Welcome to Sterling Cooper, Inc.
  • CALL US: +1-866-285-6572
  • CALL US: +1-866-285-6572
LOGO
  • INCREASE YOUR REVENUES
    50%-100% - FREE EVALUATION
  • WEF 2025 GLOBAL
    RISKS REPORT
  • CAPITAL GAINS
    TAX DEFERRED
  • INCORPORATE
    NOW FOR $39
  • RESEARCH
    REPORTS
  • ENGULF &
    DEVOUR
  • Home
  • Services
    • Selling a Business
    • Buying a Business
    • Public Relation
    • Cooper consulting
    • Advertising
    • Publishing
    • Web and IT Services
    • Loans
  • Seller
  • buyer
  • Advertising
  • Publishing
  • M&A Due Diligence
  • Blog
  • Contact
LOGO

Author Archives: sterlingcooper

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →

BIDEN PENTAGON CHIEFS LIED ABOUT THE TALIBAN PARTICIPATION IN WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN!

Exclusive: U.S. generals ran cover for Taliban, despite violent attacks during bungled withdrawal

Generals Milley, McKenzie, and other Pentagon officials claimed the Taliban wasn’t attacking the U.S. during the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, then contended that the Taliban was businesslike and helpful during the chaotic and deadly evacuation that ensued. Neither narrative was true.

TALIBAN CELEBRATESChairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and CENTCOM Commander Frank McKenzie repeatedly ran cover for the Taliban’s behavior in 2021, denying that the Taliban had carried out attacks against U.S. and NATO bases during the withdrawal and defending the Taliban’s behavior during the evacuation.

In the weeks after the fall of Kabul, U.S. military brass such as Milley and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin would repeatedly testify that the Taliban had broken every provision of the Doha Agreement but one — its vow not to attack U.S. and NATO forces.

In fact, the Taliban had also violated that provision, because the Taliban attacked U.S. and NATO bases in Afghanistan multiple times, both before and after President Joe Biden’s “Go-to-Zero” order, including attacks on Bagram Air Base when U.S. troops were still there. The Taliban’s official spokespeople would often take credit for the attacks too.

The GOP-led House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) final report from last year had a section about how “Taliban Attacks on U.S. Bases Continue[d]” during the U.S. military withdrawal in the spring and summer of 2021, but nowhere in that section nor anywhere else in the report did it include the key fact that Milley and McKenzie repeatedly and falsely claimed that these attacks hadn’t happened.

Multiple key Biden Administration officials also repeatedly praised the “businesslike” character of the Taliban during the non-combatant evacuation operation (NEO) at Hamid Karzai International Airport (HKIA), despite clear evidence that the Taliban was beating up some Americans and blocking some U.S. citizens from escaping Afghanistan, and in spite of overwhelming evidence that the Taliban was beating up and even executing some Afghans who wanted to flee Taliban rule. McKenzie played an especially key role in establishing this narrative, although Milley played his part too.

HFAC’s September report also made no mention of McKenzie’s insistence that the Taliban had been “very businesslike” and “very pragmatic” and made no mention of Milley’s claims that the Taliban was not interfering with the U.S. evacuation, nor did the report make any reference to other Biden Administration officials repeating this false “businesslike” mantra about the Taliban.

Biden issued a pardon to Milley on his last full day in office in January 2025. McKenzie and other military leaders were not pardoned. McKenzie is currently listed as the Executive Director for the Global and National Security Institute at the University of Southern Florida.

McKenzie did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent to him through his email at the school. Nor did he respond to prior Just the News reporting about him.

Milley did not respond to multiple requests for comment sent to him through Princeton University, where he was named a visiting professor last year, and through JPMorgan Chase, where he has been a senior adviser since 2024. Nor did he respond to previous Just the News reporting on him.

Taliban fires rockets at U.S. bases, but Milley and others deny it

Milley said on May 6, 2021 that “there have been no attacks against U.S. and coalition forces since the retrograde began on about 1 May, and that is also consistent for the past year.” This was incorrect, as the Taliban had conducted indirect fire attacks against U.S. and coalition bases earlier in the year and would soon carry out similar small attacks against U.S. and coalition forces during the retrograde.

A UAE-based English-language newspaper reported that “the Taliban fired two missiles on a coalition military base in Afghanistan’s Khost province” on March 30, 2021. The Afghan military’s Khost Protection Force said at the time that the “Taliban fired indiscriminate rocket missiles on the military headquarters of coalition forces in Khost city.” The Taliban contended that the Doha Agreement had been broken by the West and so “today these invaders were targeted.”

In fact, the Taliban violated every single promise it made in the Doha Agreement — not just breaking its vow to end its alliance with al-Qaeda, but also breaking its promise not to attack United States forces.

An Afghan news outlet similarly reported at the time that “a joint military base of foreign and Afghan forces in eastern Khost province was targeted in a rocket attack by Taliban insurgents.” And another Afghan outlet reported on social media that “the Taliban launched a missile attack on the base of the joint forces in Khost.”

The Taliban itself even touted the attack on the forces stationed at the airport in Khost city, with Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid tweeting on March 30, 2021 that “a large number of rockets were launched in the vicinity of the center of Khost province on the old airfield of that province, which is the main center of the enemy’s mercenary forces. The missiles hit specific targets, and as a result, the enemy suffered heavy losses in life and property.”

Despite these reports, Milley later told the Senate on September 28, 2021 that “the one [provision of the Doha Agreement] that was met was the most important one — which was do not attack us or the coalition forces, and they did not.” Milley repeated this argument to the House the following day. Austin also wrongly claimed in September 2021 that “the only thing that they lived up to was that they did not attack us.”

The Pentagon inspector general said in a mid-August 2021 report that, from April through June that year, the Taliban “were believed to have executed a few ineffective indirect fire attacks in the direction of U.S. or NATO bases.” The Pentagon watchdog stated that the “Taliban Conducted Limited Attacks on Coalition Bases.”

Some of the Taliban attacks on U.S. and coalition bases in 2021 happened prior to Biden’s Go-to-Zero order. The watchdog report said that “the Taliban fired rockets toward a coalition military base in Khost province in the early morning of April 2. …. Additionally, the Taliban fired rockets at an airport in Khost where U.S. troops were based. U.S. forces responded by conducting clearing operations in the vicinity of the base.”

The Pentagon inspector general also said that “on April 7, 2021 the Taliban launched another rocket attack, this time against Kandahar air base, where several hundred U.S. troops were still based at the time.” The Afghanistan Times reported that on that day Afghan provincial officials said that the “Taliban unleashed a barrage of rockets at the Kandahar airport” and that “six rockets hit the airport.”

The Taliban yet again touted the attack on a base where U.S. forces were located, with the Taliban spokesman tweeting that “Kandahar airbase, a key enemy military center, targeted with multiple missiles noon hours today. Missiles have hit targets, causing heavy human & material losses.”

Confronted with facts, the Pentagon waffles

A reporter told then-Pentagon spokesman John Kirby on April 7, 2021 at a press briefing that the Taliban had attacked Kandahar Airfield and Camp Chapman, and asked Kirby what the U.S. military was doing to stop these Taliban attacks on U.S. and NATO troops. Kirby said that “we condemn today’s attack on Kandahar Airfield” which he said was still home to several hundred U.S. and coalition personnel.

The Pentagon spokesman added that “while the attack resulted in no casualties or damage, the Taliban’s decision to provoke even more violence in Afghanistan remains disruptive to the opportunity for peace.”

The reporter then noted Kirby still hadn’t said what the U.S. military was doing about the Taliban’s attacks against U.S. and coalition forces. Kirby said that “we always have the right of self-defense for our troops” but said that “our focus right now is on supporting a diplomatic process here to try to bring this war to a negotiated end.”

Kirby said that “I’m not prepared today to give an assessment of this attack as balanced against the Doha Agreement, okay?” when asked whether the Taliban attack against the Kandahar Airfield aimed at U.S. forces there was a violation of the agreement.

Biden’s Go-to-Zero order came a week later, and the Taliban’s sporadic attacks against the U.S. and NATO continued.

Reality sets in at the Pentagon

The Pentagon watchdog cited media reports which said that “an explosion inside Bagram Airfield on May 1 killed one and wounded 24 Afghan personnel.” The Defense Intelligence Agency also said that “the Taliban launched two rocket attacks against coalition forces at Kandahar Airfield on May 2.”

U.S. military spokesman Colonel Sonny Leggett said on May 1, 2021 that “Kandahar Airfield received ineffective indirect fire this afternoon” and that, in response, “U.S. Forces conducted a precision strike this evening, destroying additional rockets aimed at the airfield.”

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid again defended the Taliban attack against the U.S., tweeting that day that the Taliban could “take every counteraction it deems appropriate against the occupying forces.” An Afghan news outlet reported the same day that Afghan security officials in Parwan province said that “one person was killed, and 24 others were wounded in an explosion while security force members were offering prayers at a mosque inside Bagram base.” The security chief for Parwan police headquarters said that all the casualties were Afghan security forces.

Kirby repeatedly downplayed the significance of the attacks from the Taliban, even as he acknowledged at least some of the attacks which occurred.

The Pentagon spokesman said on May 3, 2021 that “what we’ve seen are some small, harassing attacks over the course of the weekend” but that “we’ve seen nothing thus far that has affected the drawdown.” Kirby said again on May 13, 2021 that “we have seen small harassing attacks” from the Taliban, but said the attacks “have not had an impact on the retrograde.”

Despite the well-founded reports of attacks circulating for three months, General Austin “Scottie” Miller also wrongly claimed on June 7, 2021 that the Taliban hadn’t attacked the U.S. during the retrograde: “To date — and it’s to date — we have not seen that.” When asked about the Doha Agreement’s condition that the Taliban not attack U.S. forces, Miller later admitted to HFAC that the Taliban conducted “at least a couple indirect fire attacks” on U.S. forces.

Biden admin maintains wishful thinking, denying attacks happened

Derek Chollet, who would go on to be Austin’s chief of staff, later told HFAC that the Taliban were “meeting the most important condition” of the Doha Agreement in 2021, “which was they were not shooting at U.S. military forces in Afghanistan.” This was said long after news outlets and even Pentagon staff acknowledged the attacks.

Chollet, who was serving as the Counselor of the U.S. Department of State and was a top advisor to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, told HFAC that he did “not recall” assessing whether the Taliban met any of its other obligations under the Doha Agreement because “the most important thing on our minds was we did not want the Afghan war to resume — against us.”

Ross Wilson, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan in 2021, later told HFAC that “the Talibs had absolutely met their commitment not to attack American forces, personnel, or installations. It’s not an unimportant thing to me, and I think also to the American people.”

Like Chollet, Wilson said that he couldn’t recall any Taliban indirect fire attacks directed against on U.S. bases in 2021, but said maybe there had been “misfires” by the Taliban.

Milley and McKenzie bend the meaning of “attacks”

Milley was asked during an appearance before HFAC in March 2024 whether the Taliban stopped attacking the U.S. military in 2021, and the language of the military commander shifted from claiming that the Taliban had not attacked U.S. forces to suddenly arguing that the Taliban had not carried out any “lethal attacks” on U.S. troops in 2021.

“They, well, yes. Lethal attacks. They committed to not doing that. There were some attacks, but they committed to not conducting lethal attacks and by my memory I don’t think there was a lethal attack on U.S. forces from February 2020 onward,” Milley said during the HFAC hearing.

Redefining the word “attacks”, Milley added that “There were some attacks. The issue was a lethal attack — really that’s the fundamental piece. And there was also some specifics about no VBIEDs [vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices] in the cities. … I think it says no attacks on U.S. and coalition forces. I can tell you in conversation with Zal Khalilzad what you’re talking about is lethal attacks really […] But the idea of not attacking coalition or U.S. forces, I would say largely that was adhered to by the Taliban.”

During his 2024 book tour, McKenzie then claimed again — despite the evidence — that the Taliban never attacked U.S. forces in 2020 and 2021: “The Taliban had about seven things that they were supposed to do. They didn’t do six of them, but one they did very well and scrupulously, in fact — they did not attack American forces in Afghanistan anymore.”

Zalmay Khalilzad, the former special representative for Afghan reconciliation, later told HFAC that the Taliban never admitted to carrying out any of these attacks, but characterized the Taliban’s words thusly: “Because you are violating the agreement, killing so many of us, sometimes local commanders, out of anger, may have done something, but it’s not something authorized by the military committee or by Commander Yaqoob or the political leadership. And so, if there is something that’s happened, we will investigate and get back to you, but it’s not authorized. But I am telling you that your violations … is creating a situation which has a lot of anger. We are losing a lot of people.”

Biden admin praises Taliban’s “businesslike” approach

McKenzie described the U.S. evacuation effort at the end of August 2021, saying: “We had gone from cooperating on security with a longtime partner and ally to initiating a pragmatic relationship of necessity with a longtime enemy. … The Taliban had been very — very pragmatic and very businesslike as we have approached this withdrawal.” He added: “I will simply say that they wanted us out. We wanted to get out with our people and with our — and with our friends and partners. And so for that short period of time, our issues — our view of the world was congruent, it was the same.”

Just the News previously reported on how McKenzie turned down a Taliban offer in Doha in mid-August 2021 which potentially would have allowed the U.S. military to secure Kabul and conduct the NEO free from Taliban interference.

Biden national security adviser Jake Sullivan soon echoed McKenzie’s “businesslike” remarks and said that the Taliban have “been businesslike in their approach with us, not because they’re nice guys — they’re not — but because they’ve had an interest along with us to make that evacuation mission run smoothly.”

McKenzie again testified in late September 2021 that “it was a very pragmatic, businesslike discussion” with the Taliban when coordinating security at HKIA with them.

National Security Council spokeswoman Emily Horne said in early September 2021 that the Taliban “have been cooperative in facilitating the departure of American citizens and lawful permanent residents” from Kabul airport and “have shown flexibility” and “been businesslike and professional in our dealings with them in this effort.”

The Biden Administration repeatedly painted a rosy picture of the Taliban’s actions toward American citizens during the evacuation.

Austin claimed on August 18, 2021, that “the State Department, the Taliban are facilitating safe passage to the airport for American citizens, that is, U.S. passport holders.”

Biden repeated that notion in a White House press conference about how the Taliban was handling airport security, claiming that no Americans had been blocked from HKIA by the Taliban guards. “Let me be clear: any American who wants to come home, we will get you home,” Biden said on August 20, 2021, and he soon falsely insisted: “We have no indication that they haven’t been able to get — in Kabul — through the airport. We’ve made an agreement with the — with the Taliban. Thus far, they’ve allowed them to go through. It’s in their interest for them to go through. So, we know of no circumstance where American citizens are — carrying an American passport — are trying to get through to the airport.”

Facts come out, Biden’s admin goes into damage control mode

In reality, Americans had variously been beaten, threatened, beaten, blocked, and had their passports confiscated by the Taliban.

The New York Post and other media reported that “Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told members of Congress on a conference call Friday that Americans attempting to evacuate Afghanistan have been beaten by the Taliban, directly contradicting President Biden’s assertion that U.S. citizens were not being blocked from the airport.”

“We’re also aware that some people, including Americans, have been harassed and even beaten by the Taliban,” Austin reportedly said on the call. “This is unacceptable and [we] made it clear to the designated Taliban leader.” But Austin tried to downplay the Taliban violence, insisting that “with the exception of those cases … we continue to see Americans and appropriately credentialed Afghans continue to move through.”

Kirby, the Pentagon’s press secretary, also admitted that day that Biden had been wrong, and admitted that Afghan allies with proper paperwork had also been beaten up by the Taliban, but he worked to downplay that too, also saying he didn’t see it as a major issue.

“We have made it clear to the Taliban that these Afghans, with the proper credentials should be allowed through the checkpoint. And again… certainly we recognize that there have been multiple cases of Afghans — even some credentialed Afghans being assaulted, and beaten, and harassed, no question,” Kirby said. “But, by and large, those Afghans who have the proper credentials — and we have made it clear to the Taliban what those credentials look like, what they are. By and large, they are getting through the checkpoint. And we have not seen that become a major issue.”

Nevertheless, Biden told reporters that day that “thus far, the Taliban have been taking steps to work with us so we can get our people out.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on August 25, 2021 that he hoped the Taliban “continue to cooperate” — even as he knew that the Taliban’s cooperation was problematic.

Ambassador John Bass, the lead State Department official for the evacuation, would later tell HFAC that “what I can recall are reports of Americans being beaten because the Talibs at a particular checkpoint would not recognize their documents, told them to go away,” and that “Americans who were beaten when they presented themselves with other members of their family at a Taliban checkpoint and the Talibs said, ‘Okay, you can go ahead, but everybody else has to move away,’ and in the course of either an argument or an effort to prevent that physical separation of a family unit, American citizens or family members were beaten.”

Ross Wilson, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, also told HFAC that the Taliban would turn away Americans seeking to evacuate from Afghanistan: “The Talibs were very difficult to deal with. … It often happened that — not ‘often’ — it happened that the Talibs turned away American passport holders.”

U.S. troops watched helplessly as the Taliban killed Afghan civilians

The Taliban carried out many acts of violence against Afghan allies attempting to flee Afghanistan, even murdering many of these Afghans, often within view of the Marines guarding the gates. The U.S. military’s rules of engagement (ROE) at HKIA forbid the Marines from intervening and stopping the Taliban’s murderous acts targeting civilians.

Lieutenant Colonel John Naughton said during the 2022 CENTCOM briefing that Marines reported seeing the Taliban turn away potential evacuees, beat up potential evacuees, and even shoot at potential evacuees, and “so as the chevron became largely impassible and potential evacuees became more and more desperate they began to seek out and utilize alternate ingress routes to bypass Taliban checkpoints.” Thus did the Taliban violence reduce security around the airport and make the crowds even more uncontrollable, increasing the ability of a suicide bomber to make his way to the gates.

The initial Abbey Gate investigation found that “the Taliban used excessive force which resulted in civilian evacuees seeking alternate routes to Abbey Gate to avoid Taliban checkpoints” and that “the change in routes dramatically increased the number of evacuees in the canal area at Abbey Gate between 25-26 August 2021.”

ARCENT investigators contended that the rules of engagement originally “authorized offensive engagement of the Taliban as a declared hostile force” but that “the Taliban became a temporary and tactically expedient partner force, armed, and near Service members at Abbey Gate.” ARCENT said that “this temporary and expedient partner used excessive force against the civilian population which was observed by certain service members attempting to conduct a NEO.”

Despite the Taliban murdering civilians within view of U.S. troops, ARCENT said that U.S. military commanders “constrained Service members’ authority under the ROE to stop the violence due to a justifiable concern of jeopardizing the mission and potentially incurring additional civilian casualties in what would escalate to open combat at the gate.”

ARCENT said that “under the ROE, service members understood they had the right to defend others only if they were verified AMCITS [American citizens] or coalition military forces.”

The ARCENT investigation also said that “Marines knew about the Taliban using excessive force” and that “several Marines, working near the chevron, stated they personally witnessed the Taliban shoot civilians.” The investigative report said U.S. military snipers “specifically described a vantage point from the west side of the sniper tower, looking down the outer corridor toward the chevron, where they could view an area controlled by the Taliban” and that the snipers said “it was at that location where they observed these shootings occur.” The report also said the command center at HKIA “received reports describing violence and excessive force that resulted in the death of civilians.”

ARCENT claimed that “any escalation by U.S. forces to intervene in Taliban use of excessive force would have created an unnecessary and definite risk to mission and risk to U.S. forces.” The U.S. military leaders at Abbey Gate “were aware that violence occurred,” ARCENT said, but these leaders “explained that “if U.S. forces engaged the Taliban, leaders assessed the situation would devolve into a firefight between U.S. forces and the Taliban. This almost certainly would have caused military and civilian casualties and jeopardized the mission to maximize the number of evacuees.”

Scott Mann’s book Pineapple Express recounted just one of the many instances of the Taliban murdering Afghan civilians at HKIA and U.S. forces being told not to intervene: “Major Ian Wookey … swallowed hard as he listened to a pilot who had just seen a civilian execution along the airport’s southwest perimeter wall. ‘Enemy is in the clear,’ the pilot said, almost by rote. ‘Permission to engage.’ The answer came back quickly. ‘Negative. Repeat, negative. Do not engage.’ Apaches were some of the most advanced weapons belonging to the most powerful military in the world, and now they could not fire on insurgents who were killing innocent people.”

One of the Marines who worked in the Joint Operations Center at Kabul airport admitted that “we were not tasked to look for Taliban shooting people, and because of the limited ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] assets, we did not really monitor the Taliban trying to kill people.”

Another Marine told investigators: “It was weird seeing Taliban in direct support of the battalion. We were basically told that if they shot at the crowd, we couldn’t do anything unless we saw an American passport holder in direct peril. We couldn’t engage or kill the Taliban unless we saw that. There was lots of weapons pointing for the duration, but we couldn’t engage, even if we saw executions, unless we saw a blue passport.”

Yet another Marine also said that “I saw humanity at its worst at HKIA. Coming out of Mosul, two clans were killing each other and that was pretty heinous, but this was way worse.” Another corpsman said that “it was hard to watch, like the Taliban beating a pregnant woman. But you just have to turn around and walk away.”

Sergeant Tyler Vargas-Andrews said that “we witnessed the Taliban beating and killing people — not just hitting them, breaking their faces, and bashing their skulls in.” The Marine sniper continued: “I saw them shoot at/around people. I saw them severely beat people, to unconsciousness or what I believed was death. I saw that and passed it up. We obviously have been going back and forth with the Taliban for decades, they are good at working around our RoEs. They would hit civilians with buttstocks and pipes until they fell and didn’t get up. That prompted me at one point, since I was routinely radioing this up to the chain of command, to ask if we were allowed to do anything about it. I was told that only if we saw Americans or ourselves being physically harmed, we were not allowed to do anything.” Vargas-Andrews said one night was particularly bad as he watched eight or nine civilians “beaten to the point of immobilization.” He said when he radioed that in “I was told to clear the net of radio traffic.”

Vargas-Andrews also described a recon patrol he and his fellow Marines conducted by climbing across rooftops to observe the Taliban position at the chevron. The Marine sniper said: “We got photos of the Taliban, the gear they were holding, and what they did to the civilians. … Up against the wall, they had 12-15 individuals flex cuffed against the wall. We saw the Taliban moving unconscious or lifeless bodies around. … I was trying to get pictures to either let us engage or get the task force commander to talk to the Taliban about what they were doing. The amount of brutality we saw over less than a two-week period, it was unsettling to see people get beaten senseless for no reason.”

State Department official Jayne Howell told HFAC that “the Taliban periodically would start, either at the very minimum, beating people with sticks, and in the worst cases, they were using live bullets and shooting at people in the crowd if they felt that the crowd was out of control.” She said she observed the Taliban violence with her own eyes, “It was terrible. It was chaotic. It was heartbreaking.” Howell also said that consular officers under her watch reported to her that they saw people being shot by the Taliban.

Despite all of this, HFAC’s report last year never mentioned how McKenzie and others claimed the Taliban had been “businesslike” during the chaotic — and sometimes murderous — evacuation.

  • Reporter’s disclosure

A quick word about this author (a disclosure I shared in my prior pieces on Milley and McKenzie). I co-authored a book — KABUL — on the withdrawal and evacuation from Afghanistan and, prior to joining Just the News, I worked as the senior investigator on the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC), specifically tasked with reviewing the bungled Afghan withdrawal.

I quit the committee in protest last August over disagreements with then-GOP Chairman Michael McCaul over how his investigation was run and over what was edited out of the drafts I wrote before HFAC’s final report was published last September.

In full disclosure, I have also been serving as an independent factfinder in Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s ongoing review of the Pentagon’s failings during the Afghan withdrawal, but I am participating in that exercise solely as a journalist. I’m not paid by any government agency and my participation is solely to help provide Just the News readers and the American public a better understanding of what led to such a disaster.

Related Articles

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on August 30, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

BRITAIN’S CANAL BOATS ARE A GREAT LIFESTYLE!!!!

Britain’s canal boat nomads fear new rules will sink their way of life

Narrowboats can moor for free on England’s increasingly crowded rivers and canals, at times alongside some of London’s most exorbitantly expensive real estate.

ON THE RIVER STORT, England — It takes only minutes for Jenny Poulton to get her house underway.

On an August afternoon, she pulled up steel stakes, locked the cats inside and was off, moving her colorful 60-foot canalboat from one spot on this suburban London waterway to another, as the law declares she must do at least every two weeks.

“This will do nicely,” Poulton said two hours and three hand-operated locks later, cutting the engine at a weedy stretch of bank. It was within bicycle range of groceries, pubs, the Harlow train station and a 40-minute commute to her part-time teaching job in the city — and home for the next fortnight.

This is Poulton’s rhythm as a “continuous cruiser,” a booming population of nomadic boaters who live on Britain’s canals and navigable rivers without paying for a permanent mooring spot, sometimes in central London, flanked by some of Britain’s most exorbitantly expensive real estate.

They’ve been a waterway fixture for decades, a perpetual-motion village of eccentric boaters, drawn by the lifestyle or driven to it by Britain’s soaring housing costs.

But now, Poulton and others say their life afloat is under threat.

Jenny Poulton, 33, makes a raised garden bed on the top of her boat in Roydon. (Photos by José Sarmento Matos/For The Washington Post)
Poulton prepares tea with water she filtered from the canal.
Poulton steers her boat from Roydon to Harlow, in Essex.

In November, the Canal and River Trust (CRT), the nonprofit organization charged with managing 2,000 miles of historic canals and rivers in England and Wales, will announce an overhaul of regulations and licensing fees that itinerant boaters fear could force them off the water.

Tensions have been rising between the managers of Britain’s canals, others who use them, and the nomadic narrowboaters, revered by some as bohemian travelers and disdained by others as maritime squatters.

“I think there’s this feeling that we’re getting away with something, that we’ve found a loophole to live cheap,” said Poulton, who spends about half of her time in the posh waterways of central London. “Yes, some people are out here because they can’t afford anything else, but many of us are out here because we love it.”

Among the changes believed to be under consideration: higher license fees, permit systems to limit the number of continuous cruisers in some areas and rules that would require them to travel more miles each year, potentially splitting them from shoreside jobs and schools where children are enrolled.

CRT said it was too early to speculate on specific recommendations that will emerge from the independent commission that is reviewing the rules. But an update of regulations and enforcement powers is desperately needed, the agency said, to meet rising demand for space throughout the 200-year-old canal network, particularly in and around London.

Poulton stops at a canal lock to continue steering her boat on the way to Harlow.

There are more than 8,500 nomads on the water, making up a quarter of all boats. In London, itinerant boats now outnumber by 2 to 1 those who pay thousands of pounds a year for fixed mooring spots.

The total number of licensed boats — including commercial vessels, residential boats with permanent private moorings and continuous cruisers — climbed 15 percent in the past decade, and the number of continuous cruisers more than doubled, according to CRT figures.

“When you have a finite amount of canal space you can have contentions among the users,” said Matthew Symonds, the head of CRT boating programs. “The growth has been significant in some areas.”

Other recreational boaters, those who keep their boats in marinas or private moorings but cruise the network, say nomads hog limited mooring spaces and that some flout the rule to move every fortnight. Waterfront landowners and developers bemoan dilapidated boats and, at times, unfriendly boaters.

“We’ve had more problems with it since covid and the cost-of-living crisis,” said Ian Burrows, a local government official who oversaw the recent removal of dozens of boats that had colonized a stretch of the Thames in front of Hampton Court Palace.

Andrew Hamilton, a former lockkeeper on the Thames, said asking liveaboards to move along was a constant chore.

“Some people would just stay,” Hamilton said. “The moorings would be blocked by people, some of whom were destitute and some of whom were simply bloody-minded.”

Boats line Regent’s Canal in front of Broadway Market in the Hackney district of London.

Continuous cruisers say the overcrowding complaints are overblown, and that boaters should expect London’s waterways to be as crowded as its streets are for cars, and subways are for passengers.

The cruisers have their own complaints about CRT’s management of the waterways, including a lack of affordable mooring space, inadequate or inoperable sewage pump-out stations, and riverbanks in need of dredging.

Nomads see themselves as a valid constituency, albeit one without fixed addresses. In being targeted, many say, snobbery is afoot. Or afloat.

“There’s always a bit of a conflict between scruffy boats and shiny boats,” Alain Gough-Olaya, 39, a psychiatric nurse, said aboard his not-so-shiny narrowboat on the edge of London’s Islington neighborhood, a cat winding between his legs in a cabin lined with books and cooking pots. “It often seems the CRT is saying you can’t be on the water so much because you’re the wrong sort of person.”

CRT is not trying to rid the canals of nomadic boaters, Symonds said. He agrees with those who credit a resurgence of liveaboards in the 1960s with bringing life back to canals that had become bleakly moribund after cargo transport disappeared earlier in the century.

“We love having boats of all sorts on the canals,” he said. “We just have to manage the network fairly for everyone.”

Alain Gough-Olaya, 39, stands in the boat where he has lived for nine years, while it is moored along Regent’s Canal close to Haggerston.
A map shows the canal and river network in England and Wales managed by the Canal and River Trust.
Boats are moored along Regent’s Canal by Victoria Park in the Tower Hamlets district of London.

Only a minority of itinerant boaters violate the rules, Symonds acknowledged, but all add demand on the locks, pump-out stations and other canal infrastructure. Last year, CRT began imposing a 10 percent surcharge on cruisers over the yearly license fee all boaters pay. It will rise to 25 percent by 2028.

“It’s just a matter of how much you’re on the water,” Symonds said. “Continuous cruisers are always on the water.”

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on August 30, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

THE MOST BEAUTIFUL POST OFFICES ACROSS THE WORLD: ARCHITECTURAL DIGEST

The 11 Most Beautiful Post Offices Around the World

From Algeria to Arizona, at these unique buildings you can drop off packages in architectural wonders

An interior view of the Postal Palace  a turn of the century post office in Mexico City Mexico. Photographed on 27Jan2018
A post office in Mexico City.

The beauty of the post office is often in its function: It allows people to stay connected, no matter where they are around the world. Even so, post office design is not often given the same consideration as other public works, like palaces or parliament buildings. Anyone who’s shipped a package or letter knows that, in many cases, a mailing station is little more than a place to drop off letters and boxes with a few employees behind a desk. But that doesn’t mean beautiful post offices don’t exist. In Mexico City, for example, a central post office looks more like the home of royalty than a mailing center; in Germany, a post office actually is a palace—or at least is housed in a building where one used to be. Curious what other cities around the world are sorting mail in stunning settings? Below, AD surveys the 11 most beautiful post offices around the world.

  • Grand Post Office of Algiers

    • Algeria

      Designed by architects Jules Voinot and Marius Toudoire, the Algiers Central Post Office was constructed in 1910. A notable example of Moorish architecture, the building was converted into a museum about the history of the post and telecommunications in Algeria by the local government in 2015.

      Saigon Central Post Office in Ho Chi Minh City.

      • Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

        The yellow façade and green shutters of the Saigon Central Post Office in Ho Chi Minh City have turned the building into not only just a post office, but a popular tourist attraction. The structure was designed by Alfred Foulhoux in the late 1880s when Vietnam was part of French Indochina and hence features many elements of renaissance, gothic, and other French architectural styles.

  • An interior view of the Postal Palace  a turn of the century post office in Mexico City Mexico. Photographed on 27Jan2018

    • Mexico City, Mexico

      Appearing more like a royal palace than a post office, the Palacio de Correos de México is located in the historic center of Mexico City. The 1907 building is designed in an eclectic style that mixes Spanish rococo, Art Nouveau, plateresque, and Gothic Revival elements. Inside, intricate gilding and moulding offers a sophisticated touch for locals and visitors when dropping off packages.

      The Hollywood Station of the United States Post Office an example of Art Deco architecture

      • Los Angeles, California

        In 1937, the Works Progress Administration, a New Deal agency that employed Americans for public works projects, commissioned Claud Beelman to design a post office in Los Angeles. The result: a streamlined Art Deco masterpiece located along two of the city’s most iconic boulevards, Sunset and Hollywood. The building remains largely unchanged from when it was first designed, and is now on the National Register of Historic Places.

  • Called Palacio de Comunicaciones—which translates to “palace of communications”—this plateresque building certainly...

    • Madrid, Spain

      Called Palacio de Comunicaciones—which translates to “palace of communications”—this plateresque building certainly sorted and delivered mail within a grand structure. The building used to be the city’s main post office, though it now serves as a cultural center and a city hall.

  • United States Post Office Columbus Indiana

    • Columbus, Indiana

      Located in Columbus, Indiana, this post office designed by Kevin Roche was the first in the country where the architect’s fees were privately funded. Part of a long-standing project spearheaded by Cummins Engine Company, the structure is one of many modernist building designed by famous architects in the city. As Nancy Kriplen explains in her book J. Irwin Miller: The Shaping of an American Town, it took a congressional member from Indiana lobbying the then post master general to allow the small Hoosier town to break traditions and permit a private company to fund a public building.

  • The James A. Farley Post Office Building located on 8th Avenue between 33rd and 31st streets in Manhattan

    • New York City, New York

      “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds,” reads the inscription on the James A. Farely Post Office in New York City. The quote, which comes from Herodotus’ Histories, is frequently mistaken as an official motto of the US Postal Service. While not technically government sanctioned, its impact has made the sentence an unofficial creed.

  • The facade of the main post office of Ragusa Palazzo delle

    • Ragusa, Italy

      Located in Ragusa, Sicily, the imposing, symmetrical façade of this post office is a prime example of imperial architecture. Francesco Fichera designed the building, while Corrado Vigni was responsible for the nine sculptures that top it. The structure is now designated as a Sicilian cultural heritage site.

  • Yellow post office with statue of Ludwig van Beethoven in front

    • Bonn, Germany

      Located on the Münsterplatz, a plaza in Bonn, this yellow post office is full of charm. Known as the Main Post Office, it was the primary post office for the city from 1877 to 2008; prior to then it was used as a city palace for Franz Egon von Fürstenberg-Stammheim. In fact, some still call the building Fürstenberg Palace. Just in front of the structure is a statue of one of Bonn’s most famous residents: Ludwig van Beethoven.

  • Early morning view of General Post Office Kolkata

    • Kolkata, India

      As the central post office for Kolkata and the chief post office for West Bengal, the the Kolkata General Post Office is responsible for most of the mail coming in and out of the city. The neoclassical building dates back to 1864 and was designed by Walter B. Grenville, who worked as a consulting architect for India’s government.

  • Post office at Winslow Navajo County Arizona USA

    • Winslow, Arizona

      Louis A. Simon, the architect for this adobe-inspired post office, dedicated most of his career to public works. Working at the Office of the Supervising Architect for for the US Treasury, he worked on multiple notable buildings throughout the country, including the IRS building and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on August 29, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

WHY DOES JENSEN HUANG OF NVIDIA AND MARY BARRA OF GM DRESS ALIKE?

I have noticed the strange similarity of the outfits they both favor….or seem to ALWAYS wear.

Are they into leather, or are they just not wanting t take the time to pick out their clothes in the morning?

Leather is hot, makes a person sweat…they are in those bright lights on stage…do they smell funny at the end of the day…just curious, why pick the identical outfits?

With their astronomical salaries, can they get a more varied wardrobe?

Just asking…

 

 

 

This entry was posted in Jensen Huang and Mary Barra on August 29, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

ELON MUSK’S BORING COMPANY WANTS TO SAVE HOUSTON FROM FLOODING AGAIN

Elon Musk is trying to build $760M tunnels under Houston. A Texas congressman is quietly helping him

For years, experts in Houston have been studying the idea of building massive tunnels under the area to divert floodwaters and save lives and property. Now, Elon Musk wants a piece of the project.

Elon Musk wants his firm, The Boring Company, to build $760M worth of tunnels under Houston.
Elon Musk wants his firm, The Boring Company, to build $760M worth of tunnels under Houston. (Ken Ellis/Houston Chronicle)

The devastating flooding in Houston caused by Hurricane Harvey in 2017 killed dozens of people, inundated hundreds of thousands of homes and left the community desperate for a solution.

Since then, local flood experts have extensively studied the possibility of a multibillion-dollar tunnel system across Harris County, where Houston is located. Studies have focused on the construction of pipelines, 30 to 40 feet in diameter, that could ferry massive amounts of water out to the Gulf in the event of a storm.

Now, after years of research and discussion, Elon Musk wants a piece of the project.

An investigation by The Texas Newsroom and the Houston Chronicle has found that the billionaire, in partnership with Houston-area Rep. Wesley Hunt, has spent months aggressively pushing state and local officials to hire Musk’s Boring Co. to build two narrower, 12-foot tunnels around one major watershed. That could be a potentially cheaper, but, at least one expert said, less effective solution to the region’s historic flooding woes.

Hunt’s team has said the Boring project would cost $760 million and involve the company getting 15% of the cost up front from state and local coffers.

Within two months of this push, the Harris County Commissioners Court unanimously voted to study a pilot program that included a look at smaller tunnels, with specifications similar to what Boring had pitched. The commissioners court, made up of five elected members including a county judge, oversees the county’s budget.

Both Musk and Hunt stand to benefit should Boring be selected to build any part of the project. Hunt is reportedly considering a challenge to U.S. Sen. John Cornyn in next year’s Republican Senate primary. And landing a job like this would also be a significant win for Boring, which has not completed a major public project in Texas and faces criticisms for its ventures elsewhere.

The discussions about the Boring pitch have happened mostly out of the public eye. Hunt mentioned the project in passing at a town hall in Houston in February. Since then, he has refused to answer the newsrooms’ questions about when Musk sold him on the idea and why he became its pitchman.

Efforts to reach Musk and representatives with Boring were not returned.

Experts and some local officials question whether Musk and his company are the right pick for the job. The Boring Co. has focused on transportation tunnels, not flood mitigation.

“If you build a smaller tunnel, OK, it’ll be cheaper, but it can carry less water,” said Larry Dunbar, a veteran water resources engineer who has advised Houston-area governmental agencies on drainage issues. “So what have you saved? Have you reduced the flooding upstream by an inch? And are you going to spend multimillions of dollars to do that? Well, maybe that’s not worth it.”

In response to the newsrooms’ questions, state and local officials said no public money has been allocated to Boring. County officials added that they have not chosen a tunnel contractor and any process to do so would follow normal procurement rules.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, whose staff met with Hunt’s team during the legislative session to discuss the proposal, remains open to the idea. As president of the Texas Senate with close ties to President Donald Trump, he is a powerful ally.

“If Elon Musk and the Boring Company, or any other company, can build two massive tunnels under the Houston bayous in a few years to save the city from flooding, I am always going to be interested to listen,” Patrick, a Republican, told the newsrooms. “The truth is, Elon Musk is one of the only people in the world who could accomplish this.”

Then-candidate Wesley Hunt, now a Republican representative, speaks with volunteers before they campaign on his behalf in 2020.
Then-candidate Wesley Hunt, now a Republican representative, speaks with volunteers before they campaign on his behalf in 2020. (Mark Mulligan/Houston Chronicle | Houston Chronicle)

The pitch process begins

In 2022, the Harris County Flood Control District released findings from its yearslong tunnel study, which has so far cost nearly $3 million in local and federal funds.

The idea was to build eight tunnels, totalling around 130 miles in length, according to the report. The tunnels would be huge, wide enough for a container ship, and buried 40 to 140 feet underground, depending on the location. Austin and San Antonio have similar systems, although on a smaller scale.

The Buffalo Bayou segment of the Houston project — which Boring has proposed to build — is a centerpiece of the design and would run through the city’s core and some of its most developed neighborhoods. The county estimated it would cost $4.6 billion.

The total cost for the system was projected to be $30 billion, funded by a potential mix of federal, state and local dollars, and the timeline was 10 to 15 years to complete construction.

Given the scope and complexity of the project, the Army Corps of Engineers has been involved in discussions about the tunnels since the beginning. The corps also has jurisdiction over the two federal reservoirs in the area.

Eight years after Harvey, however, the tunnel project has not broken ground.

Hunt has accused the Army Corps of “dragging their feet a little bit” because its study of the tunnel system has been delayed. In December, Congress ordered the Corps to finish the analysis. Hunt hailed the decision, but to date the Army Corps has not completed the study.

Just two months later, however, his staffers and Musk’s team started shopping Boring’s proposal to politicians across the state.

Emails, text messages and policy memos the newsrooms obtained through public records requests show Hunt’s chief of staff, James Kyrkanides, repeatedly attempted to obtain public money on behalf of Boring. The documents, which have not been released previously to the public, also lay out how Hunt worked to secure Musk access to lawmakers and other officials ahead of the formal bidding process.

Kyrkanides declined to comment for this story.

In February, Boring pitched its proposal to elected officials in Harris County as an “innovative and cost-effective solution.”

“We are confident in our ability to execute this project successfully to bring peace of mind to residents of Harris County and the greater Houston area during future flood events,” Jim Fitzgerald, Boring’s global head of business development, wrote in a two-page memo about the proposal addressed to Kyrkanides and shared with local officials.

That same month, Hunt spoke at a town hall meeting about his involvement.

“I talked to him” — Musk — “about Hurricane Harvey and how we need tunnels,” Hunt said, according to Community Impact. “He told me, ‘I can do that at a fraction of the cost the Army Corps of Engineers would do it.’”

A few days later, the head of a local nonprofit wrote to a county commissioner saying she’d heard Hunt and Musk were shopping the proposal around and that the idea may have been discussed on board the president’s jet.

“I hear that Congressman Hunt talked to Elon Musk about his boring company while on a trip on Airforce 1,” Colleen Gilbert, executive director of the Greens Bayou Coalition, emailed.

It’s unclear if Trump was on board or took part in the discussions. The president’s spokespeople didn’t answer questions about the apparent meeting.

In April, Kyrkanides made a detailed pitch in an email to Patrick’s staff. He passed along Boring’s proposal and suggested that $60 million be set aside in the state budget “that will be matched with another $60 million” from the Harris County Flood Control District as a “down payment for the $760 million project Elon pitched Wesley.”

“I believe the Lt. Gov. spoke with Elon and the Boring Company this week,” Kyrkanides emailed in May, a month before the regular legislative session wrapped up. “Wesley also spoke with Elon, and everything seems on track!”

Kyrkanides followed up once more mid-month: “Anything you need from us?”

Pushing for smaller tunnels
As they pushed the idea to state lawmakers, Hunt’s team repeatedly lobbied Harris County officials, reaching out to at least two commissioners, the county’s legislative liaison and flood control experts.

Early on, Houston officials had concerns about what Boring proposed.

The two-page letter from Boring said its tunnels would be “no shallower than 15 feet to 30 feet below ground surface,” while the county’s previous research proposed a much deeper range for the Buffalo Bayou segment.

An engineering expert in County Commissioner Tom Ramsey’s office warned that Boring’s shallower plan could interfere with bridge foundations, utility lines and existing easements.

“It discusses that the tunnel would be much shallower then anticipated,” Eric Heppen, Ramsey’s director of engineering, wrote in an email to other staffers in his office on Feb. 17. “I would quickly confirm if it can be deeper or if that becomes a load challenge for the system.”

Boring said in its pitch that the tunnel depth is “flexible,” but the company did not respond to the newsrooms’ question about whether it can build to the standards outlined in the county’s study.

Volume was another concern. A single 40-foot-wide tunnel can move about 12,000 cubic feet of water every second, county studies show. Two 12-foot-wide tunnels, laid side by side, as Boring proposed, might struggle to keep pace in a flood emergency, according to Dunbar, the veteran water resources engineer.

“One would need eleven 12-foot diameter tunnels to provide the same flow capacity as one 40-foot diameter tunnel,” he told the newsrooms. “Providing only two 12-foot diameter tunnels does not provide the flow capacity that Harris County or the Corps of Engineers are seeking.”

This diagram compares the proposed 'Boring Co. Plan,' which would feature construction of two tunnels that are 12 feet wide and 30 feet deep, to tunnels the Harris County Flood District has studied that are 40 feet in diameter and 140 feet deep.
This diagram compares the proposed “Boring Co. Plan,” which would feature construction of two tunnels that are 12 feet wide and 30 feet deep, to tunnels the Harris County Flood District has studied that are 40 feet in diameter and 140 feet deep. (Ken Ellis, Houston Chronicle)

The county continued to engage with the company despite these concerns.

In March, Scott Elmer, who’s overseen the tunnel study for the past few years at the county’s flood control district, reached out to Boring executives to set up a meeting. In the following weeks, he and other flood control officials met with Boring engineers at least twice to discuss the specifics of Boring’s capabilities.

During one of the meetings, flood control officials pressed Boring representatives on whether the company could build tunnels that are at least 20 feet wide, according to an agenda shared with attendees via email.

The company was reportedly studying how to make tunnels as wide as 21 feet several years ago. But it’s unclear if Boring ever developed that capability or what it told county officials about its potential to make bigger tunnels. On its website, Boring notes it “maintains the same tunnel design for all projects to avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’ for every tunnel.”

An April 10 commissioners court meeting in Houston was a turning point.

That appears to be the first time county officials brought up in public the fact that Hunt had been pitching them on a smaller-scale version of the flood plan they’d studied for years. They referred to this idea as a pilot program that would focus on just a few sections of a larger, countywide tunnel system.

Ramsey, the panel’s only Republican, specifically mentioned the pilot program tunnels could be narrower in diameter, as small as 12 feet, and shallower — specifications that would fit the kind of tunnel Boring has typically built.

Commissioner Lesley Briones, a Democrat, said a pilot project may help kick-start a huge, expensive project that the county has struggled to get off the ground.

No one mentioned Boring or Musk explicitly until Commissioner Rodney Ellis, a Democrat, said he’d gotten wind that the tech billionaire might be involved.

“I’ve heard all of the stories about Elon Musk having a tunneling company,” Ellis said. “I’ve got pretty good ears. I’ve got good Republican friends, too, now.”

He questioned the pitch, saying he was worried it would take the county off track.

However, Ellis and all of the commissioners unanimously voted to produce a white paper studying the idea of a scaled-down pilot project. They also voted to ask the state for flood mitigation funds. The vote didn’t require the county to commit to a specific project.

Later that month, records show the county’s legislative liaison reached out to staff for state Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican who chairs the Senate Committee on Finance, to indicate the county’s support for a $60 million budget rider for “underground flood risk reduction systems in Harris County.”

A two-page memo explaining the pilot project included with the request did not mention Musk or Boring and still referenced the larger 30- to 40-foot tunnels.

Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, points to a Texas- and Tesla-themed belt buckle as he answers a question about operating his business in Texas.
Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, points to a Texas- and Tesla-themed belt buckle as he answers a question about operating his business in Texas. (Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle | Houston Chronicle)

What’s in it for Musk’s allies

Hunt has been a leading voice on the need for flood mitigation during his short time in Congress.

Last year, he partnered with Democratic U.S. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher to order the Army Corps of Engineers to move forward with the underground tunnel study. The effort was applauded as a bipartisan victory.

But Fletcher, a Democrat, said she was not involved in Hunt’s work with Musk on the Boring proposal and has “not heard from anyone advocating for it.” She said she’s worked with Army Corps of Engineers and local communities “on a transparent, informed, community-driven effort to address water conveyance and flood control in our region.”

A West Point graduate and former Army captain, Hunt has shaped a political brand that appeals to both GOP insiders and MAGA-leaning voters. He was a regular at Trump campaign events in and outside Texas and secured a prime-time speaking slot at the 2024 Republican National Convention. He is the only Black Republican in the Texas congressional delegation.

But if Hunt enters the U.S. Senate race against Cornyn, he will likely need a high-profile political win to stand out, according to Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, as incumbent senators in Texas have won nearly every primary over the past few decades.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is also challenging Cornyn in the primary.

Given the volatile dynamic between Trump and Musk, aligning with the latter carries political risk but also the potential for major reward, Rottinghaus said.

“Hunt certainly is well-known enough as a member in his district, but the problem is that when you’re in Congress running for a statewide office, your base support can sometimes be very provincial,” Rottinghaus said. “To partner with Musk would provide for a kind of national profile that Hunt would need to be successful.”

Musk has tapped local politicians when pursuing similar big projects elsewhere.

In Tennessee, Republican leaders recently announced that Boring would build a transit tunnel for cars from downtown Nashville to the nearby airport. The city’s mayor and other Democratic leaders have raised questions about a lack of transparency, competitive bidding and environmental planning. At a public meeting in early August, a Boring official said the company would seek public input for the project but did not answer reporters’ questions about why they had not yet done so, according to the Nashville Banner.

In Las Vegas, where Boring built a transit tunnel system, the company was able to avoid many of the lengthy governmental reviews typical of these kinds of projects because it is privately operated and receives no federal funding, ProPublica previously reported.

In 2022, Bloomberg reported the company had pitched eight projects to Texas officials. Two were water drainage projects in Austin and Houston. Neither appears to have been built.

If Boring secures part of the Houston job, it would appear to be the company’s first public flood control project. The company lists only transportation-related projects on its website.

Texas law requires county governments to open large public projects to competitive bidding and give all potential contractors an equal shot under the same conditions.

While the law does not explicitly bar local officials from discussing projects with individual companies ahead of time, that kind of early outreach — though common in some places — hasn’t been expressly authorized by state courts or the attorney general, according to legal guidance from the Texas Municipal League, which provides legal guidance to local government officials.

Emily Woodell, the spokesperson for the Harris County Flood Control District, said the agency has not shared any sensitive information with Boring about the Houston project and only met with the company to understand its capabilities.

Ramsey, the county commissioner, told the newsrooms he believes there’s nothing wrong with officials entertaining private pitches before the formal bidding process begins.

“All companies that might have an interest in it, that might understand and offer us information, certainly we’d be open to listening,” Ramsey said.

What’s next

The future of the project, and Musk’s involvement, are still up in the air.

The state never granted Boring the $60 million it wanted for the project. Huffman, the senator overseeing the finance committee, confirmed the rider was never placed in the state budget and told the newsrooms she had nothing to do with the proposal.

“The only involvement my office had with this proposal was when Rep. Hunt’s chief of staff reached out to my scheduler to arrange a meeting between Rep. Hunt and me, but it never took place,” she said in a statement.

County officials also told the newsrooms that they haven’t provided any public money to Musk.

However, in June, the Harris County Flood Control District produced the pilot project report that commissioners voted for in the spring, looking at a scaled-back version of the original tunnel design. This white paper proposed focusing on only a few segments of the countywide tunnel system and considered tunnels as small as 10 feet in diameter as a real option — well within Boring’s ability to construct.

The white paper also floated the idea of a public-private partnership allowing a private firm to design, build and even run the system afterward, just as Boring has done elsewhere.

It does not appear that this report has been released to the public. The flood control district provided it to the newsrooms upon request.

Carlos Gomez, acting public affairs chief for the Army Corps of Engineers’ Galveston District, told the newsrooms he had not heard about the pilot project potentially involving The Boring Co. and could not say if his agency would be interested.

After the newsrooms presented them with the findings of this investigation, Briones and Ramsey emphasized they are not committed to one particular company and that all solutions would be subject to due diligence. Ellis told the newsrooms that Musk should not be involved, calling him “someone who has shown blatant disregard for democratic institutions and environmental protections.”

Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo and Commissioner Adrian Garcia, both Democrats, declined to comment.

Woodell, with the flood control district, said there have been no further discussions with Boring in months. She said the county has looked at smaller tunnels before but acknowledged that engineering analyses found large-diameter tunnels would be the most effective option for a countywide system. Woodell added the county might still consider smaller tunnels in “specific locations.”

“There will never be a single solution to flooding in Harris County,” she said.

If Harris County moves forward with a smaller-scale project like the one Hunt wants, which doesn’t rely on federal funding, the process to design and build it could still take up to a decade.

Jim Blackburn, co-director of Rice University’s Severe Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disasters Center, said Musk’s slimmer tunnels might still prove useful. But he warned against handing a project of this magnitude to a private company without proper vetting.

“The scale of the problem we have really demands, I think, all of us to be open-minded about ideas,” Blackburn told the newsrooms. “Invite them in. Just don’t give them the contract tomorrow.”

 

This entry was posted in Elon Musk-Houston Tunnel Project on August 29, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

COW MANURE KILLS REGULARLY ON DAIRY FARMS

Deadly Dairy Disaster: Six Workers Lose Lives to Toxic Gas from Cow Manure in Colorado Farm Incident

Deadly Dairy Disaster: Six Workers Lose Lives to Toxic Gas from Cow Manure in Colorado Farm Incident

Six Workers die in Colorado Dairy Farm Manure Gas Tragedy

Six people, including a teenager, died after being exposed to toxic gas at a dairy farm in Weld County, Colorado last week. The incident, which occurred at Prospect Dairy, involved a contractor who inadvertently released hydrogen sulfide while working in an underground manure pit. Five rescuers subsequently succumbed to the gas in attempts to save him.

According to industry sources, the gas, a byproduct of decomposing animal waste, triggered the fatal chain of events. Exposure to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can cause immediate loss of consciousness and death.

This tragedy underscores the extreme dangers present in modern agricultural work, particularly within the dairy industry. Dairy farms,frequently enough perceived as idyllic,are in reality sites of significant hazards,combining heavy machinery,large animals,and the constant threat of toxic manure gases.

the incident is under examination by authorities, raising serious questions about safety protocols and worker protection on large-scale farms. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the risks faced by agricultural workers and the critical need for enhanced safety measures.

What specific engineering controls, beyond ventilation, could be implemented in manure handling facilities to minimize worker exposure to hydrogen sulfide?

The Colorado Tragedy: A Deep Dive into Manure Gas Poisoning

On August 27, 2025, a devastating incident at a dairy farm in Colorado resulted in the tragic loss of six lives.Workers were overcome by toxic gases released from accumulated cow manure, highlighting the frequently enough-overlooked dangers present in agricultural settings. This event underscores the critical need for robust safety protocols and awareness regarding manure gas safety, hydrogen sulfide poisoning, and farm worker safety.

Understanding the Silent Killer: Manure Gases

Cow manure isn’t just waste; it’s a complex biological reactor. as it decomposes, it releases a variety of gases, some of which are incredibly dangerous, even lethal.The primary culprits include:

Hydrogen Sulfide (H₂S): This is the most critically important threat. It’s a colorless gas with a characteristic “rotten egg” smell, but it quickly paralyzes the olfactory nerve, meaning you can lose your sense of smell after brief exposure, creating a false sense of security. Even low concentrations can cause irritation, while higher levels can lead to rapid unconsciousness and death. Hydrogen sulfide exposure is a serious concern.

Methane (CH₄): A flammable gas, posing a fire and explosion risk. While not directly toxic at typical concentrations, it displaces oxygen, contributing to asphyxiation.

Ammonia (NH₃): Highly irritating to the respiratory system, causing burns and perhaps leading to pulmonary edema.

Carbon Dioxide (CO₂): Another asphyxiant,displacing oxygen and causing breathing difficulties.

The concentration of these gases fluctuates based on factors like:

Manure age and composition: fresh manure produces different gases than aged manure.

Temperature: Warmer temperatures accelerate decomposition and gas production.

Agitation: Mixing or stirring manure (e.g., during cleaning) dramatically increases gas release.

ventilation: Poorly ventilated spaces allow gases to accumulate.

The Colorado Incident: What Happened?

Details are still emerging, but preliminary reports indicate the incident occurred during routine manure handling operations. Investigators believe agitation of the manure in a confined space – likely a manure pit or lagoon – released a sudden surge of toxic gases, overwhelming the workers before they could react. the lack of adequate ventilation and potentially insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) are being investigated as contributing factors. Dairy farm accidents are sadly not uncommon, but fatalities of this scale are rare.

Preventing Manure Gas Poisoning: Safety Measures

Protecting farm workers from manure gas exposure requires a multi-faceted approach.Here’s a breakdown of essential safety measures:

  1. Ventilation is Key: Ensure adequate ventilation in all areas where manure is stored or handled. This includes natural ventilation and, when necessary, forced-air ventilation systems.
  2. Gas Monitoring: Implement a regular gas monitoring program using calibrated H₂S detectors. These devices provide real-time readings of gas concentrations, alerting workers to potential hazards. Portable detectors should be carried by workers entering confined spaces.
  3. Confined Space Entry Procedures: Strict confined space entry procedures must be followed. This includes:

Permit-required confined space entry.

Atmospheric testing before entry.

Continuous ventilation during occupancy.

A designated attendant outside the space.

Rescue plan and equipment readily available.

  1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Provide and require the use of appropriate PPE, including:

respirators: Specifically, supplied-air respirators (SARs) or self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBAs) are crucial in high-risk situations. Cartridge respirators are not sufficient for high H₂S concentrations.

Protective Clothing: To prevent skin contact with irritating gases.

Eye Protection: Goggles or face shields.

  1. Training: Comprehensive training for all farm workers on:

The hazards of manure gases.

Proper use of gas monitoring equipment.

Confined space entry procedures.

PPE selection, use, and maintenance.

Emergency response procedures.

  1. Buddy System: Never work alone when handling manure. Implement a buddy system to ensure someone is always available to assist in case of an emergency.

Real-World Examples & Past Incidents

Sadly, the Colorado tragedy isn’t isolated. Several similar incidents have occurred in the past:

2018, Wisconsin: A farm worker died after entering a manure storage tank to retrieve equipment.

2015, Iowa: Two workers were hospitalized after being overcome by fumes while cleaning a manure pit.

2011, minnesota: A farmer died from hydrogen sulfide exposure while working in a manure lagoon.

These cases highlight the consistent danger and the need for proactive safety measures. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) offers extensive resources on agricultural safety and manure management.

The Role of Technology in Enhancing Safety

Advancements in technology are offering new ways to mitigate the risks associated with manure gases:

* Wireless Gas Monitoring Systems: Real-time data transmission to

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on August 28, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

WARREN BUFFETT AND GREG ABEL HIS MINI ME, SCREW UP AGAIN A GREAT RAIL ACQUISITION

CSX Stock Drops Because Buffett Isn’t Interested in Rail Merger. It Has Wider Consequences.

CSX  stock fell 5.1% on Monday after a report that Warren Buffett’s railroad BNSF wasn’t interested in a merger. (Dreamstime)

Warren Buffett’s railroad, BNSF, might not be interested in creating a transcontinental railroad to compete with Union Pacific investors are disappointed.

ESPECIALLY THE INVESTORS IN BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC., WHO HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR ADD-ON ACQUISITIONS USING THAT CASH HOARD TO BE DEPLOYED.

Warren Buffett,the 94-year old, known as the world’s  biggest cheapskate apparently thought the price to acquire CSX may be too much…! His mini-me Greg Abel tagged along and apparently also agreed.

There is a saying…”stupid is …..”…that’s those two now…NO DIVIDENDS FORE 60 YEARS AND NOW BLOCKING A GREAT ADD-ON TO THEIR BNSF RAILROAD..

Shares of CSX dropped about $2 late Monday, leaving them down 5.1% at $32.81 on the day. Shares were down another 1.3% at $32.36 in early trading on Tuesday, while the S&P 500

The Monday move came after CNBC reported the conglomerate’s CEO, Buffett, and his heir apparent, Greg Abel, met with CSX CEO Joe Hinrichs on Aug. 3. “While they were open to partnership and greater cooperation between BNSF and CSX, they were not interested in making an offer for the company,” wrote Bernstein analyst David Vernon in a Monday report.

“The first question the news raises is whether we can live in a world with one transcontinental railroad, if even for a little while,” added Vernon. Railroad regulators might not want “imbalanced competition,” and the market would prefer two transactions instead of just the Union Pacific-Norfolk tie-up.

“The second question this raises is why Berkshire is not interested in a deal. If the merger benefits are so great, why not pursue a deal?” added Vernon. He suspects Berkshire might balk at paying a big premium to CSX shareholders for synergies that aren’t sure to materialize.

Still, the lack of a buyer for CSX could throw a wrench into the potential for large railroad mergers—something that hasn’t happened in a generation. If regulators don’t see adequate competition, they might not allow the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal to proceed.

Canadian rail deals could be a solution if either Canadian Pacific Kansas City or Canadian National Railway were interested. A Canadian-U.S. deal would face heightened regulatory scrutiny north of the border, said Gordon Haskett analyst Don Bilson.

The simplest solution for the industry would be two highly competitive transcontinental railroads. That would require BNSF to act, however.

“With Buffett now on the record, CSX investors can now safely assume that nothing is going to happen between CSX and BNSF anytime soon, if at all,” Bilson said in a Tuesday report. “We would note that Buffett will be retiring in December, though we doubt Greg Abel is a threat to call an audible until he has seen what comes of the partnership that was just announced.”

BNSF and CSX recently announced an agreement to collaborate on intermodal service, the use of both trains and trucks to take goods to their final destinations.

“With a BNSF bid for CSX now (seemingly) squashed, the base case now shifts to deeper CSX-BNSF commercial alignment,” wrote Raymond James analyst Patrick Tyler Brown on Tuesday. “The wildcard remaining [is] whether BNSF (and/or CSX) formally opposes a Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal, which would further dampen deal odds.”

Failing to find a merger partner and regulators letting Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern merge could result in CSX being less competitive, said Ancora portfolio manager Jim Chadwick. Ancora has a stake in CSX and believes the company should pursue a combination aggressively.

That, however, requires some willingness from another party.

At Monday’s close, CSX stock was just below its level in mid July, before news broke

that Union Pacific was looking to find a merger partner.

 

This entry was posted in Warren Buffett.... on August 26, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

DEMOCRATS AGAIN WANT TO BAN YOUR GAS APPLIANCES!

Bans on gas stoves come back as Democratic cities and states continue war on gas appliances

 

The Biden administration tried and failed to enact a federal ban on gas stoves, and then denied the plans, convincing media “fact-checkers” to call it a “right-wing conspiracy.” A federal court shot down Berkeley’s ban on natural gas hookups, but undaunted, the movement to ban gas stoves lives on with “creative” laws that may avoid the legal pitfalls that killed Berkeley’s law.

A new law went into effect in Colorado earlier this month requiring health warning labels on gas stoves, similar to those placed on cigarette packages. It’s one example of multiple efforts, primarily in blue states, to stop consumers from using gas-powered appliances in their homes.

After a Biden administration official in 2023 alluded to the possibility of a ban on gas stoves in the name of public health, legacy media outlets produced a number of “fact checks” insisting the Biden administration wasn’t going to ban gas stoves. They claimed the whole idea was just a “right-wing conspiracy.”

Conveniently, most of the “fact checks” ignored the many local and state efforts in Democratic strongholds to accomplish the same goal. Time Magazine published a January 2023 “fact check” calling Republican opposition to such bans on a state-level a “right-wing culture war,” comparable to “family values and religion.”

According to Time, “Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis pushed back against the notion that Republicans are the ones engaging in culture war over gas stoves.” During a speech, the Republican told supporters that Democrats and the media are trying to stoke the issue. “They want to do it, I mean, let’s be honest,” DeSantis said of the calls to ban gas-fueled stoves. “You start to see the narrative kick into gear, CNN segments saying how it’s causing asthma in kids. They start propagating the narrative.”

“The whole campaign is just an attempt to ban fossil fuels at the end of the day. So it’s just kind of one plank in a larger strategy,” Energy analyst David Blackmon, author of the “Energy Transition Absuridities” Substack, told Just the News.

State senator: “Only fair to warn people”

Colorado State Sen. Cathy Kipp, a Democrat who co-sponsored the legislation, told Canary Media — an activist publication that receives funding from anti-fossil fuel groups — that “it’s only fair to warn people” that gas stoves might have health impacts.

“Like other gas-burning appliances and gasoline-burning cars, gas ranges spew noxious compounds such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides,” Canary Media reported.

Under the law, a warning label must be affixed to gas stoves, warning consumers that they need to “understand the air-quality implications of having an indoor gas stove.” Using a link or QR code, the labels direct consumers to a state website that tries to convince buyers the appliance will possibly kill them or cause illnesses.

The information on the website relies primarily on federal government websites, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, concerning potential health impacts from poor indoor air quality. However, there is no scientific consensus supporting such claims.

Anti-gas activists have regularly touted studies that found potential health risks from using stoves powered by fossil fuels, only to ignore flaws in those studies or the other studies that found no such link. In 2020, UCLA researchers produced a report claiming that gas stoves pose risks of respiratory illness, cardiovascular diseases, and premature death, especially among children, the elderly and low-income renters.

However, a study in 2023 by the California Restaurant Association, which lobbied against bans on natural gas hookups, found several issues with the UCLA report that led to flawed comparisons. “Had the UCLA Report made the correct comparisons, it would have concluded that there are no adverse health impacts from indoor use of natural gas appliances,” the study stated.

The UCLA study was funded by the Sierra Club, which has received $1 billion through Bloomberg Philanthropies. That money came from billionaire Bloomberg as part of a campaign called “Beyond Carbon,” which seeks to stop consumers from accessing energy from fossil fuels.

No significant association with asthma, but plenty of political ties

The controversy over a federal ban on gas stoves by the Biden administration followed the publication of a study by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), which found that 12% of current childhood asthma cases in the US can be attributed to gas stove use.

Less than a month after the RMI study was published, Bloomberg News interviewed Consumer Public Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. about the alleged health impacts from gas stoves, asking if the commission would take action. Trumka told Bloomberg that “products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”

Critics of RMI’s gas stove study argue that the quality of the data it used was poor because it didn’t factor in the findings of a 2013 study by the International Study of Asthma and Allergies, which is considered the most comprehensive global study on the topic to date.

Last year, a major study published in the renowned medical journal The Lancet conducted an extensive meta-analysis of the health risks — meaning an examination of scientific literature to determine overall trends in the findings of multiple studies on the topic — from using gas stoves compared to electricity and other fuels. The Lancet study found no significant association between natural gas and respiratory illnesses such as asthma. It even found a lower risk of bronchitis compared to the use of electric stoves.

The Colorado website that consumers will be directed to by the warning labels makes no mention of these studies, instead presenting health consequences as a foregone conclusion.

“It’s strictly a political campaign with a political strategy, and they believe this is a winning issue,” Blackmon said.

Beyond Berkeley: The push to ban gas stoves is back

In 2020, Berkeley, California, became the first city in the U.S. to ban natural gas hookups in new construction. The California Restaurant Association sued the city, arguing the ban was preempted by federal law. Ultimately, federal courts agreed, and the law was never allowed to go into effect.

However, according to the Grist, a publication that also receives funding from several anti-fossil fuel activist groups, some cities and states are looking for “creative” ways to sidestep the legal challenges that killed Berkeley’s anti-stove laws, which include emissions targets, building codes, and limits on indoor air pollution.

In July, a federal judge ruled that a New York law banning natural gas connections in new homes and buildings doesn’t conflict with federal law. A coalition of building and trade associations wrote to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in June, asking her to file legal challenges to the law.

“The gas ban violates core constitutional principles of interstate commerce by attempting to dictate national energy usage through state-level restrictions. It burdens domestic energy production, raises costs on middle-class homeowners, and compromises energy reliability and economic freedom,” the coalition wrote in their letter.

Despite a large body of research disputing claims that gas stoves pose significant health risks to consumers, activists are looking for avenues all across the U.S. to stop people from using the appliances. While the Biden administration failed to enact a federal ban on gas stoves, these local and state efforts may prove successful.

Related Articles

This entry was posted in GREEN ENERGY on August 26, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

FBI CONTINUES ITS FRAUD ON THE PEOPLE, CAUGHT AT IT AGAIN!

Watchdog group says FBI undercounts incidents in which armed civilians stop active shooters

The CPRC review uncovered 561 incidents during the same period, with armed citizens stopping 202 of them, or 36%. CPRC saod the percentage jumped to 52.5% when excluding shootings that occurred in “gun-free zones.”

A new analysis by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) found that the FBI has understated the number of times armed civilians have stopped active shooter incidents in the United States.

According to the FBI, civilians stopped just 14 out of 374 active shooter cases between 2014 and 2024, which is a rate of 3.7%.

But the CPRC, a nonprofit data watchdog on crime issues, said it uncovered 561 incidents during the same period, with armed citizens stopping 202 of them, or 36%. CPRC said the percentage jumped to 52.5% when excluding shootings that occurred in “gun-free zones.”

According to the CPRC, the FBI’s data is off, in part, because in some cases civilians who intervened were listed as “security guards,” even when they were private citizens. The group also found that armed bystanders who thwarted attacks were not counted if the suspects fled.

The FBI had classified the 2019 church shooting in White Settlement, Texas, involving a parishioner who shot and killed the gunman as being thwarted by a security guard, even though the man was not a security professional.

The CPRC also noted that the FBI excluded some cases it labels “domestic disputes” or “retaliation murders” from its data about civilians stopping active shooters.

You can read the full report here.

File
FILE_4924.pdf

CPRC President John Lott said the group’s data shows that armed civilians stopping shootings is more common than mainstream media coverage shows.

During the 2022 mall shooting in Greenwood, Ind., Elisjsha Dicken, 22, stopped a gunman who killed three people.

Reuters and CNN were among the news outlets that referred to the situation as “uncommon.”

“Of course, law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is not citizens stopping these attacks—it’s the national news covering it,” Lott wrote.

The FBI has said that its reports on this issue are “not intended to explore all active shooting incidents” but they provide a “baseline understanding.”

Some argue that the FBI’s data compilation practices can skew public opinion.

“The cascading effect is incredibly deleterious,” Theo Wold, a former U.S. Justice Department official, said. “When the Bureau gets it so systematically wrong, it shapes the entire national debate.”

Still, many Americans believe armed citizens are more effective at stopping active shooters.

According to a 2022 Trafalgar Group poll, 42% of voters said that armed citizens were the best defense against mass shootings, while 25% said it was local police.

The FBI did not respond to a request for comment prior to publication

This entry was posted in FRAUDS on August 25, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

HOW MANY MILLIONAIRES ARE THERE IN THE USA???

How Many Millionaires Are in the U.S.? More Than Any Other Country

The U.S. is home to more millionaires than any other nation, but that doesn’t mean it has the highest percentage of millionaires. Yulia Reznikov / Getty Images

As of 2024, the number of millionaires in the U.S. was around 23.8 million. That means roughly 1 in 15 people in the U.S. has a net worth of at least seven figures. This number includes not just tycoons but also people who have slowly built wealth through investing, home ownership, and disciplined saving.

To be clear, millionaire status isn’t about having a million dollars in cash. It’s about your total net worth, which includes your financial assets like stocks, retirement accounts, and real estate, minus liabilities such as your mortgage, credit card balance, and other debts.

If what you own is worth more than what you owe, and the difference is $1 million or more, congratulations: You’re a millionaire.

Contents

  1. What Makes a Millionaire Tick?
  2. Wealth Accumulation Over Decades
  3. Economic Factors and Millionaire Resilience
  4. The Bigger Picture
  5. Lifestyle and the Long View

What Makes a Millionaire Tick?

Millionaire
Let’s be honest: The vast majority of millionaires do not look or act live like this. Mensent Photography / Getty Images

Millionaires tend to be goal-oriented and patient. Instead of flashy lifestyles, they often focus on building a mix of financial assets that grow over time. Their wealth often comes from consistent contributions to retirement accounts, wise use of credit, and avoiding unnecessary liabilities.

Their portfolio may include rental and investment property, employer-sponsored retirement plans, and taxable accounts holding dividend-generating stocks. Many own life insurance and annuities as long-term tools. Some manage their own businesses, which significantly boost their net worth.

The typical millionaire makes methodical choices: They pay bills on time, avoid debt traps, and keep expenses below income. Rather than reacting to market swings, they stay the course.

They understand that wealth isn’t about how much you spend, but how well you manage your money.

Wealth Accumulation Over Decades

Most people don’t become millionaires overnight. Data shows that people who reach this milestone typically do so after 30 to 40 years of saving and investing. By maximizing retirement plans, controlling spending, and investing in appreciating assets, they see steady gains.

A major factor is avoiding the drain of high-interest credit card balances, auto loans, and short-term gratification. Instead, millionaires prioritize financial goals, like eliminating their mortgage, funding children’s education, and ensuring a secure retirement.

They keep a close eye on the total value of their holdings and revise their strategy based on age, market performance, and inflation. Many rely on expert advice to keep their strategy current and effective.

Economic Factors and Millionaire Resilience

Economic factors
Current and aspiring millionaires watch the market very closely — but they don’t overreact to changes. Alistair Berg / Getty Images

Even millionaires must navigate economic challenges. Inflation can erode the purchasing power of cash, while market downturns test emotional discipline.

The savvy ones diversify across sectors, keep emergency savings, maintain a modest primary residence, and rebalance their portfolio as conditions change.

During periods of economic growth, the number of U.S. millionaires typically climbs. But recessions can reduce net worth, particularly for those heavily invested in volatile stocks or illiquid property.

Still, most millionaires weather downturns better than the average household, due to lower debt and better planning.

They also keep tabs on accounts, minimize discretionary spending, and track investments closely. Maintaining control over finances is key to riding out volatility.

The Bigger Picture

The U.S. leads in both the number of millionaires and the number of billionaires, though it doesn’t always top the list in terms of millionaire percentage of population. Countries like Switzerland and Australia have fewer people but a higher percentage of millionaire households.

Globally, the millionaire population continues to rise, driven by increases in global property values, stock market performance, and international business opportunities. The rise of digital commerce and investing apps has made wealth-building tools more accessible than ever before.

Despite this, fewer millionaires are self-made in some parts of the world where wealth transfer and inheritance dominate. In contrast, in the U.S., a significant share of millionaires built their fortune through personal effort, entrepreneurship, or steady investment.

Lifestyle and the Long View

Becoming a millionaire is often a milestone, not an endpoint. Many set new goals: helping families, funding charitable causes, or starting businesses. Others focus on maintaining their wealth and adjusting their investments to match changes in life stage and risk appetite.

They still watch spending, keep track of their accounts, and review portfolio performance. Having reached financial independence, their biggest challenge often becomes preserving what they’ve earned.

Whether driven by ambition, security, or a desire to leave a legacy, millionaires remain focused on long-term success — not short-term gains.

Many millionaires actively avoid financial pitfalls like over-leveraging or ignoring debt. They remain wary of trends that promise fast gains without proven results. Instead, they often reinvest dividends, hold rental properties for passive income, and keep their retirement plans fully funded.

Their finances reflect years of work, not a sudden get rich quick scheme. And while some may one day become billionaires, most are content to sustain a healthy balance of cash, assets, and investments.

This entry was posted in Billionaires in the world on August 23, 2025 by sterlingcooper.

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • CHINA HAS REAL ROBOTS, AND OUR EXECUTIVES ARE INTIMIDATED BY THEIR PRESENCE EVERYWHERE!
  • MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, SENATE AND STAFFERS WERE EXEMPT FROM BEING REQUIRED TO GET THE COVID “VACCINE”, YET SENILE BIDEN FORCED IT ON EVERYONE ELSE, INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY WHO WERE THEN DISCHARGED IF REFUSED!
  • ENTIRE WORTHLESS FEDERAL AGENCY WITH $100 MILLION BUDGET KICKED OUT!
  • TRUMPS PICK OF BEAUTY QUEENS FOR HIS APPOINTMENTS..IS MUCH IMPROVED OVER THE UGLIEST WOMEN IN THE WORLD PICKED BY BIDEN, CLINTON AND OBAMA! SOME WERE TOTALLY HIDEOUS
  • NEW MOVIE STOKES HATRED OF GOVERNMENT AND ICE, AND DOES NOTHING TO UNITE PEOPLE

Sterling Cooper, Inc. © 2023,  Privacy Policy