A New Economic Indicator? 32 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The Washington Post recently reported that --
In a year of job losses, foreclosures and bag lunches, Americans have spent record-breaking amounts of money on guns and ammunition. The most obvious sign of their demand: empty ammunition shelves.
At points during the past year, bullets have been selling faster than factories could make them.
Gun owners have bought about 12 billion rounds of ammunition in the past year, industry officials estimate. That's up from 7 billion to 10 billion in a normal year.
It has happened, oddly, at a time when the two concerns that usually make people buy guns and bullets -- crime and increased gun control -- seem less threatening than usual. . . .
The reasons for the increased sales are said to be varied, however, the more interesting and common reason voiced is that economic insecurity is now being translated into physical insecurity of possible criminal violence, most likely attending public unrest.
That view turns such sales increases into an economic indicator. One obviously reserved for periods of great economic insecurity, stress and concern.
Disclosures: none
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 32 comments:
Evidently tens of millions, maybe scores of millions, of American men and women believe that the last, final, line of defense is an armed citizenry that not only owns private arsenals but is well able to maintain and use them.
Cash hoarding, flight to gold and other proven stores of value, weapons: all three are metrics of fear that has increased tangibly in America in 2009.
Of course the other side of the coin is that tax revenue from sales is up substantially....why kill off one of the few cash cows around..
First responders just bring the body bags, put up yellow tape and collect the evidence.
A few people, in mostly random order, who in the past contributed much to how we are, who we are, some of our best and brightest, all-time most-interesting: Thales, Sophocles, Socrates, Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Copernicus, Galileo, Edw. Jenner, Darwin, Dostoevsky, Einstein, Heisenberg, T. Edison, Rachel Carson, Roberto Bolano ...
A few people, in mostly random order, currently active and important to how we are, who we are, among our best and brightest, most interesting: E. O. Wilson, J. Lovelock, Obama, Bernanke, Gore, Jobs, Gates (both), Buffett, Branson, Soros, P. Roth, J. Gray, and many more ...
Question: are, were, would any of them be, gun-obsessed?
The gun-nuts are among the lowest of us, those who have the least to contribute ... Our Neanderthals ...
Your choice of Heisenberg is interesting. Woud you not agree that his history of support for the Third Reich should black ball him from your list dispite some interesting things he wrote?
bob adamson
On Nov 05 11:48 AM Witchy wrote:
> Two lists.
>
> A few people, in mostly random order, who in the past contributed
> much to how we are, who we are, some of our best and brightest, all-time
> most-interesting: Thales, Sophocles, Socrates, Moses, Buddha, Confucius,
> Jesus, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Copernicus, Galileo,
> Edw. Jenner, Darwin, Dostoevsky, Einstein, Heisenberg, T. Edison,
> Rachel Carson, Roberto Bolano ...
>
> A few people, in mostly random order, currently active and important
> to how we are, who we are, among our best and brightest, most interesting:
> E. O. Wilson, J. Lovelock, Obama, Bernanke, Gore, Jobs, Gates (both),
> Buffett, Branson, Soros, P. Roth, J. Gray, and many more ...
>
> Question: are, were, would any of them be, gun-obsessed?
>
> The gun-nuts are among the lowest of us, those who have the least
> to contribute ... Our Neanderthals ...
On Nov 05 11:48 AM Witchy wrote:
> Two lists.
>
> A few people, in mostly random order, who in the past contributed
> much to how we are, who we are, some of our best and brightest, all-time
> most-interesting: Thales, Sophocles, Socrates, Moses, Buddha, Confucius,
> Jesus, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Copernicus, Galileo,
> Edw. Jenner, Darwin, Dostoevsky, Einstein, Heisenberg, T. Edison,
> Rachel Carson, Roberto Bolano ...
>
> A few people, in mostly random order, currently active and important
> to how we are, who we are, among our best and brightest, most interesting:
> E. O. Wilson, J. Lovelock, Obama, Bernanke, Gore, Jobs, Gates (both),
> Buffett, Branson, Soros, P. Roth, J. Gray, and many more ...
>
> Question: are, were, would any of them be, gun-obsessed?
>
> The gun-nuts are among the lowest of us, those who have the least
> to contribute ... Our Neanderthals ...
Would a lot of unemployed women with time on their hands go out and buy guns and ammo? Men are out there compensating for loss of status and identity.
This is a simpler answer than politics or some other second derivitave explanation. Obama is clearly no threat to the gun lobby and crime is falling or flat.
Gold run - check
Ammo run - check
Canned goods must be next?
Are we supposed to think the US proletariat is arming itself against...what?
Does this explain all the empty seats at recent NASCAR Cup races too?
What does Ted Nugent have to say about all of this?
On Nov 05 11:48 AM Witchy wrote:
> Two lists.
>
> A few people, in mostly random order, who in the past contributed
> much to how we are, who we are, some of our best and brightest, all-time
> most-interesting: Thales, Sophocles, Socrates, Moses, Buddha, Confucius,
> Jesus, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Copernicus, Galileo,
> Edw. Jenner, Darwin, Dostoevsky, Einstein, Heisenberg, T. Edison,
> Rachel Carson, Roberto Bolano ...
>
> A few people, in mostly random order, currently active and important
> to how we are, who we are, among our best and brightest, most interesting:
> E. O. Wilson, J. Lovelock, Obama, Bernanke, Gore, Jobs, Gates (both),
> Buffett, Branson, Soros, P. Roth, J. Gray, and many more ...
>
> Question: are, were, would any of them be, gun-obsessed?
>
> The gun-nuts are among the lowest of us, those who have the least
> to contribute ... Our Neanderthals ...
I don't consider myselrf a gun nut or a neanderthal and I take exception to your comment. I believe a man or woman should be willing and capable of defending home and hearth. The polce certainly are not capable of protecting the citizenry.
Obviously you have never read police reports or read news concerning crime. If you had you would know that the police are barely capable of apprehending a perpetrator after the fact. "After the fact" being the key phrase here. If you have never experienced physical mayhem or been burglarized or stolen from, lucky you. My belief is based in fact and remains, defend yourself, the cops can't.
There is not only a possibility for growing social unrest, it's happening. Check the rise in the crime rate. So I will remain prepared to defend what is mine to defend, and prepare further for a worse scenario.
Because of the recession, unemployment problems and lack of immediate relief on the horizon, the probability of criminal violence in situations of isolation, unrest or chaos is greater than otherwise and I think that is why people are arming themselves and buying more ammunition.
On Nov 05 11:48 AM Witchy wrote:
> Two lists.
>
> A few people, in mostly random order, who in the past contributed
> much to how we are, who we are, some of our best and brightest, all-time
> most-interesting: Thales, Sophocles, Socrates, Moses, Buddha, Confucius,
> Jesus, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Copernicus, Galileo,
> Edw. Jenner, Darwin, Dostoevsky, Einstein, Heisenberg, T. Edison,
> Rachel Carson, Roberto Bolano ...
>
> A few people, in mostly random order, currently active and important
> to how we are, who we are, among our best and brightest, most interesting:
> E. O. Wilson, J. Lovelock, Obama, Bernanke, Gore, Jobs, Gates (both),
> Buffett, Branson, Soros, P. Roth, J. Gray, and many more ...
>
> Question: are, were, would any of them be, gun-obsessed?
>
> The gun-nuts are among the lowest of us, those who have the least
> to contribute ... Our Neanderthals ...
We need to be literate and knowledgeable enough to take good advantage of civilization at its best, as you suggest, but when civilization shows signs of failing and the prospect of criminal violence arises, we need to able to take care of ourselves and our loved ones, without help. Ergo, the guns and ammunition.
I regret reading that you consider that the threat of random or criminal violence is increasing significantly in the US and that job losses and other problems associated with the current deep recession are a root cause of this trend. I’m not a US citizen and I don’t live in the US but as a close observer of the US scene I think (hope anyway) that you are more than a bit premature to be drawing these conclusions.
No doubt the general increase in unfocussed anxiety related to the economic situation may prompt people to buy guns at this time but this is another matter. Interestingly, the surge in small arms sales began late last year well before the job losses surged.
bob adamson
On Nov 05 04:56 PM Kimball Corson wrote:
> I lived in a rural ranch area for many years, raising horses. The
> police response times were 45 minutes or longer. I was earlier an
> Olympic style shooter, but on assessing my situation, I armed myself
> more practically and took a combat pistol course and studied combat
> shotgun use as well. I had shadowstalker's mind set and I now think
> and then thought it was a reasonable one. In isolated or chaotic
> circumstances, you need to be able to take care of yourself and your
> loved ones, if push comes to shove.
>
> Because of the recession, unemployment problems and lack of immediate
> relief on the horizon, the probability of criminal violence in situations
> of isolation, unrest or chaos is greater than otherwise and I think
> that is why people are arming themselves and buying more ammunition.
I live in suburban Atlanta, in an upper income area composed of single family homes. Multi-family comprises less than 1% of housing. I have shopped in the same grocery store once a week for the past 13 years.
In the past 6 months there as been a seismic shift in people's buying patterns. Canned goods are flying off the shelves, and represent many more feet of shelf space. Buy-one-get-one non-perishable sale items vanish as soon as the sale signs go up.
People in my area must be storing food along with guns and ammo.
Why do you think this pattern is arising in the upper income neighbourhood you describe? Please be spacific.
On Nov 05 10:05 PM K Smith wrote:
> There is another economic indicator - what vanishes from grocery
> store shelves.
>
> I live in suburban Atlanta, in an upper income area composed of single
> family homes. Multi-family comprises less than 1% of housing. I have
> shopped in the same grocery store once a week for the past 13 years.
>
>
> In the past 6 months there as been a seismic shift in people's buying
> patterns. Canned goods are flying off the shelves, and represent
> many more feet of shelf space. Buy-one-get-one non-perishable sale
> items vanish as soon as the sale signs go up.
>
> People in my area must be storing food along with guns and ammo.
Let me put it this way, why do you think people might be stock piling guns, ammunition and non-perishables? Do you see such activity as a random or other phenomenon or one connected to the current and prospective economic state of the country?
My son's scout troop was to have a shotgun shoot where the boys were to shoot some clay pigeons. At the meeting before the outing, however, we were informed that a couple of the leaders couldn't find any shotgun shells. They had gone to multiple outlets but were told that they were sold out.
This was at least a few months ago and they eventually were able to get some, albeit a week or two later. They were told that there had been a little bit of a supply bottleneck and a big run on guns and ammo. They said they were seeing new customers and that long time customers were buying by the caseload where they would have been picking up a few boxes at a time in the past.
There was some speculation as to whether it was because of the market crash or because they thought the Obama administration would be trying to clamp down on the industry, but for whatever reason there was a pretty big run at the time.
I don't know about the over all crime statistics, but locally we had someone in our court in a lazy little Ozzie & Harriet neighborhood victimized by a guy who pulled into our court in broad daylight, turned around and parked in between her home and her neighbors. Her husband had just left to make a quick run to the store and as she walked out to get the mail, through her garage door she saw the guy wheeling their pressure washer down her driveway towards his car. I'll skip all the histrionics but he was caught and arrested.
The community was shocked again a week or so ago when a couple was accosted while walking out of a well known little restaurant and carjacked by a crew of three. A shot was fired as they fled though it may have been into the air.
On a local discussion forum for oil & gas prices a couple of wholesalers have posted about an increase in robberies of gas stations lately, once again speculating it had to do with the economy.
None of that proves anything, of course, but many *feel* a little more on edge, whether it's justified or not.
Families are buying lower on the grocery totem pole because of job losses and cutbacks. My area has been hit very hard by the depression. The local unemployment rate is higher than the national average. I believe this accounts for the majority of the change in buying habits.
But based on what I see coming off the shelves, I believe there is another element to the buying patterns.
Those who understand history and see the big picture know that our elected officials - Democrat and Republican - have capitulated to the corporatists, and that our job engine, the small business sector, is under attack. They know our economy and our social fabric headed off a cliff. They want to ensure that they leave an America in better shape than it is now for their children and grandchildren. Yesterday 50,000 people showed up for a rally at the Capitol that was announced on Monday. People came from all over the country, by plane, car and bus - with less than a week's notice. I know of three busloads from metro Atlanta alone.
Mainstream grandmas are talking about not wanting to pay their taxes because their hard earned money is being squandered by our political leaders.
This group understands that we face tough times and social unrest. Crime in our area is already on an upward spike.
This is the group that is buying and storing food - and guns and ammo - for the times when food will be sky high, or in short supply, or both.
On Nov 06 12:32 AM JeffDB wrote:
> None of that proves anything, of course, but many *feel* a little
> more on edge, whether it's justified or not.
This is my response to both your latest response above to me and as noted below to Witchy.
My reading on the current spike in gun, ammo and food hording is that it reflects a general, unfocussed anxiety within certain sectors of US society, particularly those who feel marginalized or disregarded as important events and decisions occur around them without what they can accept as due regard for their interests or preferences. I don’t sense that it is particularly the dispossessed that are doing this hording, that it is in response to an actual spike in crime or violence or that it is generally in preparation for some politically motivated confrontation. If I am wrong to assume any of the forgoing I would hope that others can give statistical or poling evidence to correct me; anecdotal evidence in isolation simply confirms for me at this stage my current bias in favour of my unfocussed anxiety hypothesis.
You are right to note that civilization depends on a precarious balance (at all times but particularly at stressful times like these) between tolerance and openness, on the one hand, and protection of the individual and civil society from destructive forces, on the other. I am only sounding a note of caution that premature urges to retreat into armed isolation should be resisted. This is not to downplay the legitimate concern people have for their personal safety or that the public authorities can’t or will not respond adequately. I would only hope that the first response to those concerns would be to call for the appropriate strengthening of the forces of public order and a demand that they serve the public better.
On Nov 05 05:11 PM Kimball Corson wrote:
> Whitchy.
>
> We need to be literate and knowledgeable enough to take good advantage
> of civilization at its best, as you suggest, but when civilization
> shows signs of failing and the prospect of criminal violence arises,
> we need to able to take care of ourselves and our loved ones, without
> help. Ergo, the guns and ammunition.
< I would only hope that the first response
<to those concerns would be to call for
<the appropriate strengthening of the forces
<of public order and a demand that they
<serve the public better.
Bob,
There are no forces of public order.
Public order emanates not from outside forces, but from the public itself.
When the public behaves in orderly ways, there is order. When the public behaves is disorderly ways, or when the social fabric rends, chaos ensues.
There are forces of public clean up. But they don't function well at all when public order breaks down.
Just think back to Hurricane Katrina. Those who foresaw the consequences got out of Dodge. Those who relied on what you call the forces of public order suffered miserably. Even Charity Hospital, a government entity, with an emergency preparedness plan, was assured numerous times over many days that help was on the way. It was left to its own devices. They ran on generators until the fuel ran out. Non-medical staff took turns hand pumping the ventilators of intubated patients in stairwells in the dark for hours at a time, to keep them alive and above flood waters.
And the forces of public clean up themselves broke down. They didn't show up for work - many because they were caring for their own families, and many because they were busy securing hiding places for looted clothing, shoes, and electronics.
For a glimpse of what is in store for much of our nation, take a drive around downtown Detroit. Or rent "RoboCop." When the forces of public clean up experience rolling brownouts and declining revenues from shrinking tax bases, they won't have the resources to improve services.
When you dial 911 and no one answers, you will be on your own.
I can see why you are cynical about the prospects of public authorities being of practical help in an emergency. It follows that you would want to do what is necessary as an individual to address the problem. That being so, wouldn’t it also be a high priority therefore for you that your community upgrade its collective capacity to respond to emergencies (public safety and health emergencies broadly defines) in a timely and adequate manner? Wouldn’t this be the first order of public interest that citizens would seek to accomplish? In short, isn’t it a sorry mess if the only conceivable response is every man for himself?
bob
On Nov 06 05:48 PM K Smith wrote:
> Bob Adamson wrote -
>
> < I would only hope that the first response
> <to those concerns would be to call for
> <the appropriate strengthening of the forces
> <of public order and a demand that they
> <serve the public better.
>
> Bob,
> There are no forces of public order.
>
> Public order emanates not from outside forces, but from the public
> itself.
>
> When the public behaves in orderly ways, there is order. When the
> public behaves is disorderly ways, or when the social fabric rends,
> chaos ensues.
>
> There are forces of public clean up. But they don't function well
> at all when public order breaks down.
>
> Just think back to Hurricane Katrina. Those who foresaw the consequences
> got out of Dodge. Those who relied on what you call the forces of
> public order suffered miserably. Even Charity Hospital, a government
> entity, with an emergency preparedness plan, was assured numerous
> times over many days that help was on the way. It was left to its
> own devices. They ran on generators until the fuel ran out. Non-medical
> staff took turns hand pumping the ventilators of intubated patients
> in stairwells in the dark for hours at a time, to keep them alive
> and above flood waters.
>
> And the forces of public clean up themselves broke down. They didn't
> show up for work - many because they were caring for their own families,
> and many because they were busy securing hiding places for looted
> clothing, shoes, and electronics.
>
> For a glimpse of what is in store for much of our nation, take a
> drive around downtown Detroit. Or rent "RoboCop." When the forces
> of public clean up experience rolling brownouts and declining revenues
> from shrinking tax bases, they won't have the resources to improve
> services.
>
> When you dial 911 and no one answers, you will be on your own.
> K Smith -
I can see why you are cynical about the prospects of public authorities being of practical help in an emergency. It follows that you would want to do what is necessary as an individual to address the problem. That being so, wouldn’t it also be a high priority therefore for you that your community upgrade its collective capacity to respond to emergencies (public safety and health emergencies broadly defines) in a timely and adequate manner? Wouldn’t this be the first order of public interest that citizens would seek to accomplish? In short, isn’t it a sorry mess if the only conceivable response is every man for himself? >
Unfortunately, I don't think that it's only large scale emergencies like floods, wildfires, tornadoes, earthquakes etc. in which the government cannot or will not guarantee any particular individual or family's safety. I've seen and heard too many instances where that is just not the case and have seen or read many more in the media. It's a daily occurrence in any major metropolitan area.
Given that this is the case when the country is running on all cylinders and is the "last remaining superpower" and "the richest country in the history of the earth" or at least fairly close to those descriptions, wouldn't it be prudent to speculate on what things might be like if the country and the societal structure begin to break down?
Certainly no one likes to think that such a thing might happen and yet history has shown that societies have in fact broken down, sometimes quite rapidly and dramatically at times.
Signs of moral and economic decay and rot are all around us and it's not inconceivable to me that things could quite unexpectedly start tumbling down much as a bridge with hidden structural damage could have sudden failure despite looking quite sturdy to those driving over it every day.
I've read stories of how rapidly things have fallen apart in other countries at times and have to wonder if the same might not be possible here.
Russia, for instance, was considered a major super power not long ago, and then a couple of years later I'm reading stories of engineers and scientists rooting through rotting garbage dumps scrounging for food and of Russian mafia terrorizing some areas of the formerly tranquil society.
Stories of families in Rwanda told of their relatively peaceful lives suddenly being turned upside down by bands of marauding armed desperadoes raining death and destruction on their villages with the government being helpless/worthless in defending them.
I certainly hope that type of disaster never befalls us, and hope that our government can hold things together and provide us with a safe and sound society for many centuries going forward, but should I bet my life and the lives of my family on it?
Even though our government assured us things were under control the last couple of years, they now admit our economy slid to the brink of total collapse and we aren't exactly out of the woods yet. They're trillions in debt, with $1 Trillion + deficits as far as the eye can see. Our big 3 automakers are a shambles, our banks and financial institutions are in shambles. Our currency has been sliding precipitously despite being propped up by foreign governments, many of whom apparently are losing faith that it is a doable project and are already working on "Plan B". Many of our states' budgets are in serious trouble with revenues dropping precipitously as draws on their funds are rising rapidly. New York has gone bankrupt in the past and California was handing out IOUs to meet their obligations to the poor.
It's not hard to imagine that they might be forced to cut back on services, including but not limited to police departments even as very high unemployment and social unease increases.
Relying exclusively on police for safety and protection isn't a prudent decision as someone I knew found out to his dismay a few years back. He had gone to answer a knock on his back porch and when he opened the door a couple of guys demanded to come in while pointing a gun at him. He slammed the door and locked it, ran from the porch into his house, slammed that door and locked it.
He called 911 of course, but the bandits seemed undeterred. They proceeded to kick his steel door in. It took them a little while to bend the door enough and crack the door frame sufficiently to get it open, but it still wasn't enough time for the police to arrive.
Unfortunately, the homeowner only had a crowbar to defend himself and he stood on the other side of the second steel door as they proceeded to kick it in. They had to go up a couple of steps and didn't have a lot of leverage which probably helped slow them down a bit, but they still tried for awhile before finally giving up and leaving a while before the police eventually got there.
The police told him that a large terrarium on his porch where he used to keep a large python he used to own is probably what saved him. It was in their way and they couldn't get a decent run at the door.
He went out and bought a gun and some ammo the next day.
I did not mean to imply that the only response is every man for himself. I am just saying that if we choose to rely on government we are living in a dream world.
The government of the present is a bloated monstrosity that does not operate in economic reality. It cannot defy the laws of physics - or economics. State and local governments nationwide can't even meet their pension obligations.
This means in the government of the future, as real estate values drop, the unemployment rate rises, and the tax base erodes, the pension problem will only deepen and there will be no money to improve services. My community will be unable to upgrade its collective capacity to respond to emergencies in a world of rising unemployment and diminishing tax revenues. It will be too busy making sure people have enough to eat and a place to live.
I believe we must rely on each other - not government . When like minded people come together in the spirit of cooperation and mutual goals, they can accomplish things at orders of magnitude higher than government ever can.
This is already happening in my community. As our area experiences rising criminal activity, neighbors are coming together to hire private security companies to patrol their streets.
I rely on myself, my family, and my neighbors. If government performs well, I am pleasantly surprised. You may see me as a cynic. I see myself as someone who hopes for the best but prepares for the worst.
If I am wrong, everybody wins - including me. But the facts as I see them indicate otherwise.
Thank you for your detailed and very reasonable response. Clearly, do whatever is lawful, practical and reasonably that you and your neighbours after due consideration consider must be done to address the actual threats to personal safety currently faced. I only hope that these efforts are balanced in the longer term with equal focused efforts to ensure that public community police forces are upgraded so that they make the reliance on private security companies redundant or at least a subordinate and ancillary part of your local public police force.
Turning to the larger picture, over the past couple of decades there has been a growing trend in the US and UK to depend on mercenaries in place of their military personnel and for landlords of larger developments and local communities in Canada and the US (I don’t know about the UK on this point) to rely on private security agencies to do local policing. While there can be a legitimate ancillary role if performed under proper supervision and public accountability for such private forces, overreliance on a large scale on such unaccountable bodies open to hire by the highest bidder can, if current trends in that direction accelerate, pose a real risk to civil order and democratic control. Further, a reliable and well trained private force doesn’t come cheaply.
All I’m saying is that, difficult though it might be, it is important to rebuild and maintain public police and military forces under democratic civilian control as this is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society. Some US citizens might ask whether the right under your Constitution to bear arms shouldn’t include the right to choose to be policed by a private as opposed to a public policing force. I’m not a US citizen and express no opinion on the legal or policy issue (aside from the caution expressed above that there needs to be a balanced approach to preserve the very freedoms your constitution embodies) this poses.
On further reflection and re-acquaintance with the role played in the 1930s, during WW II and subsequently by Heisenberg I still question your inclusion of his name in your list but acknowledge that he is an ambivalent figure. During the 1930s he did actively and publically oppose the subordination of the universities and, in particular the study of theoretical physics, to Nazi ideologues and appears to have supported Jewish colleagues, clearly courageous acts. After WW II he actively opposed the nuclear arms build-up. On the other hand, during WW II he was front and centre in Germany’s atomic bomb development program.
I thought I should post the forgoing as the casual reader of my earlier post might interpret my remarks as suggesting that you had a high regard for a Nazi sympathizer. That was never intended and, in any case, is not really supported by the facts of Heisenberg’s life.
bob adamson
On Nov 05 12:14 PM bob adamson wrote:
> Witchy -
>
> Your choice of Heisenberg is interesting. Woud you not agree that
> his history of support for the Third Reich should black ball him
> from your list dispite some interesting things he wrote?
>
> bob adamson