Famine is just one threat that Canada is not prepared to face. We also need to do something about defence.
Traditionally that means an army and a navy and so forth but we don't need much of that kind of defence. The only country that could possibly invade Canada is the United States and, if the Americans invade, no conceivable Canadian military could stop them.
The United States has by far the most powerful military in the world but military defence is not only expensive, it is inadequate. Consider, for example, the missile shield that the United States wants us to buy into. It will be a wonderful pork barrel for the arms industry but, even if it worked, it will not provide useful protection to anyone.
No country will attack the United States with ballistic missiles because there is no way to conceal the launching site of a ballistic missile. Every time one is launched the trajectory is recorded on hundreds of radars and everyone knows exactly where it came from.
If any country launched nuclear weapons at the United States the Americans would use their own nuclear-armed ballistic missiles to obliterate the launch site and every major city in the country around it. Knowing this, no nation or terrorist group will launch a missile attack on the United States.
But there are real threats against which the United States has no defence. On May 28 of 1987 a German teen-ager named Mathius Rust flew a Cessna light plane 500 miles from Finland to Moscow and landed in Red Square. He could have carried a nuclear weapon, and so could any of dozens of small planes that enter the United States every day.
The Cessna is made of metal and it shows up well on radar. Many light planes -- like most of the ones used to smuggle small quantities of drugs -- are made of wood and fabric and are very much harder to detect.
And very small planes are virtually invisible. Every day a computer-controlled plane little bigger than a hobbyist's model crosses the Atlantic Ocean a few hundred feet above the waves and away from regular shipping lanes.
That plane carries instruments to report weather data from locations and altitudes where there are no ships or airliners and, because it's on official business, it also carries a radar transponder that makes it easy to find. Without the transponder it would be almost impossible to detect and, launched from a ship hundreds of miles offshore, such a plane could carry deadly germs or even a small nuclear weapon to almost anywhere in the United States. If the attack were by germs it would take Americans a week or so to realize that they had been attacked, and there would be no way to discover where the attack came from.
The American military knows this, of course, and both the White House and Congress have been evacuated when small planes accidentally strayed into the 'no-fly' zone that surrounds them. Small planes that get lost can be intercepted and a specific target like the White House can be protected, but a robot plane built for stealth or a conventional light plane flown by a fanatic who is willing to hedge-hop would be very hard to stop.
Almost any country in the world could make such planes and, like the attack on the World Trade Center, the operation could be launched from within the US. Students from around the world study in the United States and if terrorists want to develop poison gas or biological weapons, what better place to do it than the United States -- where laboratory equipment and chemicals are more readily available to the average citizen than they are to government institutes in some countries? Germs, including bubonic plague, are also readily available. The plague that terrorized Europe in the Middle Ages reached the United States in 1899 and is now carried by rats, ground squirrels and prairie dogs in at least 13 states.
Bubonic plague is transmitted from animals to humans by fleas and, given a few infected rats, a biologist could raise tens of millions of infected fleas which could be carried and dropped from robot planes or balloons.
That might be the ideal terror attack because the fleas could be dropped over mass gatherings -- like a super-bowl game or a crowded beach. The drops could not be stopped and, after a couple of them, Americans would be afraid to gather in large groups.[1]
These are just a few of dozens of possibilities, and others are just as simple and just as deadly. No country in the world has the technology to stop a serious terror attack and virtually every country in the world has the technology to launch one. Further, we can expect terror attacks to continue because, whether by accident or design, the American "War on Terror" motivates them.
Most terror attacks are retaliatory, and the War on Terror gives potential terrorists something to retaliate against. I don't wish the USA any harm but if they invite it, I see no need for Canada to share it. If you start an avalanche, there is no good reason why I should step in front of it.
In fact it would harm both of us if I did step in front of it, because if I am buried I will not be able to help dig you out.
Besides, threats of terrorism and even war pale to insignificance beside some other threats that we know exist, and that we are not prepared to cope with.
Because we have not seen global disaster we think it can't happen but we forget that the human era is just a blink in geological time, that human history is a tiny fraction of that and the modern era -- in which we actually know what happens over most of the world -- is little more than a century old.
And even in recorded history there have been near-disasters. Most of us have heard of the volcanic eruption that buried the Roman city of Pompeii in AD 791 and of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980. By the standards of volcanoes, both were polite burps.
One that was less polite was the eruption of Mount Tambora, on the island of Sumbawa. In 1815 three months of explosions blew the top 1,300 meters off the mountain, killing at least 12,000 people on Sumbawa and 44,000 on the neighboring island of Lombok.
But that was just a start because the ash cloud -- at least 100 times as great as the ash cloud from Mount St. Helens -- cut off sunlight around the world. For a year afterward there was no summer and no crops in many areas. There is no complete count of the toll but we know that in Ireland, half-way around the world from Mount Tambora, about 65,000 people starved.
That was at a time when the world had plenty of reserve capacity to produce food. If a comparable event occurred today, the total death toll would be in the tens of millions.
In 1883 the eruption of Krakatoa was heard 4,000 miles away, blew about five cubic miles of lava into the air and spread ash over about 300,000 square miles of the earth's surface. The death toll has never been calculated but the eruption killed all life on and around the island of Krakatoa and the 120-foot tidal wave it created killed about 36,000 people in coastal communities on Java and Sumatra. That was in the relatively un-crowded world of 1883. Near the end of 2004 a tsunami only 30 feet high killed about 230,000 people. I'll let you guess how many a 120-foot wave would kill in today's world.
Author David Keys has described the eruption of 535 AD which blew the island of Java in half, created the Sunda Strait and left the island of Sumatra as a separate land mass.[2] Ash from that eruption is found in strata and in icefields around the world and several histories record the lack of sunlight, the failure of crops and the famines that followed. We have no idea how many people that one killed, but we do know that several empires were destroyed.
And all of these were pipsqueaks compared to some volcanoes of pre-history -- and some that may re-erupt in our time. The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced about one cubic kilometer of ash. Seventy-odd thousand years ago the volcano Toba, in what it now northern Sumatra, produced about 2,500 times as much.
That one nearly wiped out the human race, and the modern world might experience an eruption of comparable power. In the past few years vulcanologists have learned that Yellowstone Park -- all 3,468 square miles of it -- is actually the mouth of a huge volcano that seems to blow about every 600-700,000 years. The last time it erupted, about 630,000 years ago, it spewed nearly 2,000 cubic kilometers of ash. The next time it blows it will bury most of the north central plains and disrupt the weather for years. Millions of people will die under the ash and, unless we are prepared to get by without crops for a while, hundreds of millions will starve.
The caldera volcano that lies under Long Valley, about 120 miles east of San Francisco, is another major threat. The only time it is known to have erupted was about 760,000 years ago, when it ejected about 600 cubic kilometers of lava that buried several hundred square kilometers of land up to about 100 meters deep. The United States Geological Survey does not predict a major eruption in the foreseeable future but parts of Yellowstone Park are now rising and the Long Valley caldera has spewed gas and killed dozens of square kilometers of forest since 1980.[3] Are these signs of impending eruptions? We don't know, because we have never seen this type of volcano erupt.
Of 169 known volcanoes within the United States the USGS believes that 13 could erupt with little warning.[4]
Another threat is the possibility of the kind of world-shaking underground explosion that scientists of the Geomar Earth Sciences Institute at Kiel University in Germany call a "Verneshot." They suggest that the Chicxulub crater -- generally believed to be evidence of a meteorite impact that killed the dinosaurs -- was actually caused by debris from a "Verneshot" explosion in India, and they have evidence that four other massive global extinctions were also caused by Verneshots.[5]
On a gentler scale, an earthquake could slide part of a mountain into the sea to create a tsunami that could threaten coastal areas thousands of miles away. The tsunami of Dec 26/04 was a gentle ripple compared to some of the tsunamis of the past, and some that are likely to occur in the future.
Scientists around the world are now keeping an eye on the Cumbre Vieja volcano on La Palma, in the Canary Islands. Its last eruption in 1949 was nothing special but the next time it goes -- which could be tomorrow or any time within the next 1,000 years -- it will probably split the mountain and drop about 20 cubic kilometers of rock into 4,000 feet of water.
That will produce a wave that will be about 300 feet high when it hits the West African coast, 33 feet high when it hits Lisbon and about 40 feet high when it hits the south of England. There it will roll up the Thames estuary and destroy most of London.
On this side of the Atlantic the wave will be about 40 feet high in most areas. It will travel about 20 miles up most major rivers and will cause major destruction in every city on the east coast.[6] The estimates of height, of course, refer to the probable height of the wave at the coastline. Where it enters an estuary the wave will increase in height, and the wave that eventually hits a city may be 50 or 100 feet high.
In the Pacific we know that from time to time huge chunks of Hawaii have fallen into the sea and caused tsunamis that devastated much of the Pacific Rim. USGS research geophysicist Peter Cervelli estimates such events occur about once every 100,000 years and, he says, other scientists suggest that comparable events may occur somewhere in the world every 10,000 years. The tsunamis produced by a typical Hawaiian Island landslide may be 300 meters high -- or about 30 times as large as the 12/26/04 event.[7]
And some could be even bigger. Many geologists predict that some day "the big one" earthquake will slide much of coastal California into the sea. If that happens everybody in the Los Angeles area will probably die, and the cost and loss of life will be higher in Asia than in California. If a medium-sized asteroid were to land in the sea it would cause a tsunami that would wash right around the Earth, and that might take a week or more to subside.
Scientists working for the Geological Survey of Canada say there is a 12% chance of a major earthquake in the Vancouver area within the next 50 years. When it comes it will either be bad or -- if the sandy soil of the Fraser delta liquefies -- very bad. The Canadian military will probably not be able to help because the nearest army base is at Edmonton, and road and rail connections will probably be broken. Even now, the city of Vancouver has relief supplies spotted in containers around the city.[8]
There is no question about whether these disasters will strike or not, the question is when. The chance that any one of them will occur in our time is slight but the odds are cumulative and if we add up all the possibilities we get odds that, with tens of millions of lives at stake, are not acceptable.
But because we know of the danger, we can prepare for it. Rather than waste billions of dollars on weapons and a military system that will create rather than prevent danger, we can invest in a defence against problems that we can expect and that we can hope to handle.
Forest fires have always been a problem for Canada and the United States and, with global warming, they are getting worse here and around the world. In the past ten years we have seen world-scale fires in Asia, Australia, Europe and the Americas.
In May of the year 2000 a fire destroyed part of the Los Alamos NM nuclear complex, one of the key strategic locations in the United States.[9] Other wildfires in the year 2000 invaded the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory reservation near Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Fire is the one natural disaster we face most often, and the one we can actually defend ourselves against with specialized equipment. Skimming the surface of a lake or river a Bombardier CL415 water bomber can pick up more than 6,000 liters of water in 12 seconds, mix it with foaming agent and drop it on a fire a few minutes later. If the lake is 8km from the fire, Bombardier says, a single CL415 can make a drop every five and a half minutes, delivering nearly 18,000 liters of foam an hour, and can maintain the pace for two to three hours.
The United States has water bombers too, but most of them are helicopters or converted WWII bombers and both have serious drawbacks. Converted warplanes take ten or twenty minutes to land and pick up a load of water that a CL415 can skim from a lake in seconds. Further, converted warplanes need an airport to refuel or reload but a CL415 can work from any convenient river or lake.
Because conventional aircraft need to operate from airports forest fire fighters in some developed countries use helicopters, but these too have serious drawbacks compared to an amphibious water bomber. One is that helicopters are much more expensive to buy and operate than comparable fixed-wing airplanes. Another is that helicopters take longer than Bombardier's water bomber to pick up a load of water. Helicopters are slower than the water bomber, they require more maintenance and they don't have as much range.
In other words the CL415 water bomber is in a class by itself and Bombardier sells them around the world, but they could and should sell a lot more of them because we know the climate is changing and we can expect more disastrous fires in years to come.
Suppose our federal government had a couple of hundred water bombers, with full-time crews who specialize in fire-fighting. These could work on a couple of fronts.
We can assume that provincial administrations would fight to keep their own water bombers but they never have enough and, even if they guard their own little empires, there are plenty of times when they need help. As this is written Quebec is getting help from other provinces and the States to fight a series of fires. If we value the trees that burn every year, it's a fair bet that a big fleet of water bombers could pay for itself.
Canadian water bombers could also work around the world. The United States has forest fires too and, while they do have their own forest service, they can use help when serious fires threaten the suburbs of Los Angeles or a national monument somewhere. If we had a federal fire-fighting air force, they would probably ask for help more often.
If we had squadrons of water bombers we could have offered welcome and much-needed help to at least a half-dozen countries in the past few years, and we would have earned the gratitude and respect of the world.
This sounds like an airy-fairy do-good idea and on one level it is, but it's also good business because the only function our warplanes can serve is to maintain our national image, and water bombers would produce a better image at less cost. Besides, we have to buy warplanes from abroad but we can sell water bombers around the world.
When Australia had disastrous fires a few years ago we tried to sell them water bombers but the Aussies bought helicopters. If we had sent 50 or 100 bombers over to fight the fires and then -- after the fires were out -- a salesman made a call, it might have been different.
That would be partly because of gratitude, but also because of education. It's easy to imagine how a helicopter can fight fire but if you have never seen a good water bomber in action, it's hard to guess how useful it might be. If we had a federal air force of water bombers, everybody would soon know how good they are.
But fires are not the only threat to Canadian security. These days we seem to average at least one disastrous flood a year and, with the change in climate, we can expect that to increase. Again -- this is an area in which Canadians and others around the world need to be defended.
The military helps people who are flooded, of course, but it is not specifically trained or equipped for the job. To cope with floods we need a specialized force equipped with shallow draft jet boats, powerful pumps, amphibious vehicles and other specialized equipment. Units of this force could be deployed across Canada and their equipment could be stored on a railway train that could get to any part of the country on perhaps 24 hours notice. It could also, on request, go to American cities.
A specialized flood-control organization could also develop new equipment. While writing this I dreamed up the idea that I call the 'water-bag levee.'
Suppose a flood control team had a supply of huge waterproof bags -- each one maybe six feet in diameter and 100 or more feet long. We lay a bag in place, pump it full of water and -- presto -- instant levee. Water bags could also be piled up to make a higher levee, or added to existing levees.
Because floods are an occasional problem the men in a flood control force would be idle most of the time, but we still have more floods than wars. When there is no flood the men could also fill other roles.
We also need specialized construction crews. In the Quebec ice storm a few years ago and in the Fraser Canyon blizzard a few years before that we had a desperate shortage of men trained to repair power lines. Suppose we were to replace a battalion of infantry with a battalion of linemen equipped with military-type vehicles that could operate off-road or in deep snow. We could have used them in Canada a few times, and they could be a valuable contribution to rebuilding in any area that has been struck by an earthquake, tsunami or other disaster.
Snow is a problem in Canada and some parts of the United States and we could also maintain a train-load of federal snowplows that could help Canadian (or American) cities after a major storm. Every year at least one city has problems, and a train can get across the country in a couple of days. Given that we usually have a day or so warning of a major storm, we could have the equipment waiting for it. The train would have living quarters for crews, and it could travel with a storm.
We could also establish a disaster response team like the one maintained by Fairfax County, Virginia, which helps dig people out after earthquakes and other disasters around the world. That one team probably makes more friends for the United States than all the billions of dollars the State Department spends to support foreign armies and dictators. Our federal government could maintain a much bigger force that could also work around the world.
Federal fire-fighting, snow plowing and disaster response corps would be expensive but they would be cheaper and much more useful than an army and they would be very good for foreign relations.
No matter how well a policeman does his job many people will resent and dislike him, but firemen are popular with everybody. Given a choice I would rather be a fireman than a policeman and, since the United States apparently wants to be the world's policeman, I suggest that Canada adopt the role of fireman.
But let's be good firemen. After the tsunami of Dec 26/04 Canadian and American newspapers and television stations had newsmen on the spot the day after the disaster but it took a couple of weeks -- and millions of dollars of the aid that Canada promised -- to deliver our much-vaunted 'Disaster Assistance Response Team' to Sri Lanka. By the time it arrived an Italian team had been on the job for a week and the Canadians were not needed.
In most cases our first response to a disaster is to send 'experts' to 'assess' the situation but, in most cases, these people are just tourists. When they arrive in a disaster area -- where food, water, transportation and places to sleep are at a premium -- they expect and usually receive the best of everything and, because they don't know their way around and they don't speak the language, some local official has to leave his real work to act as their guide and interpreter.
Except for well-trained and equipped firemen and/or rescue workers who can be on the scene within a few hours, people who have suffered a disaster don't need people. They have lots of people, and any we send just add to the crowds.
And we don't need to send anyone to find out what they need. As a human being myself, I already know what people need immediately after a disaster.
I need to drink water every day, and I assume that other people do too. If a disaster pollutes or destroys water supplies people will drink whatever is available, but if the available water is polluted it may spread disease or worse. The immediate need -- the day of the disaster, not a week or so later -- is drinking water in single-serving plastic bottles, aluminum cans or drink-boxes.
Conventional wisdom tells us it might be better to send a water treatment plant, but a plant would take days to ship and set up and people need water every day. It would also be a waste to send a water treatment plant to a desert, where there is no water to treat, or to an island that has only salt water available. We need drinking water to send immediately and, once the immediate need is met, we could pay a brewery or soda-pop bottler near the affected area to bottle more water.
People also need food and, to people living in wreckage with no water or cooking facilities, a bag of wheat or even flour is not food. After the tsunami the Americans sent military MRE's -- meals-ready-to-eat -- which are useful but not ideal. We can read directions and labels but an American MRE might be confusing to a six-year-old third-world girl suffering from shock. Food bars, like the ones I suggested earlier, would provide a cheaper and more useful reserve against famine.
People also need to sleep, and sleeping bags of aluminized bubble-pack plastic would cost only a few cents each. They would be warm enough for most conditions, and the bubble pack would provide a sleeping pad. Rolls of sheet plastic could be used to make tents, or temporary patches for damaged buildings.
And we all need latrines. This is a need that's easy to overlook but it's vital because where crowds of people lack them, diseases spread quickly. A 'first-response' disaster kit should also include air-portable latrines that could be used for a week or so after a disaster and disposed of when they are no longer needed. They could be made of cardboard, with plastic bladders, and they need not be expensive. Mass-produced and cheap, they could also be used in Canada for special events like the Pope's visit or Toronto's SARS concert.
Because volcanic dust can be deadly, disaster-response supplies might also include hundreds of thousands of paper face masks. Because some deadly germs are spread through the air, these masks might be fine enough to provide some protection against germs. Such masks are already in common use in some Asian cities. For disaster relief we might also stock a few thousand emergency medical kits. Most of these would include only bandages and antiseptics, and perhaps pain killers but more complete kits, for distribution to doctors and paramedics, could include more sophisticated supplies and equipment.
The simple kits would be relatively cheap and they could be supplied to anyone who can use them. Even in the smallest village someone will have some skill in healing, but villages don't stock enough of the sort of supplies that are needed after a disaster.
All these supplies are cheap and we could keep them on pallets, ready to load into the first available commercial airliner heading for an affected area. Canadian law should authorize shipments of emergency supplies to preempt other freight on flights from Canadian airports to disaster areas.
We could not keep enough supplies on hand to cover the needs generated by disaster on the scale of the 26/12/04 tsunami, of course, but we can and should push for development of a world-wide disaster-relief network that could stock relief supplies around the world. When this is established disaster supplies would be available everywhere, and a global network could have more than enough for virtually any disaster that humanity can survive.
A global disaster relief network might also standardize rescue equipment and training. This does not mean that all countries must use the same equipment, but it does mean that we could consider international standards that would make the equipment of all countries compatible.
A global network could also provide a central office to coordinate operations. Some much-needed aid for victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami was delayed because airports were jammed with planes, many of them carrying supplies that were not needed at that location.
A global network could also make arrangements with brewers and soda-pop bottlers around the world to produce drinking water as required for an emergency. These companies have high-volume water filtration plants and -- especially if plans were made beforehand -- they could quickly and easily convert to produce clean canned or bottled water.
Food, water, sleeping bags, toilets and first-aid kits are all cheap but they are necessary and, if we are prepared, they could be delivered quickly. The large-scale aid programs that governments seem to like, on the other hand, cost a lot of money but don't seem to help much.
Ten days after the 26/12/04 tsunami the developed world had promised nearly two billion dollars in aid to the ten countries that were struck, but reports from the United States Navy aircraft carriers that delivered biscuits and water to survivors on outlying islands indicate that people were literally dying of starvation and lack of water.
TV newsfilm taken from the helicopters that delivered supplies to outlying areas showed that in some areas desperate people crowded the landing areas, and crews had to drop relief supplies to the mob.
Meanwhile well-meaning do-gooders in Canada were collecting clothing for the victims and asking for thousands of dollars to pay for shipping it to people who probably did not want or need it. In the end we can guess that people who lost little or nothing got most of the aid, and that people who lost everything got little or nothing they could use.
And, experience shows, much of the aid that is promised will never be delivered. The city of Bam, Iran, was destroyed by earthquake just one year before the tsunami. In early January of 2005 UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted that the nations of the world had promised about $1.1 billion in aid to the people of Bam but, a year later, only $17.5 million had been delivered.
The world promised more than $400 million in aid to Mozambique after disastrous floods ravaged the country in 2000 but, the country's public works minister says, less than half that amount was delivered.
Governments promised more than $3.5 billion in aid and the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and European Union promised $5.2 billion after Hurricane Mitch devastated Honduras and Nicaragua in 1998, killing more than 9,000 people and leaving more than three million homeless. Reports indicate that less than a third of the promised aid actually arrived.[10]
Much of the aid promised to the survivors of the tsunami will be spent by their own military, or by the militaries of the countries that promised it. Several of the millions Canada promised were spent to deliver the DART team that came too late to be useful.
It would be nice to think that the world will learn a lesson from the tsunami and will be prepared for future disasters, but that does not seem likely.
History shows that a serious tsunami occurs in the Indian Ocean every hundred years or so, but nations in the area now plan to spend tens of millions of dollars on a 'tsunami warning system' that will probably be long forgotten before the next serious tsunami occurs.
We know that a global crop failure is probable and that disasters of some kind occur every year or so -- even in Canada a couple of towns have had to supply bottled water to their citizens within the past ten years -- but there is no sign of a movement to stockpile emergency rations of food and water.
MILITARY DEFENCE
We don't want to eliminate all our military capability, of course. If we have enough friends who 'owe' us we don't need to fear military invasion but we will still need some patrol capability.
We have valuable fishing grounds that need to be watched, we have Arctic waters that other nations do not recognize as ours and, as a civilized nation, we need an efficient search and rescue service for the protection of citizens and travelers within our territory.
Still, the major threat to Canada is natural disasters and we need to prepare for them. Most of us still think of the military as a bunch of men with guns and that's understandable, but obsolete. Let's not forget that people once thought of the military as a bunch of men with spears.
Spears and guns are still used in some parts of the world but the serious battle now is a clash of ideas and, with planning, we could play a major role in it. Whether we do or not there is little chance that Canadian soldiers will ever again fight for Canadian soil, but we know that we need forest-fire fighters and rescue workers of one kind or another every year.
Conventional wisdom tells us that we need armed forces for self-defence but conventional wisdom is not always the best guide. Aside from the fact that the only country that could attack us is the United States, and that the Canadian Armed Forces could not possibly oppose the American military machine, experimental evidence shows that when we face an armed opponent it is better to be unarmed than to have nearly-equal arms.
The evidence comes from an experiment conducted by psychologists Morton Deutsch and Robert Krause at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, NJ, in the late 1950s. They set up a 'game' in which two players were assumed to have competing trucking companies, and each had to 'move goods' from a terminal at her end of the board to a warehouse at her opponent's end.
In the game players were to 'earn' a flat fee of 60 cents for each trip, less one cent per second of travel time for expenses. Each had a choice of two routes but the short route was so narrow that two trucks could not pass on it and the alternate routes were so long and winding that neither player could make a 'profit' hauling over them.
In variations of the game there were gates on the single-lane road that could be controlled by one or both players.
Each player's aim was to make more money than her opponent but the aim of the experiment was to see which condition produced the most mutual profit, and that condition turned out to be the one in which only one player had control of the main road.
When there was no control on the road both players would waste time trying to make the other back up, and profit for both was reduced. When both controlled gates on the road both kept them closed much of the time, and both had to use the narrow winding road on which they could not make a profit.
But when only one player controlled a gate on the road she kept it open, so she could use the road, and the other was able to use the same road by adapting to the first player's timetable.
The conclusion -- when the two players had equal power they could challenge each other, and both would lose. When one had power and the other did not there was no challenge, and they co-operated.[11] There's a lesson there, if we are willing to learn it.
next FIXING OUR ECONOMY
Forward to Fixing our economy
back to Andy Turnbull's web page