I read a great little poem written by a woman named Adree DeSanti and couldn't resist authoring a follow-up sonnet of my own. Mine follows hers:
FIVE LITTLE LETTERS
We base our relationships on these five little letters
How we used to jot down on notebooks how we'd be "Together Forever"
But puppy love is fickle, and we always change our mind
We have our hearts broken and we learn to heal in time
We always say that trust is the basis of the foundation
Which holds together lovers through times of desperation
So many times I've seen love fall through so many's hands
Begging for answers to their questions that no one understands
I've spent my lifetime believing trust is a two way street
Paved on dirt to leave footprints on and not solid like concrete
I think that many have made mistakes, and I've watched it with my eyes
To see how hearts once full of love could be turned to ones with lies
I've loved someone and lost before, and seen what it can do
When the one you trust becomes someone else and plays you for a fool
But my heart was never hardened and from that experience I learned much
That to me i will always remain true to me and still believe in TRUST.
I realize now that I wont change how I am or how I intend to love
I give all I have to the one I choose and from my experience i rose above
So one day I will be ready to open that door again
Ive already said good bye to the past and soon enough my future can begin
So many say they can't trust anyone, but I think thats such a waste
Cause you never know that the right one for you can be right in front of your face
But being scared and afraid of "chance" will leave you empty in the end
So for now I'll still believe in TRUST...or at least I will pretend.
*Copyright 2007 Adree DeSanti - www.LittleMissOptimistic.com
FIVE "OTHER" LITTLE LETTERS
Before we can begin to TRUST,
there is one more essential must.
We must know how to face our fear.
There's just one answer which is clear.
When fear is knocking at your door,
you must have FAITH in something more,
if you believe that God does care,
when the door opens, no one's there.
Answer to fear is FAITH you see,
much like the fruit that's on a tree
when it gets big enough to face,
it falls into another place.
That fear will bother you no more,
because of FAITH the soil is poor
and thus the seeds can't root again,
because of FAITH in your God's plan.
With this FAITH, we begin to TRUST,
because it's an essential must
if we're to find that one true love,
He wants for us from up above.
"Copyright 2007 Charles Laffiteau-Metro Eireann and http://www.republicanpoliticsamericanstyle.blogspot.com/
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Sunday, February 4, 2007
2007 Brit Awards and Iraq
Republican Politics, American Style
Published on February 1st 2007 in Metro Eireann
by Charles Laffiteau
Today, I would like to discuss two very different subjects; recent developments in both the Iraq war and the Bush Administration’s “war on terror” as well as the 2007 Brit Awards.
The earlier scepticism I expressed about the new administration strategies of increasing the number of troops in Iraq and doubling the amount of reconstruction aid was repeated by many Republicans on Capitol Hill when Bush’s top cabinet officials went there to testify in support of these proposals. Republican stalwarts like Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana took a very dim view of the President’s “new” approach and the reasons behind it that he had outlined in a nationally televised speech on January 10th.
Senator Lugar said, “The president and his team should explain what objectives we are trying to achieve if forces are expanded, where and how they will be used, why such as strategy will succeed.”
Senator Hagel went much further by flatly stating, “I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out. I will resist it.”
If respected members of Bush’s own party don’t believe these strategies will work, you don’t need me to tell you what the Democrats now in control of Congress think about these proposals.
In the “war on terror” the Bush administration has also made a stunning turnaround by finally agreeing to give a secret court jurisdiction over the National Security Administration’s (NSA) oft criticized wiretapping program.
Many respected Republicans, such as Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Representative Heather Wilson of New Mexico, had been highly critical of the NSA’s practice of eavesdropping without warrants on thousands of Americans whose international phone calls the NSA suspected might have ties to terrorism.
Thirteen months have gone by since this program was first revealed to exist and the Bush administration has repeated defended it as being constitutional under the President’s “war powers” authority granted him by Congress, a contention that most Congressional representatives dispute.
It would appear that the Bush administration has finally realized that it’s appeal of an earlier Federal Court ruling declaring the program illegal and unconstitutional was not likely to succeed and it wanted to head off another adverse judicial ruling on the matter.
The fact that the President had clearly overstepped his authority by sanctioning such an indiscriminate wiretapping program is still likely to be the subject of Congressional hearings later this year.
I was recently asked to vote for my picks among the various nominees for the 2007 Brit Awards.
Now why, you ask, would an American Republican postgraduate student, living in Dublin Ireland (not the UK), who writes mainly about US politics and foreign policy, be asked to cast a vote for the top British music groups and artists?
Well, you will just have to wait till next month, after the awards show broadcast on Valentines Day for me to explain exactly why I was asked to do this. For now, let us suffice to say that I am a huge fan of music in general, (regardless of where it originates) with a particular love for Jazz, Rock, Blues, Popular and Alternative styles.
I will now risk the wrath of some of my readers by telling you who I voted for, so you can ascertain how “Insynch” (remember them?) I am with other voters at picking the winners. Of course, I think you’re a winner just for being nominated for this prestigious British music award, not to mention being honoured on a music awards show whose entire proceeds go to charity.
Starting with the Brits, I first voted for Jarvis Crocker as Best British Male Solo Artist instead of another personal favourite, Lemar.
Not an easy choice there or with my selection for Best British Female Solo Artist of Corinne Bailey Rae over Amy Winehouse.
Best British Group wasn’t much easier, but I had to give the nod to Snow Patrol instead of their arch-rivals, Razorlight.
For the MasterCard British Album I went with the Arctic Monkeys in a narrow decision over Amy Winehouse’s Back to Black tour de force second album.
Fill My Little World by The Feeling was another tough pick in the Best British Single category over Lily Allen’s Smile.
But Lily Allen was the clear winner as the top British Breakthrough Act, thanks to her album entitled Alright Still.
Finally, I chose Muse narrowly over the Guillemots in the Best British Live Act class.
Among the international awards nominees, I made an extremely difficult pick of Bob Dylan over a personal favourite, Damien Rice, in the International Solo Artist field, mainly because I have never regarded Damien Rice as simply a male solo artist act.
Pink, on the other hand was an easy choice for Best International Female Solo Artist as was The Killers Sam’s Town as Best International Album.
Much, much tougher to pick a winner though, between The Flaming Lips and my long time favourites, the Red Hot Chili Peppers for Best International Group. I went with the Flaming Lips on the strength of their performance at Vicar Street last November, even though the Chili Peppers are ever present as part of my laptop’s screensaver.
Last but not least, I chose Gnarls Barkley over Orson as the top International Breakthrough Group; mainly because I’ve seen Gnarls live and haven’t yet been able to see Orson in concert.
So there you have it, my picks as the Brit Awards winners in each category. You’ll still have to wait a bit though, before you find out why I was asked to vote and how accurate my picks turn out to be.
If you disagree with my selections, that’s OK, because I believe when it comes to music, to each his (or her) own.
Published on February 1st 2007 in Metro Eireann
by Charles Laffiteau
Today, I would like to discuss two very different subjects; recent developments in both the Iraq war and the Bush Administration’s “war on terror” as well as the 2007 Brit Awards.
The earlier scepticism I expressed about the new administration strategies of increasing the number of troops in Iraq and doubling the amount of reconstruction aid was repeated by many Republicans on Capitol Hill when Bush’s top cabinet officials went there to testify in support of these proposals. Republican stalwarts like Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana took a very dim view of the President’s “new” approach and the reasons behind it that he had outlined in a nationally televised speech on January 10th.
Senator Lugar said, “The president and his team should explain what objectives we are trying to achieve if forces are expanded, where and how they will be used, why such as strategy will succeed.”
Senator Hagel went much further by flatly stating, “I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out. I will resist it.”
If respected members of Bush’s own party don’t believe these strategies will work, you don’t need me to tell you what the Democrats now in control of Congress think about these proposals.
In the “war on terror” the Bush administration has also made a stunning turnaround by finally agreeing to give a secret court jurisdiction over the National Security Administration’s (NSA) oft criticized wiretapping program.
Many respected Republicans, such as Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Representative Heather Wilson of New Mexico, had been highly critical of the NSA’s practice of eavesdropping without warrants on thousands of Americans whose international phone calls the NSA suspected might have ties to terrorism.
Thirteen months have gone by since this program was first revealed to exist and the Bush administration has repeated defended it as being constitutional under the President’s “war powers” authority granted him by Congress, a contention that most Congressional representatives dispute.
It would appear that the Bush administration has finally realized that it’s appeal of an earlier Federal Court ruling declaring the program illegal and unconstitutional was not likely to succeed and it wanted to head off another adverse judicial ruling on the matter.
The fact that the President had clearly overstepped his authority by sanctioning such an indiscriminate wiretapping program is still likely to be the subject of Congressional hearings later this year.
I was recently asked to vote for my picks among the various nominees for the 2007 Brit Awards.
Now why, you ask, would an American Republican postgraduate student, living in Dublin Ireland (not the UK), who writes mainly about US politics and foreign policy, be asked to cast a vote for the top British music groups and artists?
Well, you will just have to wait till next month, after the awards show broadcast on Valentines Day for me to explain exactly why I was asked to do this. For now, let us suffice to say that I am a huge fan of music in general, (regardless of where it originates) with a particular love for Jazz, Rock, Blues, Popular and Alternative styles.
I will now risk the wrath of some of my readers by telling you who I voted for, so you can ascertain how “Insynch” (remember them?) I am with other voters at picking the winners. Of course, I think you’re a winner just for being nominated for this prestigious British music award, not to mention being honoured on a music awards show whose entire proceeds go to charity.
Starting with the Brits, I first voted for Jarvis Crocker as Best British Male Solo Artist instead of another personal favourite, Lemar.
Not an easy choice there or with my selection for Best British Female Solo Artist of Corinne Bailey Rae over Amy Winehouse.
Best British Group wasn’t much easier, but I had to give the nod to Snow Patrol instead of their arch-rivals, Razorlight.
For the MasterCard British Album I went with the Arctic Monkeys in a narrow decision over Amy Winehouse’s Back to Black tour de force second album.
Fill My Little World by The Feeling was another tough pick in the Best British Single category over Lily Allen’s Smile.
But Lily Allen was the clear winner as the top British Breakthrough Act, thanks to her album entitled Alright Still.
Finally, I chose Muse narrowly over the Guillemots in the Best British Live Act class.
Among the international awards nominees, I made an extremely difficult pick of Bob Dylan over a personal favourite, Damien Rice, in the International Solo Artist field, mainly because I have never regarded Damien Rice as simply a male solo artist act.
Pink, on the other hand was an easy choice for Best International Female Solo Artist as was The Killers Sam’s Town as Best International Album.
Much, much tougher to pick a winner though, between The Flaming Lips and my long time favourites, the Red Hot Chili Peppers for Best International Group. I went with the Flaming Lips on the strength of their performance at Vicar Street last November, even though the Chili Peppers are ever present as part of my laptop’s screensaver.
Last but not least, I chose Gnarls Barkley over Orson as the top International Breakthrough Group; mainly because I’ve seen Gnarls live and haven’t yet been able to see Orson in concert.
So there you have it, my picks as the Brit Awards winners in each category. You’ll still have to wait a bit though, before you find out why I was asked to vote and how accurate my picks turn out to be.
If you disagree with my selections, that’s OK, because I believe when it comes to music, to each his (or her) own.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Lessons Learned in foreign wars
Republican Politics, American Style
By Charles Laffiteau
So what lessons should the United States and its allies like the United Kingdom, take away from our experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan and earlier wars such as Vietnam? That we should never get involved in armed conflicts unless such conflicts threaten the lives of our own territory and citizens? That we should never go to war in or with another country unless we are directly attacked by that country first? Or maybe the lesson is that we should abide by the United Nations (UN) Charter and International Law which proscribes the use of force except in cases of self defence, collective self defence or as authorized by the UN Security Council.
I believe such responses are a bit too simplistic and fail to adequately address the issue of when, where, why and how the use of force is justifiable.
If we were to wait until armed conflicts threatened our own territory or citizens, then we never would have become involved in World War I, the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, in Korea to stop the assault by North Korea on the sovereign state of South Korea or in Bosnia.
If we never go to war with another country unless we are directly attacked by that country first, then we never would have gotten involved in World War I or against Germany in World War II, much less the aforementioned conflicts in Kuwait, South Korea or Bosnia.
If we were to abide by the UN Charter and or International Law then we would not be able to use force to stop another country from attacking us unless that country had already made armed incursions or interfered in our territorial or political independence and or we had overwhelming evidence that they planned to do so.
The lessons that I believe the US and its allies should take away from our collective experiences in foreign wars over the last 100 years are these:
While the US may be the only global superpower left in the world, we must be extremely careful when, where, why and how we exercise that power. True wisdom reflects an understanding that the greater ones power, the more judicious one must be in utilizing it. Might does not equal right. We cannot possible hope to serve as the policeman of the world, unless we are willing to accept the social and economic costs of doing so. That means a willingness to sacrifice even more American lives while shouldering the financial burden of maintaining enough armed forces to do the job.
We must respect the fact that not everyone in the world shares our perspective on how to serve the best interests of a nation’s citizens. Democracy works well in countries which have strong legal systems as well as judicial and governmental institutions which support and safeguard the legal rights of its citizens. It becomes very messy in other countries which lack some or most of these democratic foundations. Not every country wants or even needs American style democracy to serve the best interests of its people. The US is still a relatively young and politically inexperienced country. As such, the US could not possibly have all the answers for the problems of this world, many of which have been around for centuries.
As a nation of immigrants the US also lacks experience dealing with the kind of ethnic, religious and sectarian divisions which plague many other nations around the world. Unfortunately, many other people around the world do not regard their fellow men as equals if those neighbours are from a different ethnic, religious or social background.
If we really want to promote and spread our democratic ideals around the rest of the world, then we should start by doing a better job of promoting and sustaining them in our own country. Sadly, most Americans don’t even bother to vote in their own democratic elections anymore. Those who do bother to vote often cast their ballots based on single issues such as abortion and Social Security entitlements or on the basis of TV sound bites and political ads for or against particular candidates.
Television political ads in the US are very expensive and not exactly known for their accuracy. More often than not, the candidate who gets elected is the one who is able to raise the most money to spend on advertising. In American style democracy, money equals power. Hmmm, that sounds very democratic doesn’t it?
Wars against terrorists, guerrillas or other types of insurgents are not fought on battlefields with conventional armies. The real battles are fought over and for the hearts and minds of the citizens in countries affected by these conflicts. You do this with economic assistance programs that address the physical and material needs of the people. You help countries set up judicial and legal systems that are fair and available to all their citizens. You wage public relations campaigns in the local and national news media that address issues of ethnic and religious intolerance as well as the futility of sectarian violence. You try to address the underlying causes of these conflicts such as income inequality, poverty or a lack of social welfare and justice for certain segments of society, instead of just attacking the symptoms. You enlist the aid of other countries to help you apply diplomatic, economic and political pressure on recalcitrant national governments which may be fuelling or supporting armed violence. I know this is not very glamorous stuff but it works if you are patient and consistent with such strategies over a period of years.
When all else fails, you make a commitment to fund and fight those “dirty little wars”, using covert operatives to help you identify and arrest or kill those who seek to harm innocent civilians in their quest for political power. In these wars, the victories are small and don’t make headlines for either side, but they are deadly in terms of their long term effectiveness. Will we ever learn? I sure hope so.
By Charles Laffiteau
So what lessons should the United States and its allies like the United Kingdom, take away from our experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan and earlier wars such as Vietnam? That we should never get involved in armed conflicts unless such conflicts threaten the lives of our own territory and citizens? That we should never go to war in or with another country unless we are directly attacked by that country first? Or maybe the lesson is that we should abide by the United Nations (UN) Charter and International Law which proscribes the use of force except in cases of self defence, collective self defence or as authorized by the UN Security Council.
I believe such responses are a bit too simplistic and fail to adequately address the issue of when, where, why and how the use of force is justifiable.
If we were to wait until armed conflicts threatened our own territory or citizens, then we never would have become involved in World War I, the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, in Korea to stop the assault by North Korea on the sovereign state of South Korea or in Bosnia.
If we never go to war with another country unless we are directly attacked by that country first, then we never would have gotten involved in World War I or against Germany in World War II, much less the aforementioned conflicts in Kuwait, South Korea or Bosnia.
If we were to abide by the UN Charter and or International Law then we would not be able to use force to stop another country from attacking us unless that country had already made armed incursions or interfered in our territorial or political independence and or we had overwhelming evidence that they planned to do so.
The lessons that I believe the US and its allies should take away from our collective experiences in foreign wars over the last 100 years are these:
While the US may be the only global superpower left in the world, we must be extremely careful when, where, why and how we exercise that power. True wisdom reflects an understanding that the greater ones power, the more judicious one must be in utilizing it. Might does not equal right. We cannot possible hope to serve as the policeman of the world, unless we are willing to accept the social and economic costs of doing so. That means a willingness to sacrifice even more American lives while shouldering the financial burden of maintaining enough armed forces to do the job.
We must respect the fact that not everyone in the world shares our perspective on how to serve the best interests of a nation’s citizens. Democracy works well in countries which have strong legal systems as well as judicial and governmental institutions which support and safeguard the legal rights of its citizens. It becomes very messy in other countries which lack some or most of these democratic foundations. Not every country wants or even needs American style democracy to serve the best interests of its people. The US is still a relatively young and politically inexperienced country. As such, the US could not possibly have all the answers for the problems of this world, many of which have been around for centuries.
As a nation of immigrants the US also lacks experience dealing with the kind of ethnic, religious and sectarian divisions which plague many other nations around the world. Unfortunately, many other people around the world do not regard their fellow men as equals if those neighbours are from a different ethnic, religious or social background.
If we really want to promote and spread our democratic ideals around the rest of the world, then we should start by doing a better job of promoting and sustaining them in our own country. Sadly, most Americans don’t even bother to vote in their own democratic elections anymore. Those who do bother to vote often cast their ballots based on single issues such as abortion and Social Security entitlements or on the basis of TV sound bites and political ads for or against particular candidates.
Television political ads in the US are very expensive and not exactly known for their accuracy. More often than not, the candidate who gets elected is the one who is able to raise the most money to spend on advertising. In American style democracy, money equals power. Hmmm, that sounds very democratic doesn’t it?
Wars against terrorists, guerrillas or other types of insurgents are not fought on battlefields with conventional armies. The real battles are fought over and for the hearts and minds of the citizens in countries affected by these conflicts. You do this with economic assistance programs that address the physical and material needs of the people. You help countries set up judicial and legal systems that are fair and available to all their citizens. You wage public relations campaigns in the local and national news media that address issues of ethnic and religious intolerance as well as the futility of sectarian violence. You try to address the underlying causes of these conflicts such as income inequality, poverty or a lack of social welfare and justice for certain segments of society, instead of just attacking the symptoms. You enlist the aid of other countries to help you apply diplomatic, economic and political pressure on recalcitrant national governments which may be fuelling or supporting armed violence. I know this is not very glamorous stuff but it works if you are patient and consistent with such strategies over a period of years.
When all else fails, you make a commitment to fund and fight those “dirty little wars”, using covert operatives to help you identify and arrest or kill those who seek to harm innocent civilians in their quest for political power. In these wars, the victories are small and don’t make headlines for either side, but they are deadly in terms of their long term effectiveness. Will we ever learn? I sure hope so.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
The Bush Administration versus the Iraq Study Group
Republican Politics, American Style
Published on February 8th 2007 in Metro Eireann
By Charles Laffiteau
The Bush administration has done its best to push the Iraq Study Group’s (ISG) report off the front pages of America’s newspapers and into the background, largely because it was extremely critical of the administration’s strategies and tactics in both Iraq and the entire Middle East region. While James Baker succeeded in toning down the final report and watering down the panel’s recommendations, to make it more palatable for the President to swallow, it was nonetheless a slap in the face for the Bush administration. After all, this bipartisan panel was made up of equal numbers of respected Republican and Democratic party elders with many years of experience in the US Government’s executive, judicial and legislative branches.
The ISG members were reportedly “shocked’ and “dismayed” by what they witnessed when they went to visit Iraq and by the Bush administration’s insistence that they had the situation there under control. The ISG concluded that what the Bush administration was saying did not jive with their own independent investigation, by calling the situation in Iraq “grave and deteriorating”.
Following the release of the final ISG report, President Bush finally admitted, for the first time, that the situation in Iraq was bad and that a “new approach” was needed to deal with the worsening sectarian violence there.
But President Bush, while also promising to take the report seriously, made a point of saying he would not accept all of the ISG recommendations.
President Bush went on to say he was waiting for three other studies he had commissioned, (from the National Security Council, the Pentagon and the State Department) before deciding on the particulars of his “new approach” to prosecuting the war in Iraq.
What the President didn’t say, was that he was also waiting for the “alter” ISG report titled Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq from neoconservative Frederick Kagan’s so-called “Real Iraq Study Group”. This report said the things President Bush wanted to hear and his “new” strategies reflect these recommendations as opposed to the ones made by the ISG last month.
While President Bush did finally replace Defence Secretary Rumsfeld with a lifelong Republican member of the ISG, William Gates, as part of his “new approach” to the Iraq war, he has thus far refused to make any diplomatic moves to engage Syria and Iran or proposed any major initiative to change the dynamics in the Middle East by attempting to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The President has also avoided any discussions regarding a phased withdrawal of American troops, much less a timetable for doing so. While these are some of the more significant recommendations of the ISG that the President is ignoring, they are by no means the only ones.
To the dismay of most Democrats and quite a few Republicans, President Bush has decided that more troops and more money for reconstruction efforts is the prescription for stabilizing the situation in Iraq. Instead of focusing on training Iraqi forces to take over their country’s security so American troops can begin a gradual withdrawal, American soldiers will now focus on protecting the Iraqi population from sectarian violence and insurgent attacks.
In addition, the President is also proposing to double the money being spent to employ native Iraqis in reconstruction efforts. Had we done this back in 2003 or 2004, we might have succeeded in quelling the violence and giving Iraqi citizens economic incentives to work on rebuilding their neighbourhoods instead of taking up arms fighting for sectarian control of them. Doing so at this stage strikes me as either “throwing good money after bad” or “too little, too late.”
While I am extremely skeptical about Bush’s “new approach” to the war in Iraq, I truly hope that it will be successful.
If this “new approach” fails to stabilize the situation in Iraq, then the President won’t get another chance to throw more troops and money at the problem. Should this “new” strategy fail to show promise by this summer, I anticipate Democrats and some Republicans will attempt to force a withdrawal of American forces by refusing to approve the necessary funding for their presence. This would mean that, instead of the US cleaning up the mess we made of Iraq, the citizens of Iraq would be left to fight it out in a civil war which would result in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.
As for preventing this situation from being repeated again in the future, maybe future presidents would be a bit more circumspect about going to war if they had to consider some other issues as.
Firstly, Congress should mandate that if the US decides to engages in a war, the President would also have to implement a supplemental draft, such that young American men from all walks of life and economic strata would be at risk of dying in such conflicts, not just the poorly paid armed forces “volunteers." Congress should also mandate that a decision to go to war should also involve a supplemental tax increase to pay for the costs of the war for as long as it lasts.
By implementing these rules of engagement, such that all of the American people had to bear the costs of such wars in both human and financial terms, then I think that the administration would be subjected to much more critical scrutiny by the media, voters and their representatives.
I have a sense that closer scrutiny of the Bush administration’s claims of “weapons of mass destruction” by the media and Congress might well have prevented the invasion of Iraq from ever happening in the first place.
Blog Directory
Published on February 8th 2007 in Metro Eireann
By Charles Laffiteau
The Bush administration has done its best to push the Iraq Study Group’s (ISG) report off the front pages of America’s newspapers and into the background, largely because it was extremely critical of the administration’s strategies and tactics in both Iraq and the entire Middle East region. While James Baker succeeded in toning down the final report and watering down the panel’s recommendations, to make it more palatable for the President to swallow, it was nonetheless a slap in the face for the Bush administration. After all, this bipartisan panel was made up of equal numbers of respected Republican and Democratic party elders with many years of experience in the US Government’s executive, judicial and legislative branches.
The ISG members were reportedly “shocked’ and “dismayed” by what they witnessed when they went to visit Iraq and by the Bush administration’s insistence that they had the situation there under control. The ISG concluded that what the Bush administration was saying did not jive with their own independent investigation, by calling the situation in Iraq “grave and deteriorating”.
Following the release of the final ISG report, President Bush finally admitted, for the first time, that the situation in Iraq was bad and that a “new approach” was needed to deal with the worsening sectarian violence there.
But President Bush, while also promising to take the report seriously, made a point of saying he would not accept all of the ISG recommendations.
President Bush went on to say he was waiting for three other studies he had commissioned, (from the National Security Council, the Pentagon and the State Department) before deciding on the particulars of his “new approach” to prosecuting the war in Iraq.
What the President didn’t say, was that he was also waiting for the “alter” ISG report titled Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq from neoconservative Frederick Kagan’s so-called “Real Iraq Study Group”. This report said the things President Bush wanted to hear and his “new” strategies reflect these recommendations as opposed to the ones made by the ISG last month.
While President Bush did finally replace Defence Secretary Rumsfeld with a lifelong Republican member of the ISG, William Gates, as part of his “new approach” to the Iraq war, he has thus far refused to make any diplomatic moves to engage Syria and Iran or proposed any major initiative to change the dynamics in the Middle East by attempting to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The President has also avoided any discussions regarding a phased withdrawal of American troops, much less a timetable for doing so. While these are some of the more significant recommendations of the ISG that the President is ignoring, they are by no means the only ones.
To the dismay of most Democrats and quite a few Republicans, President Bush has decided that more troops and more money for reconstruction efforts is the prescription for stabilizing the situation in Iraq. Instead of focusing on training Iraqi forces to take over their country’s security so American troops can begin a gradual withdrawal, American soldiers will now focus on protecting the Iraqi population from sectarian violence and insurgent attacks.
In addition, the President is also proposing to double the money being spent to employ native Iraqis in reconstruction efforts. Had we done this back in 2003 or 2004, we might have succeeded in quelling the violence and giving Iraqi citizens economic incentives to work on rebuilding their neighbourhoods instead of taking up arms fighting for sectarian control of them. Doing so at this stage strikes me as either “throwing good money after bad” or “too little, too late.”
While I am extremely skeptical about Bush’s “new approach” to the war in Iraq, I truly hope that it will be successful.
If this “new approach” fails to stabilize the situation in Iraq, then the President won’t get another chance to throw more troops and money at the problem. Should this “new” strategy fail to show promise by this summer, I anticipate Democrats and some Republicans will attempt to force a withdrawal of American forces by refusing to approve the necessary funding for their presence. This would mean that, instead of the US cleaning up the mess we made of Iraq, the citizens of Iraq would be left to fight it out in a civil war which would result in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.
As for preventing this situation from being repeated again in the future, maybe future presidents would be a bit more circumspect about going to war if they had to consider some other issues as.
Firstly, Congress should mandate that if the US decides to engages in a war, the President would also have to implement a supplemental draft, such that young American men from all walks of life and economic strata would be at risk of dying in such conflicts, not just the poorly paid armed forces “volunteers." Congress should also mandate that a decision to go to war should also involve a supplemental tax increase to pay for the costs of the war for as long as it lasts.
By implementing these rules of engagement, such that all of the American people had to bear the costs of such wars in both human and financial terms, then I think that the administration would be subjected to much more critical scrutiny by the media, voters and their representatives.
I have a sense that closer scrutiny of the Bush administration’s claims of “weapons of mass destruction” by the media and Congress might well have prevented the invasion of Iraq from ever happening in the first place.
Blog Directory
Thursday, January 25, 2007
International air travel Published January 25th in Metro Eireann
Republican Politics, American Style
By Charles Laffiteau
Let's talk about what it's like to be an American studying abroad and International air travel. I flew back to Dublin on January 12th and I guess you could say the trip was "interesting". I got to the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) airport at 1:30 for a 3:05pm flight. My flight to Chicago was delayed to 4:20 so I switched to the 2:05 flight so I wouldn't miss my American Airlines flight #92 non-stop to Dublin. NOT! I also found out American charges $110 for extra bags and only allows 2 checked bags for "free". Delta allows me to check 3 bags for free and only charges $100 for each additional bag. So $220 later I pulled away from the gate at 3:20pm and sat on the runway till 4:55 when they "turned the airport around" and found out my plane was on the wrong end of the runway. I finally took off at 5:30 and landed at O'Hare at 7:30. Did American hold the flight for me and at least 4 other Dublin bound passengers (that I met and know of)? Nope.
American then put all of us on Flight #46 to London Heathrow leaving at 8:05 (but delayed till 8:30pm) with a connecting flight to Dublin out of Heathrow on Aer Lingus at 12:15pm Saturday afternoon. American's last flight to Heathrow that evening had plenty of available seats (#98) but was scheduled out at 9:55pm. So we opted for the earlier flight and got on the plane at 8:00 but then proceeded to wait until 10:05 for late connecting passengers. I get it now. If there isn't another flight that night for your destination, then they won't hold your flight for you. But if there is another flight 2 hours later with plenty of available seats, then they hold the earlier one to wait for the connecting passengers. Makes perfect sense to me, how about you?
We pull away from the gate at 10:05 only to find out we're 13th in line for takeoff before finally departing from O'Hare at 10:40pm. Luckily (for me but not my fellow Dublin bound passengers), I knew from talking to reservations that there were 2 open Business class seats and asked the American gate agent if I could upgrade to one of them. She said she wasn't going to do any more upgrades for coach passengers because she didn't have time, just before I boarded the flight. After flying over 3 million miles in the past 20 years since I got out of high school, I sort of know the ropes of the airline system. Plus, I figured that I had already paid for that upgrade with my $220 charge for 2 "extra" bags. In fact, that is just about what it would have actually cost me to upgrade from coach as an American AAdvantage Lifetime Gold Million Miler. I just proceeded directly to one of those 2 seats ,(acting like it was actually my seat), stowed my 2 carry-on bags and prayed that no one with a boarding pass for that seat would get on for the next hour and a half. Either I was very lucky in choosing that particular seat or God must have taken pity on me, because an Asian gentleman got on an hour later and took the other business class seat, but no one ever came to take mine.
We land at Heathrow at 11:15am and I proceed from Terminal 3 to Terminal 1 for my 12:15 connecting flight on Aer Lingus. Those of you familiar with London's Heathrow airport know that this is a journey all by itself. When I finally arrive at Terminal 1 30 minutes later, I am told that only one carry-on bag is permitted on flights out of Heathrow, even if you are only a connecting passenger. Good information for even a seasoned air traveller, but a bit late for me to be finding out at this point in my journey home to Dublin. Did I actually say "home"? Hmmm, that's interesting, that I feel that way. At any rate, now I have to go back and wait for 30 minutes in line to clear British Customs and Immigration, so I can check one of my 2 carry-on bags. Needless to say, I miss my connecting flight on Aer Lingus and am re-scheduled to leave on a later flight at 2:10pm.
After a very turbulent flight home from London to Dublin, I go to baggage claim wondering what the odds are that all of my bags have also made it to Dublin with me. If you figured slim and none, you would be a winner. The carry-on bag I checked at Heathrow is there and so are the 2 smaller bags I had originally checked at DFW airport. But those 2 "extra" bags I paid $220 to check at DFW are nowhere to be found. I guess they figure if you're paying "extra" for these bags, then you won't mind waiting a couple of "extra" days to get them. Makes a certain amount of sense doesn't it? Anyway, after giving my baggage claim check numbers to the Aer Lingus baggage claim agent, she tells me they have located both bags. They are still in Chicago. Getting "extra" special handling I guess. If you're thinking this is the end of my story, guess again.
When I arrived home and opened my mobile traveller bag, it reeked of cologne. Inside I find 2 new, sealed and rather expensive bottles of cologne have been opened and then put back in the suitcase with the tops barely screwed back on. Almost half of the contents of each bottle were spilled inside the suitcase. I guess someone didn't like the smell of my dirty laundry and thought they would improve on the situation. I hope my story has an ending someday but as I write this, I have only recovered one of those 2 "extra" bags I paid to check. It was just delivered at noon on Sunday. The gentleman from Aer Lingus who delivered it didn't know anything about the identical companion bag that was supposedly found with it in Chicago. Want to take any bets on when or if I ever get that bag? I thought not.
By Charles Laffiteau
Let's talk about what it's like to be an American studying abroad and International air travel. I flew back to Dublin on January 12th and I guess you could say the trip was "interesting". I got to the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) airport at 1:30 for a 3:05pm flight. My flight to Chicago was delayed to 4:20 so I switched to the 2:05 flight so I wouldn't miss my American Airlines flight #92 non-stop to Dublin. NOT! I also found out American charges $110 for extra bags and only allows 2 checked bags for "free". Delta allows me to check 3 bags for free and only charges $100 for each additional bag. So $220 later I pulled away from the gate at 3:20pm and sat on the runway till 4:55 when they "turned the airport around" and found out my plane was on the wrong end of the runway. I finally took off at 5:30 and landed at O'Hare at 7:30. Did American hold the flight for me and at least 4 other Dublin bound passengers (that I met and know of)? Nope.
American then put all of us on Flight #46 to London Heathrow leaving at 8:05 (but delayed till 8:30pm) with a connecting flight to Dublin out of Heathrow on Aer Lingus at 12:15pm Saturday afternoon. American's last flight to Heathrow that evening had plenty of available seats (#98) but was scheduled out at 9:55pm. So we opted for the earlier flight and got on the plane at 8:00 but then proceeded to wait until 10:05 for late connecting passengers. I get it now. If there isn't another flight that night for your destination, then they won't hold your flight for you. But if there is another flight 2 hours later with plenty of available seats, then they hold the earlier one to wait for the connecting passengers. Makes perfect sense to me, how about you?
We pull away from the gate at 10:05 only to find out we're 13th in line for takeoff before finally departing from O'Hare at 10:40pm. Luckily (for me but not my fellow Dublin bound passengers), I knew from talking to reservations that there were 2 open Business class seats and asked the American gate agent if I could upgrade to one of them. She said she wasn't going to do any more upgrades for coach passengers because she didn't have time, just before I boarded the flight. After flying over 3 million miles in the past 20 years since I got out of high school, I sort of know the ropes of the airline system. Plus, I figured that I had already paid for that upgrade with my $220 charge for 2 "extra" bags. In fact, that is just about what it would have actually cost me to upgrade from coach as an American AAdvantage Lifetime Gold Million Miler. I just proceeded directly to one of those 2 seats ,(acting like it was actually my seat), stowed my 2 carry-on bags and prayed that no one with a boarding pass for that seat would get on for the next hour and a half. Either I was very lucky in choosing that particular seat or God must have taken pity on me, because an Asian gentleman got on an hour later and took the other business class seat, but no one ever came to take mine.
We land at Heathrow at 11:15am and I proceed from Terminal 3 to Terminal 1 for my 12:15 connecting flight on Aer Lingus. Those of you familiar with London's Heathrow airport know that this is a journey all by itself. When I finally arrive at Terminal 1 30 minutes later, I am told that only one carry-on bag is permitted on flights out of Heathrow, even if you are only a connecting passenger. Good information for even a seasoned air traveller, but a bit late for me to be finding out at this point in my journey home to Dublin. Did I actually say "home"? Hmmm, that's interesting, that I feel that way. At any rate, now I have to go back and wait for 30 minutes in line to clear British Customs and Immigration, so I can check one of my 2 carry-on bags. Needless to say, I miss my connecting flight on Aer Lingus and am re-scheduled to leave on a later flight at 2:10pm.
After a very turbulent flight home from London to Dublin, I go to baggage claim wondering what the odds are that all of my bags have also made it to Dublin with me. If you figured slim and none, you would be a winner. The carry-on bag I checked at Heathrow is there and so are the 2 smaller bags I had originally checked at DFW airport. But those 2 "extra" bags I paid $220 to check at DFW are nowhere to be found. I guess they figure if you're paying "extra" for these bags, then you won't mind waiting a couple of "extra" days to get them. Makes a certain amount of sense doesn't it? Anyway, after giving my baggage claim check numbers to the Aer Lingus baggage claim agent, she tells me they have located both bags. They are still in Chicago. Getting "extra" special handling I guess. If you're thinking this is the end of my story, guess again.
When I arrived home and opened my mobile traveller bag, it reeked of cologne. Inside I find 2 new, sealed and rather expensive bottles of cologne have been opened and then put back in the suitcase with the tops barely screwed back on. Almost half of the contents of each bottle were spilled inside the suitcase. I guess someone didn't like the smell of my dirty laundry and thought they would improve on the situation. I hope my story has an ending someday but as I write this, I have only recovered one of those 2 "extra" bags I paid to check. It was just delivered at noon on Sunday. The gentleman from Aer Lingus who delivered it didn't know anything about the identical companion bag that was supposedly found with it in Chicago. Want to take any bets on when or if I ever get that bag? I thought not.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Laffiteau Family History
Tarn-et-Garonne
Tarn-et-Garonne is a French department in the southwest of France.
History
The department was created on November 4, 1808 during the First French Empire by a decision of Napoleon I. It was formed out of territories belonging to neighboring areas. More than half of the territory was taken from the Lot (including Montauban and Moissac), over one-third was taken from Haute-Garonne (including Castelsarrasin), and the rest from the department of Lot-et-Garonne, Gers, and Aveyron.
Geography
The department of Tarn-et-Garonne constitutes part of the Midi-Pyrénées region. It borders the department of Lot, Aveyron, Tarn, Haute-Garonne, Gers, and Lot-et-Garonne.
Gironde
Gironde is a department in the Aquitaine region situated in southwest France named after the Gironde Estuary.
History
Gironde is one of the original 83 departments created during the French Revolution on March 4, 1790. It was created from parts of the former provinces of Guyenne and Gascogne.
From 1793 to 1795, the name was changed to Bec-d'Ambès to avoid the association with the revolutionary party, the Girondins.
Geography
Gironde is part of the current region of Aquitaine and is surrounded by the departments of Landes, Lot-et-Garonne, Dordogne, Charente and Charente-Maritime and the Atlantic Ocean on the west. With 10,000 km², Gironde is the largest department of metropolitan France.
Economy
The region is well known for the Bordeaux wine it produces
It is also well known for the Côte d'Argent beach which is Europe's longest, and attracts many surfers to Lacanau each year
Lot-et-Garonne
Lot-et-Garonne is a department in the southwest of France named after the Lot and Garonne rivers.
History
Lot-et-Garonne is one of the original 83 departments created during the French Revolution on March 4, 1790. It was created from part of the provinces of Guyenne and Gascogne. Some of the original southeastern cantons were separated from it in 1808 to form the department of Tarn-et-Garonne.
Geography
Lot-et-Garonne is part of the current region of Aquitaine and is surrounded by the departments of Lot, Tarn-et-Garonne, Gers, Landes, Gironde, and Dordogne.
Economy
Food-processing, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals are all major industries of the department.
Demographics
The inhabitants of the department are called Lot-et-Garonnais.
Haute-Garonne
Haute-Garonne is a department in the southwest of France named after the Garonne river.
History
Haute-Garonne is one of the original 83 departments created during the French Revolution on March 4, 1790. It was created from part of the former province of Languedoc.
Geography
Haute-Garonne is part of the current region of Midi-Pyrénées and is surrounded by the departments of Hautes-Pyrénées, Gers, Tarn-et-Garonne, Tarn, Aude, and Ariège. It also borders Spain in the south (province of Lleida and province of Huesca).
The department is crossed by the Garonne River for nearly 200 kilometers (125 miles). The extreme south of the department lies in the Pyrenees mountain range and is very mountainous. The highest elevation is the Peak of Perdiguère, at 3,222 meters (10,571 ft) above sea level.
A Brief History of the Laffiteau Family Name
Laffiteau is a variant form of Laffite or Laffitte, originally of two places in Lot-et- Garonne and Tarn-et-Garonne. Etienne de Lafitte, was born June 13th 1774 in south-east Gironde near the boundary stone marker for Lot-et-Garonne. Etienne and his brothers changed the spelling of their family name to Laffiteau to reflect their birthplace near the boundary marker for the new departments of Gironde and Lot-et-Garonne following the French Revolution, when the National Assembly created these departments as part of a new uniform justice.system in 1790. Etienne then became a volunteer soldier in the French army in 1791. He was promoted to sub-lieutenant in 1792 and his brother Pierre, subsequently moved to New York, in the United States of America in 1797.
Today, their descendants live in Bordeaux, the Mid-Pyrenees and near the village of Lalouret-Laffiteau in France, as well as in the southern United States. Etienne served as a squadron head under Napolean Bonaparte from 1811- 1814 and then after having his enoblement reconfirmed, under King Louis XVIII from 1814-1833. He was appointed a lieutenant colonel of dragoons and Chevalier of the Order of Saint-Louis by King Louis XVIII. Etienne subsequently named his son Stanislas, a name he took from the King’s given name of Louis Stanislas Xavier. Etienne Laffiteau died in the department of Marne on July 1st 1836.
The Royal and Military Order of Saint Louis ("ordre royal et militaire de Saint Louis") was a military Order of Chivalry founded on April 5, 1696 by Louis XIV and named after Saint Louis. It was intended as a reward for exceptional officers, and is notable as the first decoration that could be granted to non-nobles. It is roughly the ancestor of the Légion d'honneur, with which it shares the red ribbon.
Stanislas Laffiteau and his son, whom he named after his uncle Pierre, Peter Stanislas Laffiteau, emigrated to the United States in 1837, entering the US at Charleston, South Carolina.
Peter Stanislas Laffiteau moved to Jekyll Island Georgia and married the daughter of Charles DuBignon. They named their only son Charles Peter Laffiteau after her father. The family relocated to Tybee Island near Savannah Georgia after the Civil War and lived quietly with their small family.
Charles Peter Laffiteau later married a local Savannah woman who bore him one son they named Charles Augustus Laffiteau.
Charles Augustus Laffiteau Sr. married a woman from a prominent New Jersey family named Irene and had two children Charles Augustus Laffiteau Jr. and Helen Marie Laffiteau. Charles Sr. later died in 1932 of pnuemonia.
His son Charles Jr. later married a woman named Mary Eleanor Austin, a member of the prominent Manning family of Atlanta Georgia and they had 7 children, the oldest of which was named Charles Augustus Laffiteau III who resides in Dallas, Texas.
Laffiteau and DuBignon families and Jekyll Island
The ancestral family home of the Laffiteau and DuBignon families in the United States is the Dubignon Cottage on Jekyll Island Georgia.. John Eugene DuBignon, whose family had owned Jekyll Island from 1792 until 1886, had built a house there in 1884 to replace the original home made of tabby, a mixture of lime, water, sand and oyster shells. During the early days of the Jekyll Island Club, it housed the Club’s Superintendent and overflow guests. It was built in the stick style with Queen Anne details. It features a wrap around porch, a second floor porch, gabled roof, and is made of clapboard and batten. The cottage was moved from the Sans Souci site where J.P. Morgan built the first condominiums in the United States, to its current site in 1896. It is located on Old Plantation Road within the Jekyll Island Club Historic District at 171 Old Plantation Road Jekyll Island, GA 31527
The Jekyll Island Club
John Eugene DuBignon and his brother-in-law Newton Finney were the early developers of the Jekyll Island Club.
Between 1879 and 1885 the two men reacquired Jekyll with the idea of forming a hunting club for wealthy northerners. Finney lived in New York and had good connections to members of such institutions as the Union Club, and he developed the membership and early investors in the project. DuBignon handled the purchase of the island and in turn sold it to the newly incorporated Jekyll Island Club. Finney easily found fifty-three individuals willing to become members, among them Marshall Field, Henry Hyde, J. P. Morgan, Joseph Pulitzer, and William K. Vanderbilt.
In 1886 Finney, as a representative of the newly formed Jekyll Island Club, purchased the island from the DuBignons for $125,000. Ground was broken on the clubhouse building in mid-August 1886, and the club officially opened its doors in January 1888. Between 1888 and 1928 these wealthy northern industrialists built their winter homes, or "cottages" as they called them. These cottages, which exemplify Victorian architecture, have been restored and are open to the public.
Because of the concentration of internationally prominent business leaders, Jekyll Island has been the scene of some important historical events:
AT&T president Theodore Vail placed the first transcontinental telephone call from Jekyll Island on January 25, 1915. Meetings that lead to the development of the Federal Reserve System were held in secret on Jekyll in 1910 between members of what became known as the First Name Club.
The First Name Club comprised six major players in the Federal Reserve: Senator Nelson Aldrich, A. Piatt Andrew (assistant secretary of the treasury and advisor to the National Monetary Commission), Henry P. Davison (partner in the firm of J. P. Morgan), Benjamin Strong (vice president of Banker's Trust Company), Frank Vanderlip (president of National City Bank), and Paul Warburg (partner in the banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company). Using assumed names, the men made their way to Jekyll posing as duck hunters, then spent approximately a week developing what became known as the Aldrich Plan, which was proposed to U.S. Congress in 1912. Congress did not pass the plan, but President Woodrow Wilson and others used the Aldrich Plan as the basis for another plan that became the Federal Reserve Act and established the Federal Reserve System, creating a central banking system for the United States.
The Jekyll Island Club flourished into the 1930s, but the Great Depression began to change many people's priorities. World War II (1941-45) was the final blow to the life of the Jekyll Island Club. It opened as usual for the 1942 season but closed early because of financial problems and the strain the war placed on the labor situation. The club's president hoped to reopen the club after the war, but in 1946 the state of Georgia entered the picture. The revenue commissioner, Melvin Thompson, wanted to purchase one of Georgia's barrier islands and open it to the public as a state park. Finally on October 7, 1947, the state purchased the entirety of Jekyll Island through a condemnation order for $675,000.
Jekyll Island State Park
Since 1950 Jekyll has operated under the auspices of the Jekyll Island Authority.
When Jekyll was purchased by the state of Georgia, it officially became the Jekyll Island State Park and was operated as part of the state parks system in 1948-49. Maintenance and operational costs were so great that the best way to operate the island was determined to be via a state-sponsored authority, so that the island could operate more like a business than as a department of state government. The state then chartered the Jekyll Island Authority for ninety-nine years (beginning in 1950) to manage the island on behalf of the state. The board of the Jekyll Island Authority is appointed by the governor.
The island has become renowned for the preservation of its natural and historic resources, and it provides public access to thousands of visitors annually. In 1972 the Jekyll Island Historic District including the DuBignon Cottage, The Jekyll Island Club and the Sans Souci condominiums was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and in 1978 it was elevated to National Historic Landmark status. In 2002 archaeologists began to excavate the Horton House site, where the first Jekyll Island landowner, Major William Horton lived until his death in 1748, looking for evidence of other structures and artifacts. The original DuBignon-Laffiteau tabby house lies beneath the Sans Souci condominiums.
Tarn-et-Garonne is a French department in the southwest of France.
History
The department was created on November 4, 1808 during the First French Empire by a decision of Napoleon I. It was formed out of territories belonging to neighboring areas. More than half of the territory was taken from the Lot (including Montauban and Moissac), over one-third was taken from Haute-Garonne (including Castelsarrasin), and the rest from the department of Lot-et-Garonne, Gers, and Aveyron.
Geography
The department of Tarn-et-Garonne constitutes part of the Midi-Pyrénées region. It borders the department of Lot, Aveyron, Tarn, Haute-Garonne, Gers, and Lot-et-Garonne.
Gironde
Gironde is a department in the Aquitaine region situated in southwest France named after the Gironde Estuary.
History
Gironde is one of the original 83 departments created during the French Revolution on March 4, 1790. It was created from parts of the former provinces of Guyenne and Gascogne.
From 1793 to 1795, the name was changed to Bec-d'Ambès to avoid the association with the revolutionary party, the Girondins.
Geography
Gironde is part of the current region of Aquitaine and is surrounded by the departments of Landes, Lot-et-Garonne, Dordogne, Charente and Charente-Maritime and the Atlantic Ocean on the west. With 10,000 km², Gironde is the largest department of metropolitan France.
Economy
The region is well known for the Bordeaux wine it produces
It is also well known for the Côte d'Argent beach which is Europe's longest, and attracts many surfers to Lacanau each year
Lot-et-Garonne
Lot-et-Garonne is a department in the southwest of France named after the Lot and Garonne rivers.
History
Lot-et-Garonne is one of the original 83 departments created during the French Revolution on March 4, 1790. It was created from part of the provinces of Guyenne and Gascogne. Some of the original southeastern cantons were separated from it in 1808 to form the department of Tarn-et-Garonne.
Geography
Lot-et-Garonne is part of the current region of Aquitaine and is surrounded by the departments of Lot, Tarn-et-Garonne, Gers, Landes, Gironde, and Dordogne.
Economy
Food-processing, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals are all major industries of the department.
Demographics
The inhabitants of the department are called Lot-et-Garonnais.
Haute-Garonne
Haute-Garonne is a department in the southwest of France named after the Garonne river.
History
Haute-Garonne is one of the original 83 departments created during the French Revolution on March 4, 1790. It was created from part of the former province of Languedoc.
Geography
Haute-Garonne is part of the current region of Midi-Pyrénées and is surrounded by the departments of Hautes-Pyrénées, Gers, Tarn-et-Garonne, Tarn, Aude, and Ariège. It also borders Spain in the south (province of Lleida and province of Huesca).
The department is crossed by the Garonne River for nearly 200 kilometers (125 miles). The extreme south of the department lies in the Pyrenees mountain range and is very mountainous. The highest elevation is the Peak of Perdiguère, at 3,222 meters (10,571 ft) above sea level.
A Brief History of the Laffiteau Family Name
Laffiteau is a variant form of Laffite or Laffitte, originally of two places in Lot-et- Garonne and Tarn-et-Garonne. Etienne de Lafitte, was born June 13th 1774 in south-east Gironde near the boundary stone marker for Lot-et-Garonne. Etienne and his brothers changed the spelling of their family name to Laffiteau to reflect their birthplace near the boundary marker for the new departments of Gironde and Lot-et-Garonne following the French Revolution, when the National Assembly created these departments as part of a new uniform justice.system in 1790. Etienne then became a volunteer soldier in the French army in 1791. He was promoted to sub-lieutenant in 1792 and his brother Pierre, subsequently moved to New York, in the United States of America in 1797.
Today, their descendants live in Bordeaux, the Mid-Pyrenees and near the village of Lalouret-Laffiteau in France, as well as in the southern United States. Etienne served as a squadron head under Napolean Bonaparte from 1811- 1814 and then after having his enoblement reconfirmed, under King Louis XVIII from 1814-1833. He was appointed a lieutenant colonel of dragoons and Chevalier of the Order of Saint-Louis by King Louis XVIII. Etienne subsequently named his son Stanislas, a name he took from the King’s given name of Louis Stanislas Xavier. Etienne Laffiteau died in the department of Marne on July 1st 1836.
The Royal and Military Order of Saint Louis ("ordre royal et militaire de Saint Louis") was a military Order of Chivalry founded on April 5, 1696 by Louis XIV and named after Saint Louis. It was intended as a reward for exceptional officers, and is notable as the first decoration that could be granted to non-nobles. It is roughly the ancestor of the Légion d'honneur, with which it shares the red ribbon.
Stanislas Laffiteau and his son, whom he named after his uncle Pierre, Peter Stanislas Laffiteau, emigrated to the United States in 1837, entering the US at Charleston, South Carolina.
Peter Stanislas Laffiteau moved to Jekyll Island Georgia and married the daughter of Charles DuBignon. They named their only son Charles Peter Laffiteau after her father. The family relocated to Tybee Island near Savannah Georgia after the Civil War and lived quietly with their small family.
Charles Peter Laffiteau later married a local Savannah woman who bore him one son they named Charles Augustus Laffiteau.
Charles Augustus Laffiteau Sr. married a woman from a prominent New Jersey family named Irene and had two children Charles Augustus Laffiteau Jr. and Helen Marie Laffiteau. Charles Sr. later died in 1932 of pnuemonia.
His son Charles Jr. later married a woman named Mary Eleanor Austin, a member of the prominent Manning family of Atlanta Georgia and they had 7 children, the oldest of which was named Charles Augustus Laffiteau III who resides in Dallas, Texas.
Laffiteau and DuBignon families and Jekyll Island
The ancestral family home of the Laffiteau and DuBignon families in the United States is the Dubignon Cottage on Jekyll Island Georgia.. John Eugene DuBignon, whose family had owned Jekyll Island from 1792 until 1886, had built a house there in 1884 to replace the original home made of tabby, a mixture of lime, water, sand and oyster shells. During the early days of the Jekyll Island Club, it housed the Club’s Superintendent and overflow guests. It was built in the stick style with Queen Anne details. It features a wrap around porch, a second floor porch, gabled roof, and is made of clapboard and batten. The cottage was moved from the Sans Souci site where J.P. Morgan built the first condominiums in the United States, to its current site in 1896. It is located on Old Plantation Road within the Jekyll Island Club Historic District at 171 Old Plantation Road Jekyll Island, GA 31527
The Jekyll Island Club
John Eugene DuBignon and his brother-in-law Newton Finney were the early developers of the Jekyll Island Club.
Between 1879 and 1885 the two men reacquired Jekyll with the idea of forming a hunting club for wealthy northerners. Finney lived in New York and had good connections to members of such institutions as the Union Club, and he developed the membership and early investors in the project. DuBignon handled the purchase of the island and in turn sold it to the newly incorporated Jekyll Island Club. Finney easily found fifty-three individuals willing to become members, among them Marshall Field, Henry Hyde, J. P. Morgan, Joseph Pulitzer, and William K. Vanderbilt.
In 1886 Finney, as a representative of the newly formed Jekyll Island Club, purchased the island from the DuBignons for $125,000. Ground was broken on the clubhouse building in mid-August 1886, and the club officially opened its doors in January 1888. Between 1888 and 1928 these wealthy northern industrialists built their winter homes, or "cottages" as they called them. These cottages, which exemplify Victorian architecture, have been restored and are open to the public.
Because of the concentration of internationally prominent business leaders, Jekyll Island has been the scene of some important historical events:
AT&T president Theodore Vail placed the first transcontinental telephone call from Jekyll Island on January 25, 1915. Meetings that lead to the development of the Federal Reserve System were held in secret on Jekyll in 1910 between members of what became known as the First Name Club.
The First Name Club comprised six major players in the Federal Reserve: Senator Nelson Aldrich, A. Piatt Andrew (assistant secretary of the treasury and advisor to the National Monetary Commission), Henry P. Davison (partner in the firm of J. P. Morgan), Benjamin Strong (vice president of Banker's Trust Company), Frank Vanderlip (president of National City Bank), and Paul Warburg (partner in the banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company). Using assumed names, the men made their way to Jekyll posing as duck hunters, then spent approximately a week developing what became known as the Aldrich Plan, which was proposed to U.S. Congress in 1912. Congress did not pass the plan, but President Woodrow Wilson and others used the Aldrich Plan as the basis for another plan that became the Federal Reserve Act and established the Federal Reserve System, creating a central banking system for the United States.
The Jekyll Island Club flourished into the 1930s, but the Great Depression began to change many people's priorities. World War II (1941-45) was the final blow to the life of the Jekyll Island Club. It opened as usual for the 1942 season but closed early because of financial problems and the strain the war placed on the labor situation. The club's president hoped to reopen the club after the war, but in 1946 the state of Georgia entered the picture. The revenue commissioner, Melvin Thompson, wanted to purchase one of Georgia's barrier islands and open it to the public as a state park. Finally on October 7, 1947, the state purchased the entirety of Jekyll Island through a condemnation order for $675,000.
Jekyll Island State Park
Since 1950 Jekyll has operated under the auspices of the Jekyll Island Authority.
When Jekyll was purchased by the state of Georgia, it officially became the Jekyll Island State Park and was operated as part of the state parks system in 1948-49. Maintenance and operational costs were so great that the best way to operate the island was determined to be via a state-sponsored authority, so that the island could operate more like a business than as a department of state government. The state then chartered the Jekyll Island Authority for ninety-nine years (beginning in 1950) to manage the island on behalf of the state. The board of the Jekyll Island Authority is appointed by the governor.
The island has become renowned for the preservation of its natural and historic resources, and it provides public access to thousands of visitors annually. In 1972 the Jekyll Island Historic District including the DuBignon Cottage, The Jekyll Island Club and the Sans Souci condominiums was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and in 1978 it was elevated to National Historic Landmark status. In 2002 archaeologists began to excavate the Horton House site, where the first Jekyll Island landowner, Major William Horton lived until his death in 1748, looking for evidence of other structures and artifacts. The original DuBignon-Laffiteau tabby house lies beneath the Sans Souci condominiums.
Friday, January 19, 2007
America's so called "War on Drugs"
Republican Politics American Style
Published January 18th in Metro Eireann By Chartles Laffiteau
Since I’ve noticed drug use in Ireland has been in the news lately, I want to bring up the 40 year old US led “War on Drugs” and give my own assessment of how it’s going and the way it’s being conducted.
I can describe how it’s going in six words: “It has been a complete failure.” My critique of the strategies, however, being used to conduct this war will take a few more words to describe.
Ever since the mid-1960’s, the US has attempted to stop illegal drug use by primarily using what economists would refer to as “supply side strategies.” By this I mean the US government has tried to stop the illegal use of drugs by interrupting the flow of drugs within the US, interdicting them at the border or ports of entry, or by eradicating them at the source.
Federal and state law enforcement authorities also try to catch drug dealers who distribute the drugs, disrupt their distribution networks and confiscate their property under Federal “Racketeering” statutes, which were originally enacted to help fight organized crime.
But when it comes to using “demand side strategies” to reduce the numbers of drug users who have created the market - and thus the demand - for illegal drugs, government efforts have been uneven and haphazard at best. The authorities routinely arrest otherwise law-abiding citizens for smoking pot or growing it for their own consumption and incarcerate drug addicts who are suffering from a disease which will cause them to re-offend after they are released from prison.
According to most economists, supply side strategies rarely work to reduce the availability of a particular product (in this case illegal drugs) because of a phenomenon called the “balloon effect”. When you attempt to stop development or production in one area, the production picks up somewhere else, so long as demand for the product remains steady.
History has shown that the “balloon effect” is an economic fact of life throughout the world. If demand exists for a product (any product, legal or illegal) then someone will figure out a way to supply that product and make a profit doing so.
Operating in a free market, capitalist oriented society, one would think that the US Government might understand this economic fact of life.
Indeed, some US officials have recognized the problem with their drug control strategies. In 1998, Dr. Ernest Drucker of the US Public Health Service said; “The current model of drug control relies primarily on law enforcement to seize drugs and imprison drug offenders. While these efforts have produced large numbers of arrests, incarcerations and seizures, drug overdose deaths have increased 540% since 1980 and drug-related problems have worsened.”
Let me cite a few examples which will illustrate my point. During the 1960’s growth in pot consumption in the United States and Europe triggered the development of large marijuana plantings in Mexico and Jamaica. Toward the end of that decade, the U.S. government promoted eradication programs in Mexico using Paraquat, a herbicide known to have harmful health effects, which drove away American consumers. This measure created strong incentives to find other marijuana growing sites, and the marijuana crop was then displaced to Colombia.
Colombia subsequently became a major supplier of marijuana imports to the United States in the 1970’s, until the US stepped up law enforcement efforts to stop the smuggling of this drug towards the end of that decade. In turn, Colombian smugglers turned their attention to another drug, one much easier to conceal, called cocaine. They used the same smuggling routes and tactics they had been using for marijuana along with a wider array of methods to disguise their contrband.
Since the demand for marijuana has remained fairly constant since the 70’s, new domestic sources of supply have developed.
Domestic growers in the US operate smaller, harder to detect indoor “gardens” or grow their crops on public lands in US national forests and parks. This domestic variety of “pot” is also more potent than Colombian and Mexican marijuana .
To quote the US Government’s own 2005 National Drug Threat Assessment: “the documented rise in marijuana potency is more a factor of the availability of and demand for better quality marijuana.”
So US drug policies drove the Colombian marijuana smugglers into the cocaine business and helped us to develop domestic sources to supply users with more potent marijuana.
My point here is that the drug war has not reduced the supply of drugs nor made them more costly to obtain. The market prices for illegal drugs follow the same laws of supply and demand that apply to all commodities.
The drug war merely creates an artificially high commodity price, and these huge profit margins have encouraged more drug producers to enter the market. Greater production also creates economies of scale.
So maybe we ought to try another approach. Strategies that are focused on reducing demand for alcohol and drugs are the only ones that have any chance of success in the “war on drugs”. To begin with we should at least decriminalize the sale of marijuana; this would free up law enforcement resources to tackle the more serious problems related to the use and abuse of other illegal drugs like cocaine, ecstasy and heroin. We should also devote more funds to education and treatment of drug addicts to prevent them from committing other crimes to support their habit, since mere incarceration hasn’t stopped them or reduced the problem. If we are truly interested in winning the “war on drugs” we must start treating the cause, - the consumer demand for illegal substances..
Published January 18th in Metro Eireann By Chartles Laffiteau
Since I’ve noticed drug use in Ireland has been in the news lately, I want to bring up the 40 year old US led “War on Drugs” and give my own assessment of how it’s going and the way it’s being conducted.
I can describe how it’s going in six words: “It has been a complete failure.” My critique of the strategies, however, being used to conduct this war will take a few more words to describe.
Ever since the mid-1960’s, the US has attempted to stop illegal drug use by primarily using what economists would refer to as “supply side strategies.” By this I mean the US government has tried to stop the illegal use of drugs by interrupting the flow of drugs within the US, interdicting them at the border or ports of entry, or by eradicating them at the source.
Federal and state law enforcement authorities also try to catch drug dealers who distribute the drugs, disrupt their distribution networks and confiscate their property under Federal “Racketeering” statutes, which were originally enacted to help fight organized crime.
But when it comes to using “demand side strategies” to reduce the numbers of drug users who have created the market - and thus the demand - for illegal drugs, government efforts have been uneven and haphazard at best. The authorities routinely arrest otherwise law-abiding citizens for smoking pot or growing it for their own consumption and incarcerate drug addicts who are suffering from a disease which will cause them to re-offend after they are released from prison.
According to most economists, supply side strategies rarely work to reduce the availability of a particular product (in this case illegal drugs) because of a phenomenon called the “balloon effect”. When you attempt to stop development or production in one area, the production picks up somewhere else, so long as demand for the product remains steady.
History has shown that the “balloon effect” is an economic fact of life throughout the world. If demand exists for a product (any product, legal or illegal) then someone will figure out a way to supply that product and make a profit doing so.
Operating in a free market, capitalist oriented society, one would think that the US Government might understand this economic fact of life.
Indeed, some US officials have recognized the problem with their drug control strategies. In 1998, Dr. Ernest Drucker of the US Public Health Service said; “The current model of drug control relies primarily on law enforcement to seize drugs and imprison drug offenders. While these efforts have produced large numbers of arrests, incarcerations and seizures, drug overdose deaths have increased 540% since 1980 and drug-related problems have worsened.”
Let me cite a few examples which will illustrate my point. During the 1960’s growth in pot consumption in the United States and Europe triggered the development of large marijuana plantings in Mexico and Jamaica. Toward the end of that decade, the U.S. government promoted eradication programs in Mexico using Paraquat, a herbicide known to have harmful health effects, which drove away American consumers. This measure created strong incentives to find other marijuana growing sites, and the marijuana crop was then displaced to Colombia.
Colombia subsequently became a major supplier of marijuana imports to the United States in the 1970’s, until the US stepped up law enforcement efforts to stop the smuggling of this drug towards the end of that decade. In turn, Colombian smugglers turned their attention to another drug, one much easier to conceal, called cocaine. They used the same smuggling routes and tactics they had been using for marijuana along with a wider array of methods to disguise their contrband.
Since the demand for marijuana has remained fairly constant since the 70’s, new domestic sources of supply have developed.
Domestic growers in the US operate smaller, harder to detect indoor “gardens” or grow their crops on public lands in US national forests and parks. This domestic variety of “pot” is also more potent than Colombian and Mexican marijuana .
To quote the US Government’s own 2005 National Drug Threat Assessment: “the documented rise in marijuana potency is more a factor of the availability of and demand for better quality marijuana.”
So US drug policies drove the Colombian marijuana smugglers into the cocaine business and helped us to develop domestic sources to supply users with more potent marijuana.
My point here is that the drug war has not reduced the supply of drugs nor made them more costly to obtain. The market prices for illegal drugs follow the same laws of supply and demand that apply to all commodities.
The drug war merely creates an artificially high commodity price, and these huge profit margins have encouraged more drug producers to enter the market. Greater production also creates economies of scale.
So maybe we ought to try another approach. Strategies that are focused on reducing demand for alcohol and drugs are the only ones that have any chance of success in the “war on drugs”. To begin with we should at least decriminalize the sale of marijuana; this would free up law enforcement resources to tackle the more serious problems related to the use and abuse of other illegal drugs like cocaine, ecstasy and heroin. We should also devote more funds to education and treatment of drug addicts to prevent them from committing other crimes to support their habit, since mere incarceration hasn’t stopped them or reduced the problem. If we are truly interested in winning the “war on drugs” we must start treating the cause, - the consumer demand for illegal substances..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
