Author Archives: rff_blog_admin

J. N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge

Posted on by

I was interested in the refuge on Sanibel Island barrier partly because the area surrounding what had been the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapon production facility where I once worked has been designated a wildlife refuge.  The Sanibel refuge was created after Jay Norwood “Ding” Darling, a political cartoonist, urged Harry Truman to sign an executive order to create the Sanibel National Wildlife Refuge in 1945. The designation blocked the sale of land to developers.  The refuge was renamed after the pioneer conservationist in 1967. The refuge has over 6,400 acres of mangrove forests, sea grass beds, cord grass mashes, and West Indian hardwood hammocks. It makes up the largest portion of a total of five wildlife refuges on Sanibel with large populations of fish and the more than 220 species of birds and other critters that depend on fish for food.

Sanibel Island and the southwest coastal mainland of Florida were inhabited by Calusa Native Americans when Spanish explorers arrived and brought diseases that eventually mostly wiped out the tribe. It is thought a few might have made it to Cuba. The Calusa were still there in substantial numbers when Ponce de Leon organized a colonizing expedition using two ships that traveled to the southwest coast of Florida in 1521.  The word “Calusa” was described to mean “the fierce ones,” and in keeping with that description the tribe attacked the expedition.  Ponce de Leon was struck by a poisoned arrow, died of the wound in Havana, Cuba, and was buried in Puerto Rico.

We decided to take the narrated tram tour of the refuge which is operated by Tarpon Bay Explorers. The four mile tour is $13/adult and $8/child. You can pay five dollars to drive your own vehicle, but we decided we preferred the narration by an expert. Our guide was Barry Litofsky, and we were pleased with our decision to do the guided tour. We didn’t see any mosquitoes, but did get some bites from “No Seeums.” It would be a good idea to have insect repellant.

Barry said the most common question is, “Why do the mullet jump?” The fish were frequently jumping high enough to clear the water in the estuaries and landing with a splash. The answer to why they jump was something to the effect, “We don’t know. We don’t know how to ask a mullet.” However, the speculation is that they jump to dislodge sand that collects in their gills while they are bottom feeding.

We saw multitudes of birds, and I thought the two most memorable were a roseate spoonbill at a distance and an anhinga standing near the road with its wings spread to dry. The bird is called “snake bird,” because it leaves a ripple similar to that of a snake when it is swimming under water. The one we saw had a fishing lure stuck in its beak with a short piece of monofilament fishing line attached. There have been discussions on how to capture the bird and take it to the local rehabilitation center to remove the lure. The latest report is that the bird was never captured for removal of the lure and line. We are hoping that that the lure dissolved or fell out.

There are three bald eagle nests and over a hundred osprey nests on the island. Barry told us there are twelve types of small shore birds in the refuge, and they are collectively called “LBJ,” or “Little brown jobbies.”

Much of the discussion during the tour focused on the mangrove trees and their remarkable multiple roots that anchor them. There are three kinds of mangrove trees in Florida and Sanibel and many more in other parts of the world. The mangroves aren’t related except for the common trait that they live in salt water. All of them need to provide fresh water to their leaves. One type filters the salt out in the roots, another gets rid of the salt through pores on the leaves, and the other concentrates the salt in old leaves that then die.  All three methods are variations of the reverse osmosis process that provides fresh water to Sanibel residents and visitors.

The mangrove trees are protected in part because they provide impregnable resistance to hurricane winds. The guide told us that mangroves were removed from Captiva to plant citrus trees. Hurricane winds ripped out the trees and eroded a trench across the island. Another reason to protect the mangroves is that the network of roots provides a nursery for fish. The fish in turn feed the predators, including the many species of birds.

There are American alligators in the refuge, and there was one crocodile that died along with much of the snook (fish) population during a recent incredibly (for the area) cold snap. The crocodile had lived on the island for decades, and over 200 people attended its memorial service. One lonely bear has taken up residence. Barry pointed out half dollar-sized black crabs that had crawled up out of the estuary onto the trees.

There was an interesting discussion of the Sabal or Cabbage palmetto trees, which is the protected State tree of Florida. The center of the trees was used by the Calusa as food. Floridians continued harvesting the trees, especially during the Depression, and the food was commonly called “swamp cabbage.” However, the extreme tenderness earned it a reputation as a delicacy, and the name became “millionaire’s salad.” Almost all of the “hearts of palm” sold in the U.S. is from South America, with just under half coming from Brazil. The trees are grown commercially and harvested when they are about five feet tall at the age of a year or a bit more.

Fishing is allowed in the refuge, and it looked to me to be quite productive. We saw one man with a really large needle fish (three feet long?) Crabbing is allowed only with dip nets. We certainly would enjoy a return visit to the refuge, and I’m hoping next time I have some fishing equipment and the required license, of course. I’m also hoping funds become available to open the Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge so I can take my family there for a visit.

Sanibel Island Florida

Posted on by

My wife and I had a wonderful vacation on the barrier island that is connected by a causeway to Fort Myers. I will describe the place we stayed, some of our activities, and the places where we ate. However, this is not a travel guide, since we had only a short week there. I recommend that you look at the Chamber of Commerce site which has interesting descriptions of the wonderful shelling on the fifteen miles of beautiful beaches of Sanibel and Captiva (pronounced Capteava). For those wondering what the connection is with a web site titled www.RockyFlatsFacts.com, there are extensive wildlife refuges, and a large portion of the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons site is destined to become a wildlife refuge. I intend to do a separate posting describing our visit to the J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel.

We visited Sanibel in late November, and it was a wonderful time. November isn’t considered “high tourist season,” but the daytime temperatures were consistently in the mid 80s, hurricane season is over, the beaches weren’t crowded, and the water temperature was comfortable after a brief acclimation. We stayed at Sanibel’s Seaside Inn. Their motto is “Ole Island Charm,” and we agreed with that description. I suggest you check out 231 reviews on trip advisor if you want more than just our opinion, but we agree with many of the positive comments on that site. We found the people who worked there to be incredibly eager to make us comfortable, enjoyed having a well-stocked breakfast basket delivered to the refrigerator in our room daily instead of doing a “cattle call” in a lobby, and were completely satisfied with our stay there. The New York Times was provided daily. The small heated pool was just off the porch out the back of our room, and the beautiful beach was a short walk.

One of the people at the motel told us few workers can afford to live on Sanibel, and that the corporation bought them transponders for free passage over the causeway from Fort Myers. That keeps them from having to spend the six dollars each day to get to work.

We heard many languages around the motel, and were told that people from Germany, the United Kingdom, Scotland, and Chili often stay there in October and November.  Apparently many of the people who stay there in the heat of summer are called “inlanders.” Those are Floridians who are happy to come to island for the sea breezes and escape the calm heat of the inland. We were also told a famous resident of the motel was a large orange cat named Garfield that lived there in the 1980s and 1990s and entertained guests by working them for food.

We were on the first floor, which is elevated a few steps. The island is a foot and a half above sea level, so it is wise to have the first floor of anything elevated. The noise from people walking in the room above us was the only negative, but that wasn’t too troublesome. My wife thought the room was a tad too small, but I didn’t notice that we had that many conflicts while we were inclined to mill around. There are plenty of complimentary bicycles, and they are all one speed. You really don’t need multiple speeds, since there is only one place we noted on the island that can be called a hill. It is a ten or twenty foot rise as the road goes over a causeway in the twenty two miles of pedestrian and bike trails along the main highway. Bikes aren’t allowed on the beach. There were signs marking gopher tortoise crossing areas, but we didn’t see one.

The Sanibel Seaside Inn began as the Gallery Motel, which was one of the first ten or so motels on the island constructed about 1960. Hurricane Charles flooded the island on Friday the thirteenth in August 2004. The storm surge didn’t reach the elevated first floor, but the place had to be renovated after the winds tore off the roof and the torrential rains damaged everything beyond repair. The recent large oil spill didn’t reach anywhere close to Sanibel.

Travel tip—it was suggested the greatest risk of hurricanes is in August, it is hot and humid in September, and things become relatively safe from hurricanes and the temperatures are more comfortable in October.  The “high travel season” (with resulting escalating room prices) is in March and April during the family Spring Break season. We noted busy restaurants, some traffic congestion and quite a parade of bicyclists during our visit, and are trying to imagine what it would be like with another several tens of thousands of people on the island.

All the restaurants where we dined were busy, but we never had to wait more than a few minutes. Every meal was wonderful. We had grouper fixed in a variety of methods, and my favorite was mesquite grilled. We saw fresh grouper in a fish market, and it was $18.95/lb, which indicates it is widely popular. We would have either clam or conch chowder and salads. We had shrimp with the grouper a couple of times and fried oysters once. We had an appetizer of soft shelled crab once, and I had to convince my wife to try it. The crabs are held and watched so they can be harvested and cleaned immediately after molting. The very thin membrane that would become a new hard shell is quite easy to cut through and chew, and the flavor of the crab is excellent. It is difficult to select a favorite restaurant. Our first meal was at Grandma Dot’s, which is next to a marina at the end of a road that was more of a trail over hard-packed sand with numerous potholes.  We had meals at the Sanibel Grill, Timbers, and twice at the Lazy Flamingo. We paid $60-$80 for full meals, drinks, and tips, and considered all the meals to be worth the price. We wished we could have stayed on the island longer for several reasons, but we knew we would have enjoyed trying other restaurants.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t describe our shelling experiences, since that is the reason many people go to Sanibel. Sanibel and Captiva were literally made from shells. We heard there once was a six foot high wall of shells on Captiva that was eventually carted away by tourists taking home loads of them. The best time to find shells was reported to be at low tide, and we did considerable wading in the surf and watching for something interesting as the waves would wash back out to leave a relatively clear view. There were more clams than can be easily imagined and a variety of scallops. We found a few live juvenile conches, one of which was eating a smaller conch and another was eating a snail. We also found live snails, two whelks, and a couple of starfish. We dutifully followed the regulation to immediately release living creatures and decided that should also include hermit crabs that had taken over a shell.  We legally collected a few larger clam shells, various colors of scallops, and a couple each of juvenile conch, snails, and lace murex.

We paid the two dollar parking fee to walk to the fishing pier on the south end of the island. The pier is relatively short, but it was crowded with people fishing. There had been several sheepshead caught and the one man jigging had a nice stringer of mackerel. The most fun was watching two youngsters with throw nets catching bait fish next to the pier.

I can’t select a favorite part of the visit. We enjoyed the lush greenery that crowds up to the bike paths and highway. We also enjoyed the people we met, the great seafood, and we always enjoy the wash of waves on a sea shore.

Obama Kicks Keystone XL Down the Road

Posted on by

A posting on this site was titled “Economic Recovery Versus Red Tape” discussed two pipeline projects. The Ruby natural gas pipeline provided thousands of jobs to construction workers and hundreds of jobs to environmental specialists. It also boosted property taxes in the areas where it was constructed. You would think such a project would have wide support, but the environmental hoops it had to jump through before successful completion, which cost millions of dollars, were tiny. The second pipeline described in the posting was the Keystone XL, which is proposed to bring oil from Canada to be processed in U.S. refineries. I’ve seen estimates that the project would add “shovel ready” jobs ranging from 4,500 (from environmentalists opposing the project) to as many as 20,000.

President Obama has taken the decision to approve the project out of the State Department and announced that he will make the decision after the 2012 election. This comes after three years of intensive study that decided the project had an acceptable environmental impact. (Hmmm, is there any significance to making a final decision after the 2012 elections?) I expect the announcement might have something to do with the fact that environmentalists opposed to the pipeline recently surrounded the White House and the Sierra Club declared that Mr. Obama could not count on the environmental vote if he allowed the project to be approved.

One objection to the project is that the oil from Canadian tar sands has more of an impact on “global warming” emissions than oil from other sources. I’ve seen estimates as low as a 5% increase in “greenhouse gases” to as high as three times by those who don’t like the project. An article in the Washington Post by Steven Mufson points out that any argument on how much more greenhouse gas is produced is meaningless, since the oil will probably be exported to China and consumed if there isn’t a closer market. Mr. Mufson also says several alternatives are being considered, to include a proposal to build a new refinery in Alberta to process the oil. That alternative would of course prevent creation of U.S. jobs to build a pipeline and to process the oil.

Environmentalists of course are demanding that alternate pipeline routes be considered to avoid the Ogallala aquifer (which is at a significant depth under the proposed pipeline). Matthew Brown of the Associated Press points out that there have been thirteen routes rejected. Environmentalists will find a reason, or many reasons, to reject any route. They don’t want a pipeline to be built, and will find compelling reasons to oppose any route.

The New York Times predictably applauded Mr. Obama’s decision to kick the can down the road. They point out that labor unions had supported the project while environmentalists oppose it. Call me a cynic, but I’m guessing that preventing the project until after the election will allow environmentalists to eagerly support Mr. Obama’s reelection, and that he already has done enough to earn the votes of labor union members.

It is interesting that there is already “Plan B” to transport the Canadian oil to U.S. refineries by expanding current pipelines with additional pumping stations. The delay to making a final decision on Keystone XL until after the 2012 elections will probably provide Mr. Obama cover for maintaining votes, but it won’t have any measurable impact on the eventual pathway for the oil except for preventing addition of “shovel ready jobs.”

Is Carbon Dioxide Dangerous?

Posted on by

Too much carbon dioxide can indeed be dangerous, and people have died when they are trapped in an area where carbon dioxide fire suppression systems displace the air with the oxygen needed for life. However, there have been events resulting in the declaration that carbon dioxide is dangerous even in trace quantities. The Supreme Court in 2007 declared that carbon dioxide and other “heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.”  That ruling set the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in motion to establish regulations to control the gases.  A New York Times article quoted the EPA as saying the science supporting the…endangerment finding “compelling and overwhelming.”  They proposed a law under the Clean Air Act to regulate “heat-trapping gases” (which includes methane, nitrous oxide, and hydroflurocarbons in addition to carbon dioxide). (I first mentioned this in a posting dated June 8.)

Several aspects about the discourse on carbon dioxide and its influence or lack of influence on global warming trouble me. What troubles me most is that I don’t see that there has been an honest presentation of the facts. To give one example, the proposed regulations and the list of “heat-trapping gases” does not include the gas that has the largest effect. Water vapor exerts a much stronger greenhouse gas effect compared to carbon dioxide or any of the other gases that are to be regulated.  None of the gases have much of an influence compared to the sun. It seems too obvious to mention that the sun should always be given first consideration when global temperatures are mentioned.  Warming oceans from increased solar activity results in higher concentrations of both water vapor and carbon dioxide.  The water vapor is obviously created from evaporation and the carbon dioxide results from lower solubility in warmer water.  The question that begs to be asked is why do we focus on regulating carbon dioxide and not worry about water vapor, if water vapor has a much greater greenhouse gas effect?  I will propose an answer, which I predict won’t be well received in the camp that wants us to believe man-made global warming is a risk to life as we know it. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of power production, which gives us industry, jobs, wealth, and a comfortable life style.  The environmental movement has become a powerful political force, and, to state the issue simplistically, many in that movement believe we should be ashamed of all of the benefits we derive from having plentiful generation of energy.  It would be difficult to vilify water vapor, because it has nothing to do with how we generate power.  Therefore, it is ignored.

Something else that is being ignored are all of the positive effects that result from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide.  Revisiting memories of junior high and high school science classes reminds me that we and all other mammals exhale carbon dioxide, which makes it seem incredible that the EPA has decided it “endangers public health and welfare.” Also, carbon dioxide is the fertilizer that allows plants to grow.  Plants combine carbon dioxide with water with the energy from sunlight to produce organic chemicals.  They release oxygen as a result of the process, and we find good uses for oxygen (like being able to keep on living). One would think that increases in plant growth that accompany higher levels of carbon dioxide would be considered a positive by even the most ardent critics of the gas. I suggest readers review Dr. Arthur Robinson’s paper titled “Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide.” That article provides details of the increases in plant growth.  I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb to say that better food crop yields resulting from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide is something we should celebrate.  I will warn readers that Dr. Robinson is not well-liked by the advocates of man-made global warming.  He circulated a petition that questions the validity of that theory, and it was signed by over 31,000 people with scientific degrees.  Kind of puts a new light on the term “consensus,” doesn’t it? I signed the petition, and have yet to be rewarded by the oil industry, which is one of the accusations directed at Dr. Robinson and his petition.

Nuclear Power in Japan

Posted on by

I posted a blog in May titled “Japanese Nuclear Reactor Disaster,” and closed with  comments that we should learn from the disaster to improve safety and not cripple our economic prosperity in decades to come by being the only country that decides not to use nuclear energy. I believe those observations have been reinforced by some recent developments in Japan. That country would seem to have the most incentive to avoid anything nuclear. Their country is the only one that has ever had nuclear weapons unleashed against it at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now a tsunami has crippled and damaged nuclear power plants leaving wide areas considered to be unsafe (at least for now).

The most recent article I’ve read about the future of nuclear energy in Japan is by David Guttenfelder of the Associated Press, and it says the cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactors will take decades. The article mentions that people who had lived near the reactors may never be able to go home, and then interestingly mentions Hiroshima and Nagasaki where nuclear weapons were detonated and are once again thriving cities. The disaster is accurately described as resulting from a tsunami that swamped not only the plant along with large areas of Japan. “Mangled trucks, flipped over by the power of the wave, still clutter its access roads.” The nuclear part of the disaster is that the damaged reactors “…will have to be entombed in a sarcophagus, with metal plates inserted underneath to keep it watertight.”

Another Associated Press article by Yuri Kageyama titled “Six months after disaster, Japan sticking by nuclear power,” gives a different perspective.  A retired mechanic is quoted as saying he would prefer “…life without the nearby nuclear power plant.” However, he then says, “It is also true we all need it.” It is a fact that Japan, just like any developed nation, needs energy.  A recent poll found 55 percent of Japanese want to reduce the number of reactors, but one person interviewed asked, “What is the alternative?” Alternative energy is expensive, and nuclear technology has become a source of pride for the nation. There is no argument that nuclear power has helped fuel the country’s prosperity for decades, and the recent tsunami-related disaster hasn’t completely overcome that legacy. Only three percent of Japanese said they wanted to eliminate nuclear power reactors completely.

Chester Dawson in the Wall Street Journal presents an interesting reason why Japan must remain “nuclear.” The sub headline to the article is “Some say Bombs’ Potential as Deterrent argues for Keeping Power Plants Online.”  The article leads with, “Many of Japan’s political and intellectual leaders remain committed to nuclear power even as Japanese public opinion has turned sharply against it…Japan needs to maintain its technical ability to make nuclear weapons…it’s important to maintain our commercial reactors because it would allow us to produce a nuclear warhead in a short amount of time.” Japan has both the ability to produce nuclear weapons-grade material and also apparently also has the knowledge to build a nuclear warhead. It also has  the missile technology to deliver a nuclear warhead. The Hayabusa test satellite, which successfully landed on an asteroid and then returned to earth, demonstrated the ability to guide ballistic missiles.

The current policy of Japan prevents production of nuclear weapons. Minister of Defense Yasuo Ichikawa was quoted as saying “We have absolutely no plans to change the existing policy based on the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, a 1967 policy banning the production, possession and presence of nuclear weapons in Japan”

There is official support for keeping nuclear power capacity. Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has endorsed keeping nuclear power at least until alternative sources can be developed. That position “…stems from concern about electricity shortages, which could lead to blackouts and stifle economic growth.”   Japan’s largest daily circulation newspaper editorialized that the government should “…stay the course on nuclear power…stressing that the country’s stockpile of plutonium functions diplomatically as a potential nuclear deterrent.”

North Korea wasn’t mentioned in any of the articles, but I’m certain those who mention Japan’s need to keep a nuclear deterrent are thinking of that country.

Joe McCarthy

Posted on by

Joe is probably the most vilified politician in U.S. history, although a good argument could be made for Richard Nixon to hold that distinction. Negative reports have even been written Joe’s military service despite the fact he resigned from being a judge to enlist in the Marines in World War II. He would later campaign for office as “Tail gunner Joe,” and would limp around complaining of the shrapnel in his leg. His detractors say that he never flew in a combat mission, and that the stiff leg was from an accident during a shipboard ceremony while traveling to the South Pacific. He was elected to the Senate in 1946 and spent several unremarkable years there. He was said to be a popular D.C. party guest, but unpopular with other senators because of his quick temper and the ease with which he became voraciously critical.

Joe became the center of public attention after he gave a speech to a Wheeling West Virginia women’s club in 1950 where he said he held in his hand a list of communists in the U.S. State Department. That speech eventually attracted attention across the country, and politicians who would be embarrassed by what he said began to vilify McCarthy.

I’ve read several books about Joe, and most of them describe him as a despicable, drunken bully. “Blackmailed by History, the Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy” by M. Stanton Evans, which I reviewed in three parts on this web site, presents the other side of the story, and it is the book I will use for most of the references in this posting.

Probably the strangest accusation against Joe is that he had something to do with the Hollywood Blacklist. It is true that many Hollywood personalities suffered as the result of investigations following the “Red Scare.”The House Un-American Activities (HUAC) chaired by Democrat Martin Dies beginning in 1938 was looking for Nazi and Communist influences in government. Richard Nixon was on the committee in the later 1940s when several Hollywood personalities were “blacklisted.” Many references to “McCarthyism” will mention the McCarthy and the HUAC-imposed blacklists in the same passage, even though Senator McCarthy had nothing to do with actions of that House committee. As what I consider a fascinating aside, Congressman Samuel Dickstein had vied with Dies to be the chairman of HUAC, but was relegated to be the vice-chairman. Dickstein is the only U.S. Congressman proven by Venona and NKVD archives to be a paid Soviet agent. The Soviets apparently had little if any respect for Dickstein, since they gave him the code name “Crook.”

A charge in the eventual indictments of McCarthy was that he lied about the number of people on the list he was holding when he gave the Wheeling speech. McCarthy would say he mentioned 57 as the number, but his detractors claimed he said 205. Eva Ingersoll, a political activist from Wheeling would testify in front of Congress that Joe had said there were 205 people being investigated and 57 were “card-carrying Communists.” An editorial in the Wheeling Intelligencer the day after the speech mentions “over fifty” suspects of Communist affiliation. The headline of a Denver Post article reads, “57 Reds Help Shaping U.S. Policy:  McCarthy.” Historical references about Joe continue to contend that he lied about the numbers regardless of the information confirming McCarthy’s statements. (There is no recording or written documentation of the speech.) I find it fascinating that the number Joe McCarthy had used in a speech is what the focus of investigation became. That was apparently more important than the accusation there were several people suspected of being communists shaping U.S. foreign policy. The Venona Project was declassified in the mid-1990s and would confirm there were hundreds of communist sympathizers and spies in the U.S. government and military.

The movie Goodbye and Good Luck is about the Edward R. Murrow news reports that damaged McCarty’s image. One scene was a young woman suspected of being a communist who is being interrogated by McCarthy in a hearing. She mentions that there are three people including her who have a similar name in the phone book, and the media jumped on the story saying that McCarthy had accused the wrong person. History has shown that the woman, whose job was to decode classified messages, was a communist. The most famous episode shown by the movie was lawyer Joseph Welch asking McCarthy “Have you no sense of decency” after McCarthy mentioned a young lawyer who had been on Welch’s staff and had belonged to a “far left” organization. Welch himself had revealed the affiliation to the New York Times six weeks before the hearings, and perhaps that is how McCarthy learned of it. However the theatrical rants by Welch accusing McCarthy of having no shame in “ruining a young-man’s life” in front of the cameras with tears rolling down his face is what the movie shows and what most people remember when McCarthy is mentioned.

I’ve done a two part review of the book “No Sense of Decency by Robert that presents the negative side of Joe McCarthy and the book is both well-documented and presented. Reading that book and the Evan’s book “Blackmailed by History” reminds me of the comment that “history is interpretive.” I believe that Joe McCarthy was a political opportunist, that he bullied people, and that he made a huge political error when he accused General George Marshall of making decisions to give advantage to the Soviets and Chinese Communists. The decisions are easy to criticize, but there are few people who distrust the loyalty of Marshall.

Joe McCarthy’s accusations resulted in few if any communists being uncovered during his life. However, several of the people he accused were confirmed to have communist affiliations or were confirmed to be Soviet spies by the Venona project and/or by the archives opened after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The biggest mistake Joe made was that he severely underestimated the magnitude of Soviet espionage penetration of the U.S. government and military in the years during and after World War II. It isn’t difficult to see the negative impact from the failures of U.S. policy that resulted. The Soviets were able to steal all the Manhattan Project plans needed to make and detonate an atomic bomb. The U.S. military did halt their advance into Germany to allow the Soviets to take Berlin. The Soviets did dominate Eastern Europe after the war. The Chinese Communists did take over China and expelled the Nationalists to Formosa. There was a long and costly Cold War. Too bad Joe didn’t do a better job of warning us.