The New American Foundation has this
In the post-9/11 era, conventional wisdom holds that the jihadist threat is foreign. The conventional wisdom is understandable; after all it was 19 Arab hijackers who infiltrated the United States and conducted the 9/11 attacks. Yet today, as Anwar al-Awlaki, the American born cleric who became a leader in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, put it in a 2010 post, “Jihad is becoming as American as apple pie.” Far from being foreign infiltrators, the large majority of jihadist terrorists in the United States have been American citizens or legal residents. Moreover, while a range of citizenship statuses are represented, every jihadist who conducted a lethal attack inside the United States since 9/11 was a citizen or legal resident.
They also provide the following descriptions of successful terrorist post 9/11.
Of the thirteen lethal jihadist terrorists in the United States since 9/11:
- three are African-Americans
- three are from families that hailed originally from Pakistan
- one was born in Kuwait to Palestinian-Jordanian parents
- one is a White convert born in Texas.
- two came from Russia as children
- one emigrated from Egypt and conducted his attack a decade after coming to the United States
- and one each had families that originally came from Kuwait and Afghanistan
This only proves what so many have already pointed out; that the travel ban was about politics and not about policy.
Short with informative graphics. You can read more here.
I don’t intend for this blog to be a “watchdog” site but I found this interesting.
There is no single answer to this question. Construction costs per mile of road depend on location, terrain, type of construction, number of lanes, lane width, durability, number of bridges, etc. It costs more to build a new road than to rehabilitate a road or add lanes. Roads cost more to build in urban areas than in rural areas. Roads in mountainous terrain are more expensive to build than roads on flat land.
Nonetheless, some states have developed cost models to guide planning for their highway construction programs. These models give a ballpark figure for various kinds of highway improvements. The following are some examples:
- Construct a new 2-lane undivided road – about $2 million to $3 million per mile in rural areas, about $3 million to $5 million in urban areas.
- Construct a new 4-lane highway — $4 million to $6 million per mile in rural and suburban areas, $8 million to $10 million per mile in urban areas.
- Construct a new 6-lane Interstate highway – about $7 million per mile in rural areas, $11 million or more per mile in urban areas.
- Mill and resurface a 4-lane road – about $1.25 million per mile.
- Expand an Interstate Highway from four lanes to six lanes – about $4 million per mile.
The Florida Department of Transportation has published its generic cost per mile information for 2013 online. The Arkansas Highway Department’s estimated cost per mile for 2013 is available online.
That from American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
How on Earth can a one mile long 4 lane highway legitimately costs 8 to 10 million dollars?
Instead of deporting Muslims and Mexicans to “Make America Great Again,” why not focus on such blatant rent seeking like above?
Durmuş said a chapter on evolution was being removed from ninth grade biology course books, and the subject postponed to the undergraduate period. Another change to the curriculum may reduce the amount of time that students spend studying the legacy of secularism.
Complimenting his purge on western words from the Turkish language, this is clearly another step of Erdogan to entrench his power.
More can be found here.
In May 2016, The Urban Institute, not known as being a bastion of free market thought, released their best cost estimates for Bernie style “Medicare for all.”
Below is the executive summary (minus a overview of their methods). You can read the report in its entirety here.
The Sanders Single-Payer Health Care Plan
Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders has called for adopting a single-payer health care system in the United States.1 He proposes replacing the programs established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), as well as preexisting public programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, with the new system. Under his approach, all individuals in the United States would be covered by a single insurance program. Sanders’s plan would eliminate all private spending and replace all private and public coverage programs, except Veterans Health Insurance and the Indian Health Service. Benefits provided under the insurance plan would cover all medically necessary services, and cost sharing would be eliminated entirely. Coverage would include both acute and long-term care.
Our central findings of the effects of the Sanders approach are shown in table 1 and include the following:
- All American residents would be automatically enrolled in acute care coverage, increasing insurance coverage by an estimated 28.3 million people in 2017, from an uninsurance rate for nonelderly adults of 10.4 percent under current law in 2017. In 2026, the Sanders plan would decrease the number of nonelderly uninsured by 30.9 million, or 11.0 percent of the population, relative to current law. (The uninsurance rate under current law in 2026 is projected to be larger than the rate in 2017 as a result of demographic changes and a slight decrease in the rate of employer-sponsored insurance.) Although the intent is unspecified in the campaign’s materials, this finding assumes that the plan would cover the undocumented population as well as citizens and other legal residents.
- National health expenditures for acute care for the nonelderly would increase by $412.0 billion (22.9 percent) in 2017. Aggregate spending on acute care services for those otherwise enrolled in Medicare would increase by $38.5 billion (3.8 percent) in 2017. Long-term service and support expenditures would increase by $68.4 billion (28.6 percent) in 2017.
- Together, national health expenditures would increase by a total of $518.9 billion (16.9 percent) in 2017, and by 6.6 trillion (16.6 percent) between 2017 and 2026.
- The increase in federal expenditures would be considerably larger than the increase in national health expenditures because substantial spending borne by states, employers, and households under current law would shift to the federal government under the Sanders plan. Federal expenditures in 2017 would increase by $1.9 trillion for acute care for the nonelderly, by $465.9 billion for those otherwise enrolled in Medicare, and by $212.1 billion for long-term services and supports.
- In total, federal spending would increase by about $2.5 trillion (257.6 percent) in 2017. Federal expenditures would increase by about $32.0 trillion (232.7 percent) between 2017 and 2026. The increase in federal spending is so large because the federal government would absorb a substantial amount of current spending by state and local governments, employers, and households. In addition, federal spending would be needed for newly covered individuals, expanded benefits and the elimination of cost sharing for those insured under current law, and the new long-term support and services program.
- State and local governments could save $319.8 billion in 2017 and $4.1 trillion between 2017 and 2026 as the federal government absorbs these costs under the Sanders plan (not shown in table 1). A maintenance-of-effort requirement could make state and local funds available to help pay for the plan, but the legality of such a requirement is in question.
- Private health care spending by households and employers would drop as the federal government would absorb their spending under current law. Private sector expenditures for these groups would decrease by $1.7 trillion in 2017 and by $21.9 trillion between 2017 and 2026. These considerable savings would partially offset the impact on the private sector of new taxes required to pay for the Sanders plan.
- Analysis by the Tax Policy Center indicates that Sanders’s revenue proposals, intended to finance all new health and nonhealth spending, would raise $15.3 trillion in revenue over 2017 to 2026. This amount is approximately $16.6 trillion less than the increased federal cost of his health care plan estimated here. The discrepancy suggests that to fully finance the Sanders approach, additional sources of revenue would have to be identified; that is, the proposed taxes are much too low to fully finance the plan.
Employing the same tactics of fear that he used to win 2016, Trump has encouraged public fear for political gain. See his Churchillian tweets below.
This was in response to the mayor of London notifying the public to not be alarmed to the increased police presence resulting from the recent attacks.
It would be assumed that proper leadership would reassure during a crisis, but the new normal in America is prepetuaing fear, whether of Mexicans, Iran, healthcare, or even Skittles.
You can read good analysis here and here.
These are sad times for America.
Can be found here.
Here is one bit
Anecdotes about Mattis’s audacity in the field are legion. Early in the Iraq War, he met with local leaders and told them, “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I will kill you all.”
There is also this
But, in embracing Mattis’s Mad Dog persona, Trump neglected a side of him that appealed to many others—that of the deeply read scholar-soldier and sophisticated analyst. In this view, Mattis is a kind of anti-Trump, a veteran of three wars who has been sobered by their brutalities, a guardian of the internationalist tradition in American foreign policy. Mattis was endorsed by Henry Kissinger, whom he had worked with at Stanford University. As if to prove his judiciousness, Mattis, during his job interview, tried to persuade Trump to abandon the idea of reinstituting torture as an interrogation tool, saying that offers of beer and cigarettes work just as well. Even the nickname Mad Dog is a misnomer; none of his friends use it, and Mattis himself does not care for it.
On American political culture,
When I asked what worried him most in his new position, I expected him to say isis or Russia or the defense budget. Instead, he said, “The lack of political unity in America. The lack of a fundamental friendliness. It seems like an awful lot of people in America and around the world feel spiritually and personally alienated, whether it be from organized religion or from local community school districts or from their governments.
On Iraq 2003
Mattis believed from the start that invading Iraq was a bad idea. In the spring of 2002, he told me, he was in Kandahar, commanding a Marine task force, when a superior officer summoned him to the United States to begin preparing his men for the invasion—which had not yet been publicly discussed. “I said, ‘Are you joking?’ ” Mattis recalled. “And I’ll never forget what he said. He said, ‘Jim, just go down and get those sailors and marines ready. You’re going.’ And so we went down and we did it.”
I don’t agree with Mattis about everything, but he is clearly one of the few adults in the room.
First there was the handshake with a message. We are still not sure what the message is, but apparently it’s serious.
Now Macron is taking on Putin’s policy in Syria informing him that if chemical weapons are used again, Russia will have France to deal with.
I’m not sure if he is serious or if this is just sour grapes because both supported his rival. But if there is any country that needs to look at itself before beyond its borders it is France. At one point it was a regional hegemony, but France today doesn’t get much correct.
Below are two indicators of its economy, unemployment and GDP growth. Both are from FRED and both speak for themselves.
There is also the seemingly perpetual issue of integration and terrorism. France more than the United States, the U.K. or Germany seems to have a unique problem integrating members of foreign cultures into their society.
But regarding foreign policy, France should be mostly concerned with Germany’s apparent willingness to chart a more independent path. The biggest long term concern for France is still Germany. NATO was just as much designed to keep the Soviets out as it was to keep control over a recovering German.
That is the new insult being lobbed among China based netizens.
Although the emphasis varies, baizuo (or white left) is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.
You can read more here.