The Industrial Policy that Dare Not Speak Its Name
Accomplished real journalist and aspiring pajama-clad blogger (I know own two pairs of pajama pants) Steve Coll makes the provocative argument that we already have large-scale industrial policy in the United States and it’s called “defense procurement”:
Why does the United States have one of the most robust aircraft-manufacturing industries in the world? The answer is not that pure free markets have, through the workings of a natural law, granted us such a bounty. Yes, Boeing has been disciplined and strengthened by global-market competition, particularly with Airbus, but large-scale federal spending on defense contracts has crucially strengthened Boeing’s position as a locus of human capital, design experience, and innovation. In 2006, the federal government spent more than sixty billion dollars on aircraft manufacturers. Boeing received $20.8 billion, according to Government Executive magazine. (Lockheed-Martin received $27.3 billion, and Northrup-Grumman $16.7 billion.)
Why does the United States have one of the most sophisticated, innovative electronics industries in the world? Raytheon’s take from the Pentagon in 2006: $10.4 billion; Computer Sciences, $2.7 billion. And so on. General Motors received $806 million dollars that year, mostly from the Army, enough to make it the fortieth largest defense contractor on the list, just ahead, startlingly, of Johns Hopkins University, which received more than seven hundred million dollars, most of it from the U.S. Navy. (Note to self: Why?)
So we have an outsized industrial policy, centered on our national-defense strategy. General Motors receives a lot less than Boeing because our current strategy favors aviation over ground transportation. This strategy has shaped our patterns of employment and innovation—the subsidies do not remain only within the military, but spill across the civilian economy as well. Our industrial policy has also given us less inspirational national capabilities such as world-beating personal-security and mercenary services (Blackwater).
Viewed through this lens, ambitious proposals for government-assisted efforts to build a green collar economy look less revolutionary and more like transformations of the long-existing American approach to policy and the market.
64 Responses to “The Industrial Policy that Dare Not Speak Its Name”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 18th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
But it’s not industrial policy. It’s just the inevitable consequence of spending a lot of money on the national defense. It doesn’t justify spending lots of government money on non-defense-related industry.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
“But it’s not industrial policy. It’s just the inevitable consequence of spending a lot of money on the national defense.”
I’m responding to a poster who’s track record is just one step above Nigel (admittedly Mixner isn’t an open racist), BUT:
No, it’s always (and always unavoidably) been an ALSO industrial policy. Because Mixner hasn’t bothered looking at the many histories of military-industrial production in the US doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
There’s one department at Hopkins that gets all the money. I don’t remember what it is right now, but it completely throws off the curve of federal money to universities. I had a printout once showing these payouts, but I lost it and I don’t know where to find a copy anymore.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I always wondered why conservative who scream out “socialism!!” never think twice about how we have a complete sector of our economy being buoyed by the government. Oh, that’s right, it’s for our “national security”, so its justified. I thought free markets were supposed to be able to do everything?
November 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
No, it’s always (and always unavoidably) been an ALSO industrial policy.
I’m responding to a poster who’s (sic) track record is that of an ignorant fool, BUT:
No, it hasn’t. It’s a byproduct, not a policy.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Damn, get out the popcorn for this thread!
CAGE! MATCH! CAGE! MATCH!
November 18th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
There’s one department at Hopkins that gets all the money. I don’t remember what it is right now, but it completely throws off the curve of federal money to universities.
Would that be the Applied Physics Laboratory? A quick googling (I’m too lazy to do any other kind) revealed that a decade ago, at least, they were receiving $400 million a year from the Navy. As someone involved in scientific research, I find that amount completely mind-boggling.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
JHU manages the Applied Physics Lab, which does lots of weapons research for the Navy. It also has a kick ass lacrosse team.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
It might be said that all technological and manufacturing development throughout all history has been based upon the desire of the military for superiority and their governments.
From the very first steel for swords to the first lathe to bore a larger cannon to numerical control of machine tools to make complex shapes the military was there driving it.
It might also be said then that all such development is somehow poisoned or dirty. I think that is correct.
All giant corporations are partners with their governments. In countless ways the relationship is antithetical to free markets.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
It is very much an industrial, spending, investment, and infrastructure policy, and anyone who blithely states that such major, nation-determining factors are merely offshoots of the vital development of national defense is, of course, an idiot not worth reading or listening to for even a fraction of a second.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
“So we have an outsized industrial policy, centered on our national-defense strategy.”
Can we just call it our “war industry”, please? That we still call it “defense” is an admittedly masterful use of language- the Defense Dept. used to be called the War Dept., of course- but still profoundly dishonest.
That we still call our war industry and many, many aggresive actions in the world over the last half-century “defense” is ridiculous.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
It might be said that all technological and manufacturing development throughout all history has been based upon the desire of the military for superiority and their governments.
So, in your view, the reason Apple (for example) develops and manufactures Macs and iPods and so on is because the military wants superiority? You seriously believe that, do you? You don’t think Apple’s motives might instead have something to do with the desire to make money and satisfy consumer demand?
November 18th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
It is very much an industrial, spending, investment, and infrastructure policy, and anyone who blithely states that such major, nation-determining factors are merely offshoots of the vital development of national defense is, of course, an idiot not worth reading or listening to for even a fraction of a second.
Hoo boy. The crazies are really coming out in this thread.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Re Steve Coll’s comment “but large-scale federal spending on defense contracts has crucially strengthened Boeing’s position as a locus of human capital, design experience, and innovation.”
————-
Ha ha ha. Steve is shitting us –right?
In the FIA contract, the Government spent $10 BILLION helping Boeing learn how to make spy satellites –before concluding it was a lost cause and giving the contract back to Lockheed Martin.
Lockheed had had a lock on the business for 40 years but had pissed off the NRO in the late 1990s for several reasons ( 3 Titans launches shot to hell, one of which allegedly had a $1 Billion NRO satellite on top of it –also built by Lockheed.)
NRO may have also heard from NASA –who lost THREE missions to Mars that had been built by Lockheed units.
Mission one failed probably because a substandard valve failed to work.
Mission two missed the entire fucking planet because Lockheed Software programmers forgot to convert from English units to metric units before feeding data to Mission Control.
Mission Three, to best they could determine, failed because Lockheed software on the Martian lander interpreted the extension of landing arms as making contact with the Martian surface and shut off the descent engine — about 500 feet above the surface.
Mission Four almost failed when the solar panels failed to deploy –but NASA was able to save it by jerking the probe through some high G manuvers to yank the panels out.
The TENS of BILLIONS that the government pisses away on Military and Intel projects — with NO return — would be comical if we weren’t paying the bill.
Ask Lockheed about the X-33 successor to the Space Shuttle. NASA spent $1 Billion on that turkey before throwing in the towel.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
It’s the death and disability industry. That makes some people feel safe for some reason.
Our “security” is brought to us by the makers of the space shuttle and the ABM system–on a cost-plus basis. Perhaps after the insecurity of being bankrupt sinks in, the concept will be seen in a new light.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
The theoretical work which lead to computers sprang from Defense R&D during WWII. The seed for the idea came before then but the money came from the War Department.
“The machines that we build will not save us
that what they say”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiGovTdUQKk
November 18th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Military Keynesianism anyone?
November 18th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Our industrial policy has also given us less inspirational national capabilities such as world-beating personal-security and mercenary services (Blackwater).
And what he doesn’t mention is the privatized national security/intelligence component of this industrial policy. One of the reasons it’s going to be difficult to pull back the borders of the national security state is the newly vested interests that are making huge profits off it.
You and I may view the Patriot Act as an invasion of our privacy; CACI sees it as a revenue line item.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Our history from WWII on up to the 1980s, Defense Spending was the mother lode. That’s where the money was made. This is why Chrysler built tanks. It’s why General Motors bought Hummer. Notably the ownership of aerospace companies. Many of these were divested back in the early 1990s as the defense spending collapsed. Some of them disappeared through mergers(like Boeing buying up McDonnell-Douglas).
But a key point that came out in many of the articles we read was that due to the precedence of military spending, our economic engine was INCREDIBLY HIGH-TECH, but also INCREDIBLY INEFFICIENT.
See, we had the best tooling in the world. We could mill titanium to a millionth of an inch tolerance. But we couldn’t build a decent DOHC 16v engine worth a damn to put in a car. The Japanese could.
What was different? The Japanese don’t have a defense industry, either do the Germans. So they invested their efforts into building high-tech for stuff you sell to a mass market.
Now, on one hand you can argue then that our defense spending has created a dreadful disincentive for an efficient mass market economy.
On the other hand though, you have to look at some of the things which have came to the mass market which were created by the defense industry. Notably the very computer and the very internet that allows you to sit in your pajamas all day.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
For the record, the title of this post is completely wrong. Allow me to point you to the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Industrial Policy) (ODUSD(IP)).
It speaks its name quite clearly.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
But a key point that came out in many of the articles we read was that due to the precedence of military spending, our economic engine was INCREDIBLY HIGH-TECH, but also INCREDIBLY INEFFICIENT.
Who is this “we,” kemosabe? The way it works is that the government determines the military equipment it needs, and then private sector contractors compete for government contracts to supply that equipment. That’s how it works in Britain and France and other nations with democratic government and market economies too. What alternative do you propose. A state-owned “Government Defense Corporation?”
The Japanese don’t have a defense industry, either do the Germans.
Of course they have defense industries. Germany is the largest shareholder in EADS, a huge European aerospace consortium that builds all sorts of military aircraft and missiles. They’re obviously not nearly as large as the U.S. defense industry, because their governments don’t spend nearly as much on defense as ours does. They rely on the U.S. for much of their defense.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Weapons are high quality because armies and navies are picky customers who will not tolerate crap. In Soviet Russia weapons were built to far higher standards than anything made for the lowly proles. Generals and admirals really care that the weapons work. Finally, armies and navies are in competition with other countries, forcing progress and improvement.
If the government decides to promote a greeen car, for example, who is the customer? Who really cares how good the car is? I am reminded of the ethanol boondoggle, which some will claim with a straight face is about helping the environment and global warming. There are no real stakes or standards, and the result is waste.
Emissions standards are great. So are CAFE & energy credits & cap & trade or a carbon tax. These are all broad incentives or address market failure, but do not make specific product decisions. We should keep to that.
November 18th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
JHU is doing a lot of work on Aegis and Aegis BMD, which is why the Navy is sending them tons of money.
November 18th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Most of the important spinoffs from military research happened quite a long time ago. Boeing benefited from the development of the KC-135, a tanker which was very close to a 707, but I can’t think of a clear example of that kind of spinoff affecting commercial planes in 20 years. Nothing as big, anyhow. As for electronics, again, military support was important in getting integrated circuits off the ground in the 1960s (ICBM guidance computers), but it wasn’t all that long before commercial computer chips raced past. I remember a program in which the military tried (and failed) to catch up with commercial chips – and that was in 1984. In that same year, I remember management at Hughes Aircraft explaining that they were not even going to try to keep proficient chip designers around – there was no way that they could pay competitive salaries.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Yeah, crazy as some dude called Ike
From Ike’s speech:
I’m glad you agree, DTM.
Of course, Ike made that speech in 1961, when the military budget was three times as large a share of our economy as it is now. I suspect if he were around today Ike would agree with Obama and Hillary that we need a bigger military.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Like 20. Greg Sanders said, this is not exactly a big secret.
Nearly all the shipbuilding capacity in the US is either fully military or partly so. The most frequent justification given for continuous shipbuilding, esp carriers and submarines, even we don’t need a particular ship at present, is that the skills required would be lost if we stopped production.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Eisenhower said “”Every warship, every tank, and every military aircraft built is in the final sense a theft from those who are hungry and are not fed, and those who are naked, and are not clothed.”
If he were alive today, I expect he’d beat the snot out of you.
He faced the Soviet Union: we face bandits, at worst.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Eisenhower said “”Every warship, every tank, and every military aircraft built is in the final sense a theft from those who are hungry and are not fed, and those who are naked, and are not clothed.”
But he also said there is an “imperative need” for an “immense military establishment” and a “large arms industry,” which are “vital” to “keeping the peace.” Did you miss that part?
If he were alive today, I expect he’d beat the snot out of you.
If he were alive today, I expect he’d laugh at you.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
The Soviet Union produced thousands of tanks a year: total production run on the T-54 was about 100,000.
Al-Qaeda apparently doesn’t have a singe one.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
DTM,
Ike did indeed think ongoing arms spending was necessary.
He didn’t think merely that, he thought that there’s an “imperative need” for an “immense military establishment” and a “large arms industry,” which are “vital” to “keeping the peace.” I’m glad you agree with him.
Now please read the rest of what he said and think about it.
I have. I’m not sure what you think he said that conflicts with what I have said. Perhaps you could clarify. Be specific.
By the way, before assuming what stance he would take on proper spending levels today, please note he specifically referenced the Cold War.
Actually, he was referring to all potential enemies: “Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.”
November 18th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Dare not speak its name? As a DFP, surely Matt has head of Chomsky, whether he agrees with him or not.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Matt,
As someone who works in the aerospace world (for a small rocket startup in Mojave, CA)…I find those comments laughably naive. Sure there are some parts of the aerospace industry that produce really high-tech stuff…but innovative? Competitive? Our industry? I have many friends at Boeing, and they’re doing a good job with limited resources, but the reality is that the Aerospace Industry is anything but healthy. It’s stagnant in large portions, hopelessly distorted by incompetent federal intervention, and so divorced typically from market discipline that it almost makes someone who loves this industry want to cry.
If this is a poster boy for what Mr Coll wants to suggest for other parts of industry, I have to strongly suggest not falling for the trap. I wouldn’t wish the US’s “aerospace industrial policy” on our worst enemies.
~Jon
November 19th, 2008 at 2:03 am
“On the other hand though, you have to look at some of the things which have came to the mass market which were created by the defense industry. Notably the very computer and the very internet that allows you to sit in your pajamas all day.”
I often sat around in my pajamas all day before the internet, unless you are referring to the idea that all that defense spending will bankrupt the country, causing many of us to lose our jobs and gain the “ability” to sit in our pajamas all day.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:17 am
No, it didn’t. It entered the atmosphere and was lost because it was about 60 km too low because of the unit mixup. If it had been 60 km too high the mission would have been salvageable.
Also, there is another story here that didn’t make the papers. The JPL DSN had had various internal fights (over money, of course) and had decided to wind down the VLBI tracking program that could have easily detected the 60 km transverse error. They had the capacity to directly detect and fix the error, but didn’t collect the data.
NASA does learn, if slowly, and since that time VLBI has been a regular part of spacecraft navigation.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:20 am
It doesn’t.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Mixner, do try to stay on Greg Cochran’s sunny side.
Historically, the Pentagon’s greatest contribution to industry has been funding basic science research (well that and reverse engineering Nazi technology such as aircraft wings). These days, Nazi scientists being thin on the ground, the coolest research is done by DARPA. Those guys bring the crazy but some of their research projects are amazing.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13909-fifty-years-of-darpa-hits-misses-and-ones-to-watch-part-ii.html
The Navy also funds some interesting research (cold fusion and artificial diamonds, to name two). However, the biggest thing that the military does is spend a lot, I do mean a LOT ($60 billion+) on training and education. They take education research a lot more seriously than does the civilian world. If a high school graduates a kid who doesn’t read, well who cares? But if the Air Force trains jet mechanics who don’t know how to fix jet engines, people die.
As a consequence, the Pentagon is years ahead of the civilian educrats (both K-12 and college) in efficiently and effectively teaching student. Hmmm, let’s see what our friends at DARPA are up to–
The Accelerated Learning Program will develop quantitative and integrative neuroscience-based approaches for measuring, tracking, and accelerating skill acquisition and learning while producing a twofold increase in progression in an individual’s progress through stages of task learning.
http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrusts/trainhu/accelerated/index.htm
November 19th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Its late, the New Scientist DARPA link is
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13909-fifty-years-of-darpa-hits-misses-and-ones-to-watch-part-ii.html
November 19th, 2008 at 3:06 am
You take it back to the beginning, and the jet airliner and microelectronics industries were created by the government.
According to Frank Kofsky (Harry Truman and the War Scare of 1948), the aircraft industry was spiraling into red ink and headed for certain bankruptcy until the renewed Cold War and heavy bomber program of 1948 infused it with new revenue. And David Noble argues, in Forces of Production, that jumbo jets simply couldn’t have been produced profitably absent the heavy bomber program, because the production runs wouldn’t have been sufficient to fully utilize the extremely expensive machine tools required to produce them. And this doesn’t even take into account the near-complete role of federal funding in creating the civil aviation infrastructure between the wars.
Noble’s book also presents massive evidence that the major postwar developments in miniaturized electronics and cybernetics came directly out of the USAAC/USAAF/USAF’s military R&D efforts from WWII on, and parallel efforts in Air Force contractors.
Another example, which you don’t mention, is numerically controlled machine tools. According to Noble (again), the research was spurred by Air Force (again) interest, and first introduced into production in Air Force contractors (again).
The commanding heights of the entire fucking state capitalist economy were created virtually from scratch by the state, so it’s hilarious to see a bunch of corporate turtles on fenceposts talking about the “free market.”
November 19th, 2008 at 4:02 am
The theoretical work which lead to computers sprang from Defense R&D during WWII. The seed for the idea came before then but the money came from the War Department.
Which I have no problem with, but why limit that to the defense industry? We needed to encourage development of computers to trace mortar trajectories.
So, in your view, the reason Apple (for example) develops and manufactures Macs and iPods and so on is because the military wants superiority?
No components that are unique to the iPods are, by any stretch of the imagination, technological innovations, but put together, they make for a nice gadget. Why Mixner whips himself into a frothing outrage over the simple fact that everyone already knows– that our defense spending serves as a nationwide industrial policy favoring and nurturing some industries over others for the (supposed) benefit of our future — is beyond me. Maybe the fact that someone’s pointing out that we don’t live in a randian free-market utopia, nor would we want to, pisses him off.
It’s gotten to the point where we “hide” R&D work we want to encourage in defense spending because such a move seems like aneasier sell to delusionals like Mixner. The flip side is that we aren’t able to speak in public about this without people like him flipping out.
November 19th, 2008 at 6:24 am
I’m relieved to learn that Johns Hopkins only gets the Navy’s millions for managing a naval weapons lab and stuff like AEGIS. As JHU is mainly famous for medicine, for a moment I feared it might be running a black program to create invincible, undetectable cyborg mermen.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
The Applied Physics Lab is nominally under the masthead of JHU, but for almost all practical purposes it’s a completely seperate organization. It’s part of JHU in the same way that Lincoln Labs is part of MIT. Which is to say not much at all. APL has its own location 30 miles away from the JHU campus, doesn’t employ professors or grad students, has its own director and internal administration, etc.
JHU probably gets a take on the administrative overhead of the DoD funding for APL, while APL gets to use the JHU name. But it’s not a JHU lab in the same way that some microelectronics center on campus where the EE professors do their research is a JHU lab.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Re Wimberley’s comment “I’m relieved to learn that Johns Hopkins only gets the Navy’s millions for managing a naval weapons lab and stuff like AEGIS”
————–
Ah, damm. Here I was ready with a new venture proposal for CAP: T-Shirts saying “I Gave $1 Billion/Year to John Hopkins and All I Got Was Paul Wolfowitz”
It is interesting that John Hopkins get far more research dollars from the US Government than any other University. FAR more than Harvard.
See http://mup.asu.edu/research2007.pdf
November 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
“You take it back to the beginning, and the jet airliner and microelectronics industries were created by the government.”
Kevin, you’re of course correct, and David Noble was precisely one of the authors I was going to cite as well. What I would like to add is to push back your definition of beginning:
1. Military procurement and research efforts were explicitly envisioned and utilized as industrial policy from the early nineteenth century onwards. The Springfield Armory and the Frankford Arsenal, for example, were where many of the concepts behind industrialization were developed in the 1830s-1850s. In addition, many of the people prominent in later private industry industrialization did stints particularly at Springfield. Many prominent persons, including multiple presidents, explicitly said the reason for such a large r&d establishment at Springfield was to foster an industrial policy.
2. The engineering programs at West Point as early examples of engineering (i.e. education for industrialization) that spread widely to America’s non-military engineering and management education. Le Tousard, one of the founders of West Point, was also the founder of the Springfield Armory.
3. The research programs at the Boston Naval Yard (active from the 1820s) were explicitly seen as aiding industrial development and training people eventually to be utilized by private industry.
4. Eli Whitney was of course an arms contractor. Less known is that the War and Treasury departments specifically wanted Whitney to make interchangeable parts, and his experience as a arms manufacturer lead directly to his gin mill. This wasn’t an accidental thing – it was part of an industrial policy of the Treasury and War departments.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Mixner, Read it again.
DTM, do you have answer to the question, or don’t you?
I’m glad you agree with Eisenhower that there’s an “imperative need” for an “immense military establishment” and a “large arms industry,” which are “vital” to “keeping the peace.”
November 19th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Tyro,
the simple fact that everyone already knows– that our defense spending serves as a nationwide industrial policy favoring and nurturing some industries over others
The effects of defense spending on civilian industry are a byproduct, not a “policy.” Defense spending benefits the civilian aerospace industry more than, say, the entertainment industry, because aerospace is more important to the national defense than movies and TV.
… delusionals like Mixner.
Tyro is an ignorant fool.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
“The effects of defense spending on civilian industry are a byproduct, not a “policy.” ”
Well, that is, unless the people planning that defense industry spending have been explicitly saying, planning, announcing and acting like these effects on civilian industry are indeed planned since at least the time of the Madison administration if not before. (not that their plans always worked, or were coherent, or were necessarily the same plan) – Treasury Secretary Wolcott asked Whitney to use Whitney’s rifle contracts to build up the American understanding of interchangeable parts, for just one instance.
That sort of thing would be usually be called a “policy”. It might be termed a “very long standing policy”. Some might even call it an “industrial policy”.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I’m sort of shocked that Yglesias thinks this “provacative”. More like banal.
November 20th, 2008 at 6:37 am
Yeah, great sales pitch, yglesias. ‘Green’ industrial policy, just as efficient and ethical as defense procurement.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:21 am
even before coming across this, i wondered in addition to a bailout, how about the government offering contracts to GM to build a fleet of armor plated humvees we’ve been needing? during the primary, barack did pledge to rebuild and repair the military.
Why does the United States have one of the most sophisticated, innovative electronics industries in the world?
where? i thought our electronics manufacturing base moved to taiwan.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:35 am
gcochran Says:
Eisenhower said “”Every warship, every tank, and every military aircraft built is in the final sense a theft from those who are hungry and are not fed, and those who are naked, and are not clothed.”
sounds like a JOBS program to me. personnel carriers, coast guard ships and aircraft don’t build themselves.
but of course, it goes without saying, the process of government contracting should be cleaned of corruption and not abused as something to reward cronies.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:09 am
OXON HILL, Md. (AP) — Prince George’s County Police are investigating the shooting of a man in a car who later died at a hospital. Police say 31-year-old Sean Green of Oxon Hill was shot several times inside his car at Virginia
December 12th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
NEW YORK –Will Castro is living proof that hard work and dedication can take you to the top. Only 20 years ago, the founder and CEO of Unique Autosports was working as a valet. Today, he’s running his car customization company,
December 12th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Andrea Weglarz-Houser is sweetening up the south Fort Myers area and beyond – one tasty, frosty cupcake at a time. Weglarz-Houser is the owner and cupcake innovator behind the south Fort Myers-based Flour Designer Cupcakes company. The
March 7th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Guys, a littlebit offtopic but since one week ago i found a excellent opportunity to make some rapid bucks online. They will pay u $0.30 cents for every unique download u make. You should check it out (Link is in my Name). I’ve made $84 dollars allready. Refreshing articles you got in your blog btw.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:26 am
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:07 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:17 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
This is quite a up-to-date info. I think I’ll share it on Twitter.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
FANTASTIC!
April 19th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Outstanding post and blog…..I’m very impressed with all the usefull information here! fat loss 4 idiots
April 19th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Idk whether to laugh or cry…