmodern War, the mission is far more complex, the soldier’s role is more like a policeman’s. In Iraq the soldier has to track down and fight the enemy, while restoring order, respect the local population, help set up a government, win the trust of the people and much more.
This requires a different way of thinking, instead of simply killing or destroying the enemy the soldier has to think in nontraditional ways. For example soldiers may have to restrain themselves from returning fire even if they or their comrades are injured because their gunfire may kill or injure civilians whose help they may need. Soldiers can’t resort to artillery or air attacks because that might destroy people’s property. Many of the weapons and tactics our military has relied upon for generations are now useless.
Of course it easier for soldiers on the frontlines to see this new reality they live in it everyday. For those of us on the Home Front it is harder, our image of war has been shaped by generations of movies, books, television, documentaries, comic books and war stories from veterans that give us a very different view of war. We still think of war as soldiers going out to destroy the enemy. We are still thinking in terms of World War II and Vietnam even though those comparisons are about as applicable to the Iraq conflict as the Peloponnesian War.
A typical example of these misapprehensions are the anti-war protestors who claim the Iraqi insurgents are fighting for their nation’s independence from American occupation. Since the insurgents are fighting for a wide variety of reasons this is a gross and perhaps dangerous simplification. American withdrawal will not end the war it will make it worse by taking away the only thing providing stability and order and Iraq.
Another example are the critics who believe that greatly increasing the number of American or foreign troops in Iraq will end the conflict. This might work in the short run, the insurgent will simply hide his gun while the Americans are around and dig it out as soon as they leave. Or it might have no effect, the simple presence of foreign troops does not guarantee order. In Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Congo and other countries destructive wars continued despite the presence of UN Peacekeepers.
In many cases the troops are useless they are simply not trained and equipped to deal with Postmodern War. Their heavy weapons give them the firepower to kill everybody and destroy everything but they lack the ability to restore order or track down the enemy.
What this means of course is that much of our military might be useless. Our Navy designed to wage a large scale fleet action has little effect on the ground in Iraq, our Air Force can’t do much either, much of our army’s weaponry is useless, you can’t win the Iraqi people’s support by driving M-1 tanks through their streets or buzzing their cities with helicopters. Infantrymen trained to fight other infantrymen find themselves unable to do anything but ride around in Hummers.
Therefore our political leaders and military commanders will have to change their thinking about war. Unfortunately, those who are sitting in comfortable offices in Washington will have a harder time realizing what Postmodern War is and coming to grips with it than those in the field. It may not be until the soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan reach the Pentagon they we actually change our thinking about war.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Is Nuclear Non-Proliferation a Bad Idea??
By Daniel G. Jennings
The United States’ policy of nuclear non-proliferation, that is efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries by enforcing treaties that limit such weapons to established nuclear powers, may actually be a bad thing that threatens the peace.
The logic behind nuclear non-proliferation is that the spread of nuclear weapons will destabilize nations and lead to arms races and conflict. The interesting thing is that history seems to disprove this argument and indicate that nuclear weapons may actually encourage peace and stability.
Many people believe that the use of the atomic bomb by the United States in 1945 may have ended World War II by encouraging Japan’s surrender. The existence of the atomic bomb and its possession by both sides in the Cold War may have stopped the conflict between Communism and the Free World from becoming World War III.
Both sides in the Cold War restrained their behavior and limited their actions out of fear of nuclear war. The Red Army never invaded Eastern Europe and America never used its technological superiority against the Soviet Union directly largely because both sides were afraid of the bomb. Instead of preparing for war, the two sides in the Cold War negotiated and tried to work out a peaceful solution.
A similar thing has happened between Pakistan and India, now that both military powers on the Indian subcontinent have the bomb they are actually talking to each other. Instead of threatening each others nation, Indian and Pakistan leaders are holding summit conferences, talking about normal relations and even trade. Why? Largely because the presence of nuclear weapons makes war between India and Pakistan impossible and forces the leaders of both nations to talk peace.
Or take the situation in the Middle East, no major Arab nation has attacked Israel or prepared a major war since it became common knowledge that the Jewish state has nuclear weapons. The Arabs simply can’t risk their own destruction so they have an incentive not to attack Israel.
Nuclear weapons might end other conflicts, a few nuclear bombs on Taiwan might force the Peoples Republic of China to back down and end its irresponsible talk of invading that island. After all the presence of American nuclear missiles in Western Europe held the Red Army at bay for decades. Eventually, the Soviet Union collapsed because its military might was useless because of nuclear weaponry.
So a strong case can be made against nuclear non-proliferation. If non-proliferation efforts succeed they may make war more likely by making it possible for countries to fight and win a conventional war. Before India and Pakistan had nuclear weapons they fought several destructive conventional wars. China feels free to threaten Taiwan because it has no reason to fear Taiwan.
Nuclear non-proliferation efforts also poison our relations with our nations and make us look like hypocrites. By the simple act of manufacturing, stockpiling and deploying nuclear weapons the US proves nuclear weapons are useful and help preserve the peace. How can a nation that maintains a large nuclear arsenal tell others not to do so?
Attempts at non-proliferation have hurt relations with other countries including India, Iran and Pakistan. Nations whose help and friendship we may need and not get because of our hypocritical treatment of them.
Obviously we have to worry about the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and nuclear weapons in the hands of corrupt or irresponsible governments like North Korea’s. But there any evidence that nuclear weapons in the hands of developing countries are more likely to fall into the hands of terrorists.
So perhaps it is time for Americans to think out of the box and abandon this policy of nuclear non-proliferation. Instead maybe its time to ask ourselves if the world will be a safer place if more countries had the bomb? Obviously the intellectuals and peaceniks won’t like this, but history seems to be on my side, nuclear weapons might just be the key to peace and stability.

Drug legalization

Drug Legalization: Could It Aid the War on Terror
By Daniel G. Jennings
The legalization, or more precisely the decriminalization of drugs, could help America achieve victory in the War on Terror.
The production, smuggling and sale of drugs like cocaine and opium, from which heroin is made, is an important source of funding for terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda gets money from the opium fields of Afghanistan and Pakistan, leftist guerrillas and right wing death squads in Latin America reap a fortune from the cocaine trade, Hezbollah and other groups in Lebanon have profited from the drug trade as well. Terrorists profit from the drug trade in two ways, first they participate in it directly and secondly drug producers and smugglers often pay terrorists for protection from authorities.
The huge profits terrorists reap from the drug trade enable them to purchase weapons and set up recruiting networks and training camps. These profits enable terrorists to pay off authorities, local tribesmen and others who protect their operations. Even here in the United States, domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh may have made and sold drugs to finance the Oklahoma City Bombing.
Beyond the money many terrorists make by participating in the drug trade, the drug trade and the criminals who participate in it act as a support system for terrorists. The smuggling networks drug dealers set up enable terrorists to move their people and weapons all over the world. The money laundering networks drug lords organize enable terrorists to move money between countries to fund their operations. The arms trade that exists to supply drug dealers also supplies terrorists.
Another way the drug trade breeds terrorism is by destabilizing regions around the world creating safe havens for terrorists. The drug trade gives local warlords, tribal leaders, private militias, guerrillas and terrorists the money and resources they need to break free of government control. The lawlessness created by the drug trade creates power vacuums that terrorists fill.
In many developing countries, drugs like opium and cocaine are the only profitable crops peasants and poor farmers can grow. Naturally, this gives the average people a reason to side with terrorists and guerrillas who protect the drug trade and against the central government and the USA. This creates safe havens where terrorists can set up bases and training camps and operate with impunity. In some cases the massive amounts of money generated by the drug trade have enabled terrorists to set up what amounts to alternative governments for entire regions.
In Afghanistan, the war on drugs could undermine America’s war effort in two ways. First, drug eradication efforts which threaten the livelihood of poor farmers could turn much of the population against America and the government and to the Taliban and other terrorists. Second, money, aircraft, troops and resources which could be used to rebuild the country or hunt down the bad guys are diverted for opium eradication efforts, which turn Afghans against the USA. This is not my imagination, a similar state of affairs exists in Colombia where the drug trade finances Communist guerrillas and gives ordinary people a reason to support insurgents.
Closer to home, vast amounts of money and resources that could be used to fight America’s real enemies the fanatics who want to hurt and kill us are diverted to the war on drugs. Law enforcement, military and intelligence resources that could be used against terrorists are used against drug dealers.
Therefore drug legalization, or scaling back, the War on Drugs at this point in time makes a lot of sense. We could deprive terrorists of money, their support network and one of the causes of support for terror groups in many areas of the world. No, drug legalization wouldn’t be a miracle cure that would end Terror, but it could make it easier for the good guys to fight and eventually win the War on Terror.

Automobiles

Automobiles, Jobs, Oil Etc.
By Daniel G. Jennings
Looking for a job in recent weeks, I’ve run into the question do I own a car? I don’t, and I know I didn’t get at least three jobs I was perfectly capable of performing and getting to and from on time because I didn’t have a car.
From this and other personal experiences I’ve come to the conclusion that a lot perhaps a majority of Americans think life is impossible without a car. They’re always offering me rides, when I don’t need them and asking when I’m going to get a car. (I have no plans to do so, because I can’t afford it). They can’t imagine the possibility that one might be able to get around town on the bus and do things like grocery shopping without an automobile.
The fact that somebody can live without a car perplexes them, or more precisely they don’t want to imagine life without a car. Why this is I don’t know but I think they feel threatened by my carfree existence.
When they see someone living without a car, a lot of people probably begin to wonder have they been wasting all the money they spend on car payments, gas, insurance, maintenance etc? Have they been dumping money out the window? Nobody likes to get ripped off or proved wrong.
A person living without a car proves them wrong and scares them. Especially an obviously middle class person who feels happy without a car.
All this has gotten me to wondering what will happen if large numbers of Americans suddenly find themselves without cars. That I suppose will lead to mass panic and hysteria. Imagine all the middle class people running around screaming that they can’t get to work to make enough money to feed their children. There will be anger at politicians and frustration.
Is it any wonder our government is willing to invade Iraq and make an alliance with the loathsome regime in Saudi Arabia? The politicians are scared to death of the day the middle classes’ cars get taken away by high oil prices. Of course the cost of car ownership is now so high that any major economic downturn such as a real estate bust could deprive untold millions of Americans of their cars.
The madness that will result from such an event will tear our society apart. I imagine there will be riots and worse. Maybe people will be murdered for gas by soccer moms.
Our oil supply is shrinking China and India both major military powers are demanding a growing share of the world’s oil. Worse, the major oil fields in Saudi Arabia are wired to blow.* If the King of Saudi Arabia is about to be kicked out or killed he might push the button. If Al Qaeda ever takes over in the oil kingdom they too could blow the oil fields. Either way the oil will be gone, what will happen when that happens or when oil prices hit $5 a gallon.
Think what would happen if millions of yuppies were suddenly trying to get on and ride buses. Can you imagine some white guy in a three piece suit getting on the bus and asking the driver, “do you take credit cards? And what do you mean you only stop at bus stops. And why do I have to sit with all these poor people? And you mean I have to make three transfers to get downtown!!”
I imagine there will be riots at bus stops when twenty or thirty people show up and try to get on at once. Some of them will push and shove each other and bus drivers will start carrying loaded guns.
The short term effects will be terrible, riots, panics, hysteria, high prices. The long term effects will be good decreased auto ownership less money wasted on cars and freeways. More spent on rail and mass transit, serious government spending on alternative fuels. Millions of Americans will learn how to live without cars, many for the first time in their lives. Average people will be shocked to learn that not having a car doesn’t mean going back to the bicycle or the horse and carriage.
That will undoubtedly be a good thing, a lot of Americans will find themselves with a lot more discretionary income and government might find more money for things like schools and healthcare. America won’t have to maintain such a massive military machine or do business with monstrosities like the regime in Saudi Arabia. Guys like me will the norm and not treated like freaks because we don’t want to waste our money on four wheels and an engine.
It won’t be utopia or perfect but it will be better than what we have now. And a lot of Americans will be better off without cars. Unfortunately that lesson will be a hard and bitter one to learn. I just hope it comes sooner than later.

*Gerald L. Posner reports on Saudi Arabia’s “scorched earth strategy” for destroying its oil fields in his book “Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi US Connection” New York, Random House, 2005.

Holocaust on the freeways

Freeways: the Next Terror Target
By Daniel G. Jennings
Many Americans will undoubtedly feel safe in light of the July 7 terror attacks in London because they don’t use mass transit. They shouldn’t feel safe because America has a soft target that is potentially far more vulnerable to attack than any rail system or bus, the freeways.
All a terrorist would have to do to kill large numbers of Americans and throw one of our major cities or an entire region into chaos would be to explode a car or truck bomb on a major freeway. Since a van, truck, trailer or station wagon could be filled with explosives and set off this could produce a powerful explosion, far more powerful than any bomb carried or planted by a pedestrian. On a crowded freeway that could kill and injure large numbers of people caught in the blast. Many more would be killed or injured in the chain reaction accidents created by the explosions, and even more by the explosions and fires generated by ruptured gas tanks. The result could be a fiery holocaust in the middle of rush hour that could claim countless lives.
This nightmare could be made worse by the fact that many freeways run past office buildings, hotels, apartment houses and other structures with lots of people in them. Imagine the havoc created by an explosion on the 101 freeway which goes right through Downtown LA. There are also many cities in the US, such as Chicago and Oakland, where subway, light rail and commuter trains run on tracks on the freeway right of way, sometimes in the median of the freeway. Imagine the body count if a bomb explodes on a crowded freeway at rush hour next to a track carrying two crowded commuter trains. The casualties from such an attack could rival those of Sept. 11, 2001.
If a really large truck - say a large trailer pulled by a semi tractor - were filled with explosives, it could produce a massive blast comparable to a small nuclear explosion. To make matters worse, a really nasty terrorist could cook up a dirty bomb by mixing a few pounds of radioactive isotopes or some other deadly poison into the bomb. This could make clean up and rescue efforts virtually impossible.
The scenario could be made worse by the use of flammable liquid or gas say propane, gasoline, or diesel fuel. There are lots of tanker trucks filled with these materials around American cities which could easily be stolen - perhaps by terrorists working as truck drivers. Or terrorists could simply steal or buy a residential propane tank and put it on the back of a truck. Such an explosion could create a firestorm that could devastate a city and kill and injure tens of thousands of people.
Terrorists might not even need to resort to suicide attack to deliver a freeway bomb. They could simply drive the bomb to a point on the freeway, get out, get into a second vehicle and ride away. The bomb would be set off by remote control using a cell phone, or by a timer activated when the car is stopped. Clever terrorists might even rig up a remote controlled vehicle with a mannequin in the front seat that would drive along with traffic then explode.
Several vehicle bombs set off in a metropolitan area’s freeway system could create too much damage and casualties for authorities to deal with. The attacks would shut down the freeways all over the country, and make Americans afraid to drive.
This gruesome possibility is not a far fetched one, car bombs, sometimes driven by suicide bombers, are the terrorists’ weapon of choice in Iraq. Terrorists used a propane truck to blow up a historic synagogue and kill large numbers of tourists on an island off the coast of Tunisia in 2002. Terrorists in London and Madrid have targeted commuters on trains and buses with bombs.
Terrorists looking to target America’s soft underbelly would quickly identify the freeways as the most vulnerable target for a bombing. After all it would be almost impossible to check every car for a bomb. To icing to the psychopaths’ cake, car or truck bomb would create a more powerful explosion and cause far more casualties than a bomb carried by one person generating more panic and bigger headlines for the bombers.
So perhaps it is time for our leaders to start preparing for the terrible reality of a car or truck bomb attack upon a U.S. freeway. A nightmare that could leave large numbers of Americans dead and injured.