Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Glass Half Empty, Glass Half Full

US industrial production is collapsing. Or is it?

Tigerhawk says:

We have entered our 34th consecutive month of expansion in American manufacturing, the longest such increase in almost 17 years. There was no such winning streak even during the supposedly boom years of the Clinton administration. We know this boom is real, however, because it has been ages since there has been a rush of mainstream media stories about the collapse of American manufacturing.

The data actually comes from the ISM Manufacturing Report on Business® PMI History.

  JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2006 54.8 56.7 55.2 57.3 54.4              
2005 56.3 55.6 55.3 53.8 51.8 54.0 56.4 53.5 58.0 58.1 57.3 55.6
2004 62.9 62.2 62.3 63.0 62.9 61.5 61.5 59.6 58.0 56.8 56.9 58.6
2003 52.8 49.9 46.4 46.5 50.0 50.5 52.3 55.5 54.4 57.2 60.6 63.2
2002 49.1 53.2 55.0 54.4 55.2 55.8 51.2 50.9 51.3 50.0 49.2 53.1
2001 41.4 41.1 42.6 43.1 41.9 43.9 44.7 48.3 47.7 40.5 45.0 46.7
2000 56.7 55.8 54.9 54.7 53.2 51.4 52.5 49.9 49.7 48.7 48.5 43.9
1999 50.6 51.7 52.4 52.3 54.3 55.8 53.6 54.8 57.0 57.2 58.1 57.8
1998 53.8 52.9 52.9 52.2 50.9 48.9 49.2 49.3 48.7 48.7 48.2 46.8
1997 53.8 53.1 53.8 53.7 56.1 54.9 57.7 56.3 53.9 56.4 55.7 54.5
1996 45.5 45.9 46.9 49.3 49.1 53.6 49.7 51.6 51.1 50.5 53.0 55.2
1995 57.4 55.1 52.1 51.5 46.7 45.9 50.7 47.1 48.1 46.7 45.9 46.2
1994 56.0 56.5 56.9 57.4 58.2 58.8 58.5 58.0 59.0 59.4 59.2 56.1
1993 55.8 55.2 53.5 50.2 51.2 49.6 50.2 50.7 50.8 53.4 53.8 55.6
1992 47.3 52.7 54.6 52.6 55.7 53.6 53.9 53.4 49.7 50.3 53.6 54.2
1991 39.2 39.4 40.7 42.8 44.5 50.3 50.6 52.9 54.9 53.1 49.5 46.8
1990 47.2 49.1 49.9 50.0 49.5 49.2 46.6 46.1 44.5 43.2 41.3 40.8
1989 54.7 54.1 51.5 52.2 49.3 47.3 45.9 45.1 46.0 46.8 46.8 47.4
1988 57.5 56.2 54.6 55.8 55.5 59.3 58.2 56.0 54.6 55.5 55.6 56.0
1987 54.9 52.6 55.0 55.5 57.2 57.4 57.5 59.3 60.1 60.7 58.8 61.0
1986 51.2 51.0 51.0 49.7 53.4 50.5 48.0 52.6 52.4 51.2 51.2 50.5
1985 50.3 49.9 47.8 48.2 47.1 47.8 47.9 47.7 49.9 50.9 52.0 50.7
1984 60.5 61.3 58.9 61.0 58.6 58.1 56.1 53.0 50.0 50.8 50.3 50.6
1983 46.0 54.4 53.9 54.2 56.1 57.5 63.6 63.1 62.5 64.4 66.0 69.9

It's interesting to see how the figures -- apparently the same figures -- are reported by MSNBC. Here it is, verbatim, from US manufacturing growth eases in May

By Christopher Swann in Washington and John O'Doherty in New York Updated: 7:42 p.m. ET June 1, 2006 FT.Com

Manufacturing activity slowed to a nine-month low in May, adding to evidence that the US economy is starting to lose momentum after blistering first-quarter growth. The ISM manufacturing index slid to 54.4 in May from 57.3. Any figure above 50 indicates expansion, but the rate of growth has been slowing. 

The prices paid index of the report climbed to 77 from 71.5 - driven largely by rising crude oil prices rather than generalised inflationary pressure. "While the latest reading is not a disaster, it is consistent with GDP growth of slightly below 3 per cent," said Paul Ashworth, senior US economist at Capital Economics, a consultancy.

It's apparently possible for the growth to have occurred, because Europe is also experiencing a manufacturing boom. But the FT.Com, associated with the earlier story, puts this news another way. Eurozone manufacturing growth hits six-year high:

By Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt Published: June 1 2006 10:49 | Last updated: June 1 2006 10:49

Eurozone manufacturing growth has reached the fastest rate for almost for six years, according to the latest figures that suggest the economic upswing in the 12-country region has extended well into the second quarter of this year. The unexpected rise in the eurozone manufacturing purchasing managers' index, from 56.7 in April to 57.0 in May, marked the eleventh successive monthly improvement in business conditions

So there you have it folks. Thirty four months of expansion and the word is "eases". Eleven months of expansion and "six-year high" is the appropriate descriptor. Anyhow, is this good news?

26 Comments:

Blogger Aristides said...

Henry David Thoreau:

What is a course of history or philosophy, or poetry, no matter how well selected, or the best society, or the most admirable routine of life, compared with the discipline of looking always at what is to be seen? Will you be a reader, a student merely, or a seer? [...]

Let us settle ourselves, and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion, and prejudice, and tradition, and delusion, and appearance, that alluvion which covers the globe, through Paris and London, through New York and Boston and Concord, through Church and State, through poetry and philosophy and religion, till we come to a hard bottom and rocks in place, which we can call reality, and say -- This is.


In a previous thread, Trish linked to this report by CSIS. It gives the Administration an 'F' in Iraq, mostly for what Anthony Cordesman calls its lack of integrity and honesty.

It's worth remembering some facts, however. As Wretchard pointed out, CSIS is not without its fair share of partisanship:

1998: Washington — National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger announced June 16 the appointment of Mary O’Neil McCarthy as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs.

2001: McCarthy joins the CSIS think tank. Three of her fellow experts are Zbigniew Brzezinski, General Wesley Clark, General Anthony Zinni


This doesn't prove anything, of course, but it does fill out some texture. If we are to trust CSIS, we need to first understand what and who it is.

Also of note is Cordesman's analysis (and I would pause to remind the readers that Cordesman has some other interesting opinions on the Middle East in general and Saudi Arabia in particular). Cordesman's thesis, as stated above, is that the Administration is misleading Congress and the American people with rose-colored lenses and perfume-scented handkerchiefs. Here is his first premise to support the conclusion:

Some of the political reporting is simply incompetent. For example, the report repeatedly states that 77% percent of Iraqi population voted in December 2005 election, when it may mean means 77% of registered voters (p. 3, 6, 8, etc.). Given the fact that the CIA estimates that almost 40% of the population is 14 years of age or younger, there is no conceivable way that 77% of the population could vote. Moreover, the report states that 12,191,133 voters turned out in December 2005. Since the CIA estimates that Iraq’s total population is 26.8 million, this would be roughly 46% of the population.

Now, think about that. Doesn't it seem to you that 46%, in the context of voting, is the more disingenuous number? Does including those people for whom voting was not an option tell us anything about the turnout in the election? No, of course not.

His next premise is equally flawed. He writes:

The far more serious problem, however, is the spin put on the entire political process. Rising participation did not reflect acceptance of the new government or political process, it reflected a steady sharpening of political division along sectarian and ethnic
lines, with rising Sunni participation more an effort to offset the exclusion that resulted from not participating in previous elections.


Think about this: that last clause is supposed to be a mitigating factor in the Administrations optimistic portrayal of Iraq. Rising Sunni participation was an effort to offset the exclusion that resulted from not participating in previous elections. Isn't that a good thing? Doesn't that say something meaningful, something, dare I say, positive about the way the Sunni's now perceive the electoral process? Doesn't it demonstrate the beneficial understanding of a beneficial fact: that power must be gained at the ballot box, and can no longer be had at the point of a gun?

He also faults the Administration for downplaying the problems that lie ahead. Leaving aside the veracity of his analysis here, shouldn't the Administration downplay the problems in the face of a media-assault that overplays them? If the goal is success, and if success can be defeated by public opinion even more immediately than by the insurgents, isn't the Administration somehow being more realistic by saying "Don't be overly concerned, we will pull through?" -- than if they reinforced the rising tide of the exit crowd?

Nothing is simple. I have noticed a strong dose of confirmation bias at the Belmont Club lately, emanating from those who have lost faith in the experiment of Iraq. It is true: even if we have patience and good luck we will not be able to remake the Middle East in our image. The irony, of course, is that we don't have to.

We just have to stay long enough to change some of the more harmful patterns. If Arab politics improves but a little, we will have gained a lot. And that's the point.

As an aside, read this post on what Indians (not Native Americans) feel about the legacy of British Colonial rule. It is a lessen in just how gray the world can be -- and when one's world is the blackest of night, even a dark gray is an improvement.

We may never find The Answer, and even if we did it may not help. But we can keep our eyes and minds open, and with integrity continue the search. A lesson during these times of aspiring sages.

I have never yet met a man who was quite awake. How could I have looked him in the face?

6/06/2006 01:25:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

aristide writes
" power must be gained at the ballot box, and can no longer be had at the point of a gun?"

in reference to Iraq.
But how accurate is that sentiment?

The Bloggers of Iraq, linked to at Pajamas told a different story, entirely.
That power, no, even more basic, security, was gained only through the employment of "private" arms. Neighborhood watches and patrols, road blocks and guards.

There is no "National Security" there is not even Citywide Security, the Government has proven itself powerless, so far.

Bulletting has not given way to Ballotting, not on the streets of Baghdad, Basra or Anbar.

This theme ran through each bloggers tale of woe.

Will the ISF move to control the streets from Mohammedan extremists of all types, or just move against a select few.

When rumors of Saddam Lite bring hope to Iraqis, well some thing in the Program is off track.

6/06/2006 01:44:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

That middle class wages have not gone up, and the deficit has ballooned (esp when counting NEW unfunded liabilities) during such a robust expansion points to some underlying problems.
Can we spell Expansion of Big Government and the welfare classes?

6/06/2006 01:46:00 PM  
Blogger Aristides said...

D'rat, you are describing a bad security situation, and it is that. However, it does not annul the fact that Sunnis participated in these recent elections after sitting them out had left them unsatisfied.

For the time being, the power that flows from the elected government, with its access to the Iraqi Army and American assistance, is far greater than the power derived from the militias. The Sunnis, being outnumbered, realized this and chose to get what they could out of a system that was the lesser of two evils. This is progress. This is how you change patterns.

The American vice is holding all this together, of course, but sooner or later the glue will set--so long as we don't skip out too soon.

I expect the discrepancy in real power between the government and the militias to be fully demonstrated very soon. Then we will see what we see.

6/06/2006 01:56:00 PM  
Blogger Aristides said...

Re: goings-on in Iran.

This is the slogan of the Azheris as they protest the regime:

"We Resist Without Hate."

That has all the hallmarks of protest prep, as in Western influence.

However, to paraphrase Dr. Strangelove, the whole point of this type of protest prep is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why isn't our media telling the world, EH?

The line of "We Resist Without Hate" is not meant to persuade the regime. It is meant to capture the sympathy of the world in a way that rioters and violent messages cannot. But its efficacy depends on its being widely disseminated. If it is ignored, and if sympathy does not build, the regime will not be constrained in its reaction. If the regime is constrained, the momentum builds, as it did in Ukraine. If it is unconstrained, momentum dies.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "If you would lift me up you must be on higher ground." This message is the high ground. It needs some play.

6/06/2006 02:12:00 PM  
Blogger Brett L said...

I'd just like to note that May's "nine month low" is actually above the average monthly growth for either GWB or Clinton. GWB is Averaging 53.3, Clinton is 52.1, although 53.1 through his first 65 months. Yep that's pretty bad to be at a nine month low that's above the long trend averages.

6/06/2006 02:13:00 PM  
Blogger Tony said...

The TRADE deficit is proof that our economy is stronger and we have more money to spend than our trading partners. With the traditional expansion in tax revenues due to business expansion after tax cuts, our BUDGET deficits are now declining. But good news must not be allowed to leak out in the MSM, Bush might get some credit. Can't have that!

On a similar topic, I have a few liberal correspondents who have taken to using the 8/6/01 PDB to Bush as proof that he ignored the threat of Al Qaeda. While such willfully ignorant liberals absolutely refuse to read the 9/11 Commission Report (which convincingly proves the Bush Administration did more to combat Al Qaeda in their first 8 months than the previous Administration did in their full 8 years), they have taken to quoting this one single exhibit that Bush was warned. Forget the fact that the actual memo was repeats of reports from 97 and 98, it proves Bush is bad. Lately I have taken to responding in kind: You mean the PDB from Dec. 4, 1998, titled "Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack U.S. Aircraft and other attacks" - ?

Liberals finally respond intelligently to something - by shutting up.

6/06/2006 02:15:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

The national Debt has ballooned.
The unfunded national debt looks like a Blimp, in comparision, and a growing Blimp at that.

6/06/2006 03:15:00 PM  
Blogger 11A5S said...

Wretchard:

I must be getting jaded. This sort of media trickery scarcely causes me to get mildly upset anymore. It's the old growth/rate of growth switcheroo, originally pioneered during the 80's when every time that Reagan proposed cutting the rate of growth of some program (for example, cutting the Medicaid annual rate of growth for 10%/year to 7%/year) the Democrats would accuse the Republicans of cutting (or more picturesquely of "gutting") said program and the press would repeat the accusations without comment or analysis. I suppose that if anyone had ever called them on it, the press and Democrats would have come up with some technical argument explaining that cutting the rate of growth would reduce the NPV of all future cash outflows associated with that program. At that point, most Americans would have flipped to the sports pages. I was always shocked that the Republicans never fought back. Though now I suppose that the replies just never made it into the press.

6/06/2006 03:29:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

No such problems with GWB:
Just spend trillions more future taxpayer's dollars on free Viagra.

6/06/2006 04:11:00 PM  
Blogger RWE said...

Talked to a friend of mine whose family owns a bruash manufacturing company. They recently bought a closed Rubbermaid plant in N.C. to manufacture brushes. Rubbermaid shifted their production to overseas but the brush company is shifting more of theirs back to the U.S. He said that rising fuel prices mean that it is much more costly to ship from overseas.

And Tony: Clearly one reason gasoline prices are so high is that the economy is doing so well that more people can afford to buy cars and gas. And while I don't like paying so much for gas it does not seem to be affecting how, what, or how often people drive around here - it has me to some extent, but most people, no.

By the way, people, what is all this about growth - don't y'all recall when the Clintonites announced that they had defeated the business cycle?

6/06/2006 04:24:00 PM  
Blogger Ari Tai said...

re: middle class wages mostly stagnant.

Note that just like we increased the congressional dictat to, say, the DoD by 10x in the 90s (now we're at 1,000 page budgets with intrusive "oversight" by an imperial congress - I'm surprised the executive can even breath), we've also increased the amount of regulation on business, local government and individuals by a similar amount. This has a cost/benefit, Congress and the agencies (and the last 3 months of Clinton executive orders, remember them??) must think all these rules are significant benefit, worth thousands of dollars to every (middle class) citizen, because that's what they are paying - every year, and that's where their salary increase due to increased productivity went. Want to see it really stagnate, even go down? Start trading carbon credits. Enron, renamed, will be back overnight.

Maybe someday the electorate will figure it out, but they haven't yet. We're fortunate the markets and the few very productive and risk-taking people we do have labor on, and continue to outshining every other country. I've got an original idea, let's tax (aka "put the brakes" on) these people some more.

It's just wonderful that our poor live as well or better than nearly all European (middle class) citizens - in terms of consumption, entertainment, travel, high-quality goods available cheaply, their ability to find a job at any wage, and even our poor's outcomes from health crises are far better than those poor Europeans who have to ration, to say nothing of sponging off of our medical advances and inventions).

If the middle-class would like more (discretionary) pennies, they should tell their representatives to stop telling them and others how to perfect their lives (and dictating choices). They need to shout (with their votes) that they have a greater trust in markets than they have in the government to do anything more than only a government can do.

6/06/2006 04:48:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

For anyone interested in how E Publishing technologies are improving check out The Daily Star ePaper.

No noload required, it's pretty cool. Now display ads can be given away at hugh discounts to print competitors. Just like classifieds at craigslist.

Won't be long and you won't have the MSM to kick around anymore, the spraypaint is on the wall.
Viva la revolution!
Ben Franklin would be a happy camper.

Content not production capacity, will soon be all that matters.

6/06/2006 04:57:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

desert rat,

That's probably right. Which is why every booming Internet site (including blogger) is really a scam designed to get users to provide content. The nearest thing in the universe to a fully funcitonal perpetual motion machine.

6/06/2006 05:07:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

We've been doing it for years in print, W, nothing new there.

It just gets quicker and quicker to reformat the data and turn it around as a "new" product.

I would not call it a "scam" Google provides a "fair" value,
for "FREE"

Even in entertainment, a "Lost" episode got like a million plus paid downloads. The Broadcast Networks will not be able to stand that onslaught for lomg, System failure is in the wind, without exclusivity of viewership and scheduling, the monopoly is over.

In video, MTV's "Wild Boys" shows the way of do it yourself TV production.

6/06/2006 05:19:00 PM  
Blogger Cannoneer No. 4 said...

I have noticed a strong dose of confirmation bias at the Belmont Club lately, emanating from those who have lost faith in the experiment of Iraq.

How could one fail to notice?

Gloom, Despair, and Agony on me
Deep Dark Depression, Excessive Misery
If it weren't for Bushco, we'd have no wars at all
Gloom, Despair, and Agony on me.

Conservative Fatigue Syndrome Revisited

6/06/2006 06:14:00 PM  
Blogger trish said...

"In a previous thread, Trish linked to this report by CSIS. It gives the Administration an 'F' in Iraq, mostly for what Anthony Cordesman calls its lack of integrity and honesty."

- aristides

Here is what Cordesman says in his introduction:

"If the US is to win in Iraq, it needs an honest and objective picture of what is happening.
The media can provide some of this picture, as can outside experts and scholars, but only
the US government has the resources and access to information that provide a
comprehensive overview of the situation.
The quarterly report to Congress issued by the Department of Defense, “Measuring
Stability and Security in Iraq,” is supposed to be a key document to achieve this goal.
Like the State Department weekly status report on Iraq, however, it is deeply flawed. It
does more than simply spin the situation to provide false assurances. It makes basic
analytical and statistical mistakes, fails to define key terms, provides undefined and
unverifiable survey information, and deals with key issues by omission.
• It provides a fundamentally false picture of the political situation in Iraq, and of
the difficulties ahead. It does not prepare the Congress or the American people
for the years of effort that will be needed even under “best case” conditions and
the risk of far more serious forms of civil conflict.
• The economic analysis is flawed to the point of absurdity.
• No meaningful assessment is provided of the success and failures of the US aid
effort, and no mention is made of the corruption and mismanagement in the aid
effort.
• There is no meaningful analysis of oil developments, budget and revenue
problems, and future needs for aid.
• The threat analysis is fundamentally flawed, serious understates the level of civil
conflict, and fails to provide a meaningful risk assessment.
• Very real progress in the development of Iraq regular forces is exaggerated and
the need for major continued support and aid is largely omitted.
• The basic problems in the police, justice system, and governance that represented
a major threat and risk are omitted to the point where the analysis is so distorted
as to be useless.
The US cannot afford to repeat the mistakes it made in Vietnam. The strategy President
Bush is pursuing in Iraq is a high risk strategy for Iraq. If it is to have any chance of
success, it going to take bipartisan persistence, and sustained US effort. This requires
trust, and trust cannot by built without integrity.
The American people and the US Congress need an honest portrayal of what is
happening, not lies by omission and “spin.” They need credible reporting that builds
trust. They need to accept the real world risk and costs, and accept them. The latest
version of “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq” does not meet this goal. It is both
dishonest and incompetent, and is a serious indictment of the professional integrity and
competence of every individual and agency involved in drafting it."

Cordesman, rather than giving "the Administration an 'F' in Iraq," has given a failing grade to the DoD report.

"Leaving aside the veracity of his analysis here, shouldn't the Administration downplay the problems in the face of a media-assault that overplays them? If the goal is success, and if success can be defeated by public opinion even more immediately than by the insurgents, isn't the Administration somehow being more realistic by saying "Don't be overly concerned, we will pull through?" -- than if they reinforced the rising tide of the exit crowd?"

- aristides

The administration faces a crisis of public confidence on the matter of Iraq. How "downplaying the problems" will help restore some faith in and enthusiasm for a project that will take many more lives and years before a hoped-for completion, is quite beyond me. For the administration to say, "Don't be overly concerned, we will pull through" is worse than useless at a time when trust in the Administration's competency and policy is perilously low.

That what you are interested in are soothing words - that what you believe the public is owed in wartime are blithe and misleading reassurances from its leaders - is not surprising.

Let's see if it works before the bottom falls out.

6/06/2006 06:24:00 PM  
Blogger Tony said...

RWE, I was about to reply to your recognition of American's typical swagger, but then I read Wretchard:

desert rat,

That's probably right. Which is why every booming Internet site (including blogger) is really a scam designed to get users to provide content. The nearest thing in the universe to a fully funcitonal perpetual motion machine.


I almost felt guilty giving away my gelt, leaving money on the table, writing just for the crazy fun of it. Like I have been doing since the earliest BBS days, it's just so much fun to be an ASCII character.

We're rats on the wheel, we don't care that the wheel owner gets a little grift or grist from the mill, we're just having fun running around on the shiny wheel, leaving our character-shaped footprints.

6/06/2006 06:27:00 PM  
Blogger Tony said...

RWE: Re: wasting gas

I got stuck in the air last week, drilling giant 757-guage holes in the sky in 30 minute orbits. It's been thunderstorms across America lately, and the planes are at 37-40,000 ft. Mostly you're looking down on the county-size cloud systems, until you look out the window and see clouds all around and above you! At that point, you are stuck.

And guess what the Root Cause of these costly airborne delays and waste of precious tons of JP-4 are caused by? It's damn sissy ramp workers! They're afraid of lightning, can you imagine that?

Doesn't seem fair I get stuck up in the air just cause those guys are afraid of lightning. What are the odds, for God's sake?

Ahh the hell with the ramp workers, why doesn't the pilot just nail it to the runway? Who's in charge here?

6/06/2006 06:44:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

The PMI numbers are meaningless. In the late 40s, when America was the leader in 33 of the 40 major manufacturing industries, the numbers were in the 30s.

The true measure of how healthy our economy is - aside from how well the Ownership Class is making out on outsourcing - is our balance of trade and our dominance.

1. Our trade balance shows we are hemhorraging wealth to more dominant manufacturers. 820 billion. Up from 30 billion in present day dollars 35 years ago.

2. Our manufacturing dominance is now down to 4 of the top 40 sectors.

6/06/2006 06:52:00 PM  
Blogger Tony said...

Trish, ma'am,

While we have obviously been less than perfect in OIF, what was our alternative course?

The 9/11 Commission Report tells the tale of our position against one specific enemy during the "peaceful" 90's. At the same time, we were bombing Iraq regularly, using frontline resources as if cost were no object. We spent our entire store of Cruise missiles on result-less attacks on Sudan, Afghanistan, Serbia.

I think if we are going to criticize the recent history of this war, we have to recognize some context, like what led to this, and where we are now.

NorKor and Iran were conducting secret nuke programs for decades, they are out in the open now. AQ Khan was proliferating WMD's for decades, we shut him down. Libya (or somebody) gave up a full bio/chem/nuke wmd program immediately after the fall of Saddam.

Yes, times are difficult now, but what should we be doing instead?

V/r, T.

6/06/2006 07:15:00 PM  
Blogger GaijinBiker said...

What do the PMI numbers represent? Is over 50 growth, and under 50 contraction?

6/06/2006 08:00:00 PM  
Blogger GaijinBiker said...

Ah, nevermind. I RTFA'd:

Any reading above 50 constitutes growth in the sector, so Monday’s survey means that manufacturing has grown for 26 straight months, the longest expansion in the sector in more than 16 years, since nearly three years of uninterrupted growth ended in April 1989.

6/06/2006 08:02:00 PM  
Blogger trish said...

"Yes, times are difficult now, but what should we be doing instead?"

Winning.

6/06/2006 08:50:00 PM  
Blogger enscout said...

trish:

In that we have not sustained another attack of magnitude on domestic soil since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, despite being seen through the lens of half the world as the great satan, I would say we are winning.

The job being done by our brave young men & women in those two campaigns has been nothing short of phenomenal. The MSM has done its best to discount their efforts and achievements. Don't buy into their deceptions.

6/07/2006 05:39:00 AM  
Blogger Andrew said...

Re: Cedarford's comments

Why is the health of our manufacturing solely depended on what other countries do?

And isn't the late 1940's a rather odd time to be comparing our industries with that of the rest of the world?

You know, what with WW2 having trashed every other industrialized power...

6/07/2006 07:36:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger