Jim Traber Forum: Government Aggravated Tragedy

Message

   Government Aggravated 
Tragedy 

Walter E. Williams 

When Thomas Paine said, 
"(G)overnment, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst 
state an intolerable one." He added that when it's self-inflicted, "(O)ur 
calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we 
suffer." The Gulf of Mexico disaster has been made worse because of Washington 
acts similar to Great Britain's tyrannical acts that caused our founders to rise 
up in rebellion in 1776. Let's look at it. 

The Navigation Act was that 
name given to laws that regulated trade and commerce between Great Britain and 
its colonies. First enacted in 1651, and often amended, the law stipulated that 
no merchandise was to be carried to Britain or its colonies except by British 
ships built and manned by British subjects. The act stifled American 
manufacturing, increased the cost of goods and gave rise to smuggling and 
increased resentment against the mother country. The purpose of the mercantilist 
Navigation Act was to protect and enrich British interests. 

You say, 
"Williams, the history lesson is nice but what does it have to do with the Gulf 
oil disaster?" Foreign companies, with extensive successful experience in oil 
spill cleanups, have offered their services but have been refused by Washington. 
Why? A Coast Guard spokesman said that Belgian, Dutch and Norwegian vessels are 
being barred from the Gulf region because they "do not meet the operational 
requirements of the Unified Area Command." That's another way to say that the 
1920 Jones Act, a protectionist law not unlike Britain's Navigation Act, 
requires vessels working in U.S. waters be built in the U.S. and be crewed by 
U.S. workers. 

James Carafano, researcher at the Heritage Foundation, 
said, "The unions see it as ... protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act 
gets waived, and they pound on politicians when they do that." Carafano asks, 
"So are we giving in to unions and not doing everything we can, or is there some 
kind of impediment that we don't know about?" President Obama has the power to 
waive the Jones Act to allow foreign vessels and crews to bring their expertise 
to the Gulf cleanup, but he fears angering American labor unions. 

This 
is not the first time that Washington's catering to shipping interests produced 
disaster for our country. Congress enacted the Navigation Act of 1817 providing, 
"that no goods, wares, or merchandise shall be imported under penalty of 
forfeiture thereof, from one port in the United States to another port in the 
United States, in a vessel belonging wholly or in part to a subject of any 
foreign power." Since the South was the nation's major exporter, Northern 
protectionist measures went a long way toward setting up the grievances that 
ultimately led to secession and the War of 1861. 

Have you wondered why a 
foreign cruise ship can take you from Anchorage, Alaska to Vancouver, British 
Columbia but not to a more convenient U.S. port such as Seattle? You can blame 
it on a law very similar to the Jones Act. That's the Passenger Vessel Services 
Act (PVSA) of 1886 (46 U.S.C. 289) states that "no foreign vessel shall 
transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, under penalty 
of $200 for each passenger so transported or landed." PVSA is simply a 
protectionist law to spare American ships from international competition. PVSA 
permits American shipping companies to financially rip off their shipping and 
passenger customers by charging prices that would be otherwise unsustainable 
without the law. 

The bottom line lesson is nothing good can come from 
trade restrictions except windfall gains by a small group of beneficiaries, 
shipping companies and their unions that come at the expense of a much larger 
number of people -- customers who ship and passengers who travel. The only good 
news is that the Gulf disaster is making the victims of such restrictions 
visible. 

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/06/23/government_aggravated_tragedy

Author	Message
Annie Ultimate Joined: 02 May 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 17583	Topic: Government Aggravated Tragedy Posted: 23 June 2010 at 10:40am
	Government Aggravated Tragedy Walter E. Williams When Thomas Paine said, "(G)overnment, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one." He added that when it's self-inflicted, "(O)ur calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." The Gulf of Mexico disaster has been made worse because of Washington acts similar to Great Britain's tyrannical acts that caused our founders to rise up in rebellion in 1776. Let's look at it. The Navigation Act was that name given to laws that regulated trade and commerce between Great Britain and its colonies. First enacted in 1651, and often amended, the law stipulated that no merchandise was to be carried to Britain or its colonies except by British ships built and manned by British subjects. The act stifled American manufacturing, increased the cost of goods and gave rise to smuggling and increased resentment against the mother country. The purpose of the mercantilist Navigation Act was to protect and enrich British interests. You say, "Williams, the history lesson is nice but what does it have to do with the Gulf oil disaster?" Foreign companies, with extensive successful experience in oil spill cleanups, have offered their services but have been refused by Washington. Why? A Coast Guard spokesman said that Belgian, Dutch and Norwegian vessels are being barred from the Gulf region because they "do not meet the operational requirements of the Unified Area Command." That's another way to say that the 1920 Jones Act, a protectionist law not unlike Britain's Navigation Act, requires vessels working in U.S. waters be built in the U.S. and be crewed by U.S. workers. James Carafano, researcher at the Heritage Foundation, said, "The unions see it as ... protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound on politicians when they do that." Carafano asks, "So are we giving in to unions and not doing everything we can, or is there some kind of impediment that we don't know about?" President Obama has the power to waive the Jones Act to allow foreign vessels and crews to bring their expertise to the Gulf cleanup, but he fears angering American labor unions. This is not the first time that Washington's catering to shipping interests produced disaster for our country. Congress enacted the Navigation Act of 1817 providing, "that no goods, wares, or merchandise shall be imported under penalty of forfeiture thereof, from one port in the United States to another port in the United States, in a vessel belonging wholly or in part to a subject of any foreign power." Since the South was the nation's major exporter, Northern protectionist measures went a long way toward setting up the grievances that ultimately led to secession and the War of 1861. Have you wondered why a foreign cruise ship can take you from Anchorage, Alaska to Vancouver, British Columbia but not to a more convenient U.S. port such as Seattle? You can blame it on a law very similar to the Jones Act. That's the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA) of 1886 (46 U.S.C. 289) states that "no foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, under penalty of $200 for each passenger so transported or landed." PVSA is simply a protectionist law to spare American ships from international competition. PVSA permits American shipping companies to financially rip off their shipping and passenger customers by charging prices that would be otherwise unsustainable without the law. The bottom line lesson is nothing good can come from trade restrictions except windfall gains by a small group of beneficiaries, shipping companies and their unions that come at the expense of a much larger number of people -- customers who ship and passengers who travel. The only good news is that the Gulf disaster is making the victims of such restrictions visible. http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/06/23/government_aggravated_tragedy
	“If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.” ― Lewis Carroll
	IP Logged

chewy75 Big Daddy Joined: 25 July 2005 Location: American Samoa Online Status: Offline Posts: 1345	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 7:35am
	we get it lady you hate the the government. Here is idea how about you use your unlimted time and post something positive. Maybe about a soldier helping people or something along those lines. It must be tiring to be so full of hate. I actually feel sorry for you
	IP Logged

PLOWBOY Big League Joined: 20 April 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 6946	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 9:48am
	So what are you full of?
	If I'm getting up at 4:00, it better be deer season.
	IP Logged

chewy75 Big Daddy Joined: 25 July 2005 Location: American Samoa Online Status: Offline Posts: 1345	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 11:31am
	love and kindness for my fellow man and woman
	IP Logged

boomerjake Big League Joined: 22 April 2009 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4345	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 12:16pm
	*Originally posted by chewy75* we get it lady you hate the the government. Here is idea how about you use your unlimted time and post something positive. Maybe about a soldier helping people or something along those lines. It must be tiring to be so full of hate. I actually feel sorry for you LOL…Actually there seems to be quite a bit of derision in your own posts.
	IP Logged

Patriot Girl Ultimate Yankee Killer Joined: 19 April 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 31779	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 12:42pm
	It's intriguing how nowadays, dissenting with the president is the highest form of patriotism. For eight years it was practically an act of treason.

	IP Logged

boomerjake Big League Joined: 22 April 2009 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4345	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 1:04pm
	*Originally posted by Patriot Girl* It's intriguing how nowadays, dissenting with the president is the highest form of patriotism. For eight years it was practically an act of treason. Gee, who was it who stated: "I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration"? I’m quite sure you agreed with them! What happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism?
	IP Logged

cro1 Big League Joined: 25 January 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 9203	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 1:11pm
	*Originally posted by chewy75* love and kindness for my fellow man and woman Edited by cro1 - 24 June 2010 at 1:11pm
	LISTEN TOO: .org
	IP Logged

Patriot Girl Ultimate Yankee Killer Joined: 19 April 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 31779	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 1:20pm
	*Originally posted by boomerjake* *Originally posted by Patriot Girl* It's intriguing how nowadays, dissenting with the president is the highest form of patriotism. For eight years it was practically an act of treason. Gee, who was it who stated: "I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration"? I’m quite sure you agreed with them! What happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism? It always has been. Just seems a lot more palatable now for some. This is going back a bit, but three years ago this month, Ed Koch wrote a column defending George W. Bush, insisting that criticism of the White House might undermine our security. Democrats and some Republicans in Congress are seeking to humble, embarrass and, if they can, destroy the President and the prestige of his position as the Commander-in-Chief who is responsible for the safety of our military forces and the nation's defenses. By doing so, they are adding to the dangers that face our nation. I guess it just depends whose side you're on. You have to admit, Jake, that during Bush/Cheney's term(s) dissent was equated with disloyalty. Prominent conservatives would casually throw around words like "treason," "traitor," "fifth columnists," and "Tokyo Rose" comparisons. In his capacity as the White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer went so far as to warn Americans that better "watch what they say". . .

	IP Logged

boomerjake Big League Joined: 22 April 2009 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4345	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 1:28pm
	Fleischer was rightly excoriated for it. I must say that same press corp would give Gibbs a pass for something similar. Ed Koch only backed Bush because he saw his actions as helping Israel, the same reason Koch has come to have serious doubts with Obama. Well you tell me, when you have politicians like Harry Reid state “This war is lost,” before the surge actually escalated, is that not borderline treasonous? I could give MANY more comparable examples.
	IP Logged

chewy75 Big Daddy Joined: 25 July 2005 Location: American Samoa Online Status: Offline Posts: 1345	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 1:29pm
	I am still waiting for my Fema tent that Glenn Beck promised me
	IP Logged

Patriot Girl Ultimate Yankee Killer Joined: 19 April 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 31779	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 1:31pm
	*Originally posted by boomerjake* Fleischer was rightly excoriated for it. I must say that same press corp would give Gibbs a pass for something similar. Ed Koch only backed Bush because he saw his actions as helping Israel, the same reason Koch has come to have serious doubts with Obama. Well you tell me, when you have politicians like Harry Reid state “This war is lost,” before the surge actually escalated, is that not borderline treasonous? I could give MANY more comparable examples. I didn't think it was treasonous to question the methods and tactics of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the "War on Terror." The reasoning being Bush and Cheney were actually pursuing policies: the War in Iraq, torture, rendition, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping - which I believe to be anti-American in nature. Contrast that with the conservative criticism of this President on defense/terrorism. What are the grounds for their criticism -that Obama MIGHT be making the U.S. more of a terrorist target by housing and trying Guantanamo inmates on U.S. soil, that he MIGHT be making the military less cohesive by pushing for repeal of DADT. It's all speculative screaming to put Obama at a political disadvantage. Nothing more. Nothing less. I don't think it emboldens or frightens terrorists when there is political opposition. Terrorists are going to act or not act based on their own particular behaviors, not based on anything American politicians say or don't say about the President or the institution of the Presidency.

	IP Logged

Patriot Girl Ultimate Yankee Killer Joined: 19 April 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 31779	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 1:33pm
	*Originally posted by chewy75* I am still waiting for my Fema tent that Glenn Beck promised me Even I didn't think Beck could be that delusional. I was wrong.

	IP Logged

boomerjake Big League Joined: 22 April 2009 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4345	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 1:48pm
	*Originally posted by Patriot Girl* *Originally posted by boomerjake* Fleischer was rightly excoriated for it. I must say that same press corp would give Gibbs a pass for something similar. Ed Koch only backed Bush because he saw his actions as helping Israel, the same reason Koch has come to have serious doubts with Obama. Well you tell me, when you have politicians like Harry Reid state “This war is lost,” before the surge actually escalated, is that not borderline treasonous? I could give MANY more comparable examples. I didn't think it was treasonous to question the methods and tactics of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the "War on Terror." The reasoning being Bush and Cheney were actually pursuing policies: the War in Iraq, torture, rendition, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping - which I believe to be anti-American in nature. Contrast that with the conservative criticism of this President on defense/terrorism. What are the grounds for their criticism -that Obama MIGHT be making the U.S. more of a terrorist target by housing and trying Guantanamo inmates on U.S. soil, that he MIGHT be making the military less cohesive by pushing for repeal of DADT. It's all speculative screaming to put Obama at a political disadvantage. Nothing more. Nothing less. I don't think it emboldens or frightens terrorists when there is political opposition. Terrorists are going to act or not act based on their own particular behaviors, not based on anything American politicians say or don't say about the President or the institution of the Presidency. When someone goes to the floor of the senate like Harry Reid and states “This war is lost,” that does embolden terrorists/insurgents. If you were insurgents in Iraq at the time, you would think, “Hey, if we can just hold on a little longer, we can win this.” Those actions put service personnel in jeopardy. Mind you, I’m not crazy about these engagements. In fact, I would have been for looking for some type of exit strategy for Afghanistan. We have a president who really doesn’t believe in this mission and it’s my belief soldiers are dying there for nothing. And I’ve seen very little in the way of criticism on DADT. And for trying prisoners on US soil, you don’t think trying khalid sheikh mohammed in New York would have made it even more of a target? Come on now, you know better than that. “Terrorists are going to act or not act based on their own particular behaviors, not based on anything American politicians say or don't say.” That’s naïve at best! As we’ve seen over the past ten years, Al Qaeda is quite adept at trying to manipulate media. So they’re well aware of the political situation of their adversaries.
	IP Logged

Patriot Girl Ultimate Yankee Killer Joined: 19 April 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 31779	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 1:51pm
	*Originally posted by boomerjake* *Originally posted by Patriot Girl* *Originally posted by boomerjake* Fleischer was rightly excoriated for it. I must say that same press corp would give Gibbs a pass for something similar. Ed Koch only backed Bush because he saw his actions as helping Israel, the same reason Koch has come to have serious doubts with Obama. Well you tell me, when you have politicians like Harry Reid state “This war is lost,” before the surge actually escalated, is that not borderline treasonous? I could give MANY more comparable examples. I didn't think it was treasonous to question the methods and tactics of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the "War on Terror." The reasoning being Bush and Cheney were actually pursuing policies: the War in Iraq, torture, rendition, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping - which I believe to be anti-American in nature. Contrast that with the conservative criticism of this President on defense/terrorism. What are the grounds for their criticism -that Obama MIGHT be making the U.S. more of a terrorist target by housing and trying Guantanamo inmates on U.S. soil, that he MIGHT be making the military less cohesive by pushing for repeal of DADT. It's all speculative screaming to put Obama at a political disadvantage. Nothing more. Nothing less. I don't think it emboldens or frightens terrorists when there is political opposition. Terrorists are going to act or not act based on their own particular behaviors, not based on anything American politicians say or don't say about the President or the institution of the Presidency. When someone goes to the floor of the senate like Harry Reid and states “This war is lost,” that does embolden terrorists/insurgents. If you were insurgents in Iraq at the time, you would think, “Hey, if we can just hold on a little longer, we can win this.” Those actions put service personnel in jeopardy. Mind you, I’m not crazy about these engagements. In fact, I would have been for looking for some type of exit strategy for Afghanistan. We have a president who really doesn’t believe in this mission and it’s my belief soldiers are dying there for nothing. And I’ve seen very little in the way of criticism on DADT. And for trying prisoners on US soil, you don’t think trying khalid sheikh mohammed in New York would have made it even more of a target? Come on now, you know better than that. “Terrorists are going to act or not act based on their own particular behaviors, not based on anything American politicians say or don't say.” That’s naïve at best! As we’ve seen over the past ten years, Al Qaeda is quite adept at trying to manipulate media. So they’re well aware of the political situation of their adversaries. Jake, Obama and Eric Holder have gotten crap over trying KSM on U.S. soil....I don't have a link exactly, but people were pissed about it. My original point is when people were just as discouraged during Bush/Cheney, they were villified for saying so. Now, it just appears "patriotic" --- and shallow patriotism at best.

	IP Logged

Annie Ultimate Joined: 02 May 2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 17583	Posted: 24 June 2010 at 2:19pm
	*Originally posted by chewy75* we get it lady you hate the the government. Here is idea how about you use your unlimted time and post something positive. Maybe about a soldier helping people or something along those lines. It must be tiring to be so full of hate. I actually feel sorry for you Guess you missed my post about Manute Bol, a man who deserves respect! Where do you get that I hate government? Do you disagree with the piece? Do you think that the protecting of union jobs should come before helping the people, animals and land in the Gulf area? I guess you aren't for the "small people", eh?
	“If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.” ― Lewis Carroll
	IP Logged

chewy75 Big Daddy Joined: 25 July 2005 Location: American Samoa Online Status: Offline Posts: 1345	Posted: 25 June 2010 at 8:42am
	no I just get sick of your longwinded posts. You say the same thing in every post you are sad pathetic lady who has nothing better to do then go search the internet all day to post articles
	IP Logged

chicagoillini Ultimate Joined: 04 January 2006 Location: Iceland Online Status: Offline Posts: 13021	Posted: 25 June 2010 at 8:49am
	*Originally posted by chewy75* love and kindness for my fellow man and woman Chewy, I felt the love for you fellow women a few posts up when you stated "I GET IT LADY". Such love and kindness should not go unnoticed. Well Done.
	MEGA DITTOS!!!!!!!
	IP Logged

boomerjake Big League Joined: 22 April 2009 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4345	Posted: 25 June 2010 at 8:50am
	No one makes you read them! Unfortunately you say the same damn thing in every one of your posts! Which are filled with mindless drivel.
	IP Logged

soonerhawg Big League Joined: 10 August 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 6848	Posted: 25 June 2010 at 8:50am
	*Originally posted by chewy75* no I just get sick of your longwinded posts. You say the same thing in every post you are sad pathetic lady who has nothing better to do then go search the internet all day to post articles
	IP Logged

The Truth - JimTraber.com
Jim Traber Forum : Jim Traber - Talk Radio : The Truth - JimTraber.com

Topic: Government Aggravated Tragedy
	Page of 3 Next >>