I just posted an article titled “Economic Recovery versus Red Tape” on the blog link on this site, and it brought this expression to mind. Expressing astonishment about absurdity by saying “Great Scott!” is a logical reaction to reading how government regulations impede projects that create jobs while the government is saying private enterprises need to create more jobs. The origin of the expression is apparently not certain, but there are several hints that it refers to an actual person from the Civil War era. World Wide Words concludes that the person was probably General Winfield Scott, who was too large in his later years (300 pounds) to ride a horse.
Monthly Archives: August 2011
The Russian Question at the End of the Twentieth Century
I posted a review of a book titled “Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse on August 24th and this book by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (unavailable on Amazon, but I obtained a book from the local library) gives another view of what caused the collapse. The two books agree on some of the underlying causes, but Solzhenitsyn adds that a primary cause was that the Soviets put materialism ahead of religion. The book is only 135 pages long, but presents the history of Russia going back several hundred years preceding the Bolshevik revolution that explains the complex nature of the massive country, its diverse peoples, and the events that Solzhenitsyn believed had major influences on the character of the country. He presents the opinion that, “Our history appears to be lost to us today, but with the proper efforts of our will…We will build a moral Russia or none at all.” Return readers of this site will note that quotes are used much more extensively in this review than in previous reviews. The reason is that I believe Solzhenitsyn without question presents his ideas much better than anything I could write in summary.
Solzhenitsyn believes that the end of the USSR came because of Gorbachev’s “hypocritical and irresponsible perestroika.” “There existed several reasonable paths for a gradual, careful way out of the Bolshevik rubble. Gorbachev chose the most insincere and chaotic path. Insincere because he searched for ways to protect Communism…Chaotic because…he put forward the slogan of acceleration, impossible and ruinous in light of the worn-out infrastructure…” Then, with glasnost “…he was flinging the doors wide open for all the nationalists…The Communist Soviet Union was historically doomed, for it was founded on false ideas…It hung on for seventy years by the fetters of an unprecedented dictatorship, but when the inside grows decrepit fetters fall useless.” He makes the ominous prediction that, “In the twenty-first century, the Muslim world, growing rapidly in numbers, will doubtless undertake ambitious tasks.” Continue reading
Economic Recovery versus Red Tape
The story of two pipeline projects provides one explanation of how a morass of government regulations is obstructing economic activity and recovery. President Obama proposed work on “shovel-ready projects” to spur economic activity, and it would be tempting to think that the number of shovels needed to build long pipelines would be viewed favorably by a government and country hungry for new jobs. One of the pipelines has been completed despite massive regulatory interferences, and will transport natural gas from the Wyoming to Oregon. The other is a planned 1711 mile pipeline that would transport crude oil from the tar sands in Alberta to refineries in Oklahoma and Texas.
El Paso, a Texas-based company, constructed the 682 mile Ruby natural gas pipeline at a cost of $3.65 billion in the three-and-a-half years required to obtain regulatory approvals and complete the project. The project came in at 23% over budget and missed scheduled completion by four months, primarily because of delays in meeting demands of dozens of U.S., State, and local agencies. The project created thousands of jobs and provided revenues for communities, counties, and state governments.
The Ruby project provided jobs not only to construction people but to environmental specialists who had to complete studies and publish a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS had binding requirements for rights of way and endangered species such as the black footed ferret and the Ute ladies’ tresses orchids. There were also descriptions required on how the nearly 6000 workers would be housed. Paleontology rules required that the pipeline had to avoid the “rock stacks” used by Native Americans as navigational tools, even though the pipeline did not cross any reservations. It took two and a half years and 125 meetings and agency “scoping hearings” for El Paso to receive the final signoff to build the pipeline. There were 215 archeologists in the field at the height of construction to “mitigate affects to cultural resources,” as required by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. A Forty-four member team monitored migratory bird protection, and they did succeed at moving a nest containing four eggs. The ditch where the pipeline was being laid had to be outfitted with temporary ramps so wild horses and burros could climb out if they fell in. Apparently the workers couldn’t be trusted to hoist out an animal if one did fall in.
The expensive gamble by El Paso to build the pipeline was initiated in the face of natural gas prices that would be slashed in half during the construction of the pipe line. The workers, land owners where the pipeline was constructed, regulators, and environmental groups (who were paid to secure their cooperation) all profited from the risk taken by El Paso. Property tax revenues were boosted by 25% in some areas. Pre-filling the pipeline has begun under the watchful eye of regulators. A Federal Energy Regulatory Commission director warmed El Paso that they are monitoring El Paso efforts to prevent the spread of nonnative foliage and will take corrective action if restoration doesn’t meet their requirements.
The other proposed pipeline, called Keystone XL, is intended to deliver tar sand oil from Canada to U.S. refineries. It is estimated that the $20 billion dollar project would produce 13,000 union jobs, and would seem to be the kind of “shovel ready” project that people looking to stimulate the economy would favor despite the fact the jobs aren’t “green jobs.” Applications were filed in 2008, and there have been dozens of public meeting with the entire large mix of regulatory agencies. Even State Department approval will be required because the pipeline would cross the 49th parallel. The draft EIS concluded the project poses little risk to the environment. The EPA didn’t like that EIS, and sixteen months later a new eight volume report that included consideration of “direct impacts to beetles” also concluded “no significant impacts to the environment.” The EIS now goes into a 90 day review to determine whether the project is “in the national interest.” In addition to environmental impact the project must prove economic, energy security, and foreign policy benefits to at least eight federal agencies.
The “green movement has geared up against the project, and there have been organized protests outside the White House. The Sierra Club is warning President Obama that he can’t count on their votes in the next election if he approves projects such as Keystone XL. We’ll see whether those 13,000 workers standing by with their shovels to build a pipeline take precedence over bureaucratic red tape.
Caught Red Handed
The meaning is understood to be caught committing a crime such as murder or poaching with blood on your hands. There was a recent family discussion that there was little doubt where the expression originated, because it must refer to a murderer having blood on his hands. A little research found the answer might not be so uncomplicated. There is a myth about a boat race to the shores of the northern Irish province of Ulster in which the winner of the race would be the ruler. One contestant cut off his hand and threw it to the shore to guarantee his win. The flag of the province has a red hand on a white shield in the center of the flag. Much of the literature does indicate that the meaning is being “caught in the act,” but there are some other theories. Some believe the expression originated in the Indus Valley where a thief’s guilt or innocence was determined by placing his hand on the red-hot heated blade of an axe. Another theory is that the Japanese would brush the sap of poison ivy on money, which would cause the hand of a thief to break into a red rash. There was no explanation for what people did when they had to use the money. I think I’ll go with the blood-on-the-hands explanation, although the other ideas are interesting.
Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse? Understanding Historical Change
This book by Robert Strayer provides a history of the Soviet Union beginning with the 1917 revolution and analyzes various theories about what caused its collapse. The revolution was of course based on the ideas of Marx that were expanded by Lenin. Even Lenin’s ideas were being questioned and rejected by the time of the collapse. However, flaws in Communism weren’t the only reason the Soviet Union dissolved. The huge empire was an agglomeration of many ethnic groups that had diverse aspirations. The desire of politicians for the Soviet Union to be a world power had caused resources to be stretched to the breaking point through domestic and foreign commitments and expenditures. However, as interesting as the history and analysis might be, my favorite part of the book was the jokes recounted in the last three paragraphs of this posting that citizens privately told each other about the system and their leaders.
“Soviet” was the name given to grassroots councils that had sprung up in 1905 and again in 1917. Some historians believe the Soviet Union was doomed from the beginning, because of the “…fatal flaw created by the utopian social engineering that flew in the face of both history and human nature.” Stalin assured success of his regime through the use of force that removed much of the middle and upper classes through execution and starvation. The record of Stalin’s purges, suppression of anyone or group that might oppose him or his policies, and endless inhuman brutality is difficult to understand, especially because he was admired by liberals who thought his “grand experiment” in Socialism/Communism should be imitated by other countries. The fear generated by the brutality of his methods did result in cohesion of the regime. The victory in World War II also validated the regime despite the 20-30 million casualties and devastation of the country. Continue reading
Failures of the 1991 Russian Revolution
I posted a review of “Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse,” as a companion to this posting. Members of the Soviet Union government who opposed Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms to decentralize much of the government’s power to the republics organized a coup attempt in August 1991.The coup collapsed in only two days in the face of a powerful outpouring of support for a new democracy and Gorbachev returned to power. The failed coup is considered to have led to the demise of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and dissolution of the Soviet Union. Boris Yeltsin won admiration for defying the coup attempt by climbing on top of a tank and calling on people to defend the freedom he had promised. Yeltsin promised to transform the socialist command economy into a free market economy and endorsed privatization programs. However, much of the national wealth fell into the control of a small group of oligarchs. People lost their jobs and savings in economic upheaval in 1992 and 1993 and blamed the reformers instead of blaming the legacy of the Soviet system. The result was constitutional crises in October 1993 and a political standoff and the killing and wounding of hundreds during shelling of the Russian White House. Yeltsin put a new constitution in place approved by referendum that gave strong presidential powers. He became widely unpopular and left office after appointing Vladimir Putin as his successor in the last hours of 1999. People were relieved to have a young and strong leader and overlooked Putin’s background in the KGB.
The title of a recent article from the Washington Post by Kathy Lally “1991 revolution’s goal is a thing of the past,” summarizes where things stand today. One observer is quoted as saying, “We saw the old train (Communism) was taking us in the wrong direction, but we thought all we had to do was change the conductor and we would have comfortable seats and good food. Democracy would take us where we wanted to go, not on our own effort. Sometimes you need to get off and push.”
Russia today does not have fair elections, courts are not independent, and political opposition is not tolerated. Corruption is rampant, and the gap between the rich and poor has widened. There are occasional demonstrations in favor of democracy, but they are mostly ignored except by the police. Opposition to the government is not allowed on the news, which relentlessly carries the message that life is better and Russia is stronger under Putin. The only thing that keeps the country running is the bribes that are necessary to get anything out of the government. The hope that was created by the defeat of the coup in 1991 has been replaced by disappointment, frustration, and nostalgia. The saddest part of the story is that only a tiny percentage of the population, which is declining because of low birth rates, expresses an interest in changing things. The next presidential election is in March, and Putin is expected to make the decision about who will run.