Saturday, May 29, 2004
Monday, May 24, 2004
Why are gas prices rising?
Crude oil prices aren't the only reason...
...
It has become evident that stocks of product are the key variables that determine price
shocks. In other words, stocks are not only the key variable; they are also a strategic variable.
The industry does a miserable job of managing stocks and supplying product from the
consumer point of view. Policymakers have done nothing to force them to do a better job. If
the industry were vigorously competitive, each firm would have to worry a great deal more
about being caught with short supplies or inadequate capacity and they would hesitate to raise
prices for fear of losing sales to competitors. Oil companies do not behave this way because
they have power over price and can control supply. Mergers and acquisitions have created a
concentrated industry in several sections of the country and segments of the industry. The
amount of capacity and stocks and product on hand are no longer dictated by market forces,
they can be manipulated by the oil industry oligopoly to maximize profits.
...
Crude oil prices aren't the only reason...
...
It has become evident that stocks of product are the key variables that determine price
shocks. In other words, stocks are not only the key variable; they are also a strategic variable.
The industry does a miserable job of managing stocks and supplying product from the
consumer point of view. Policymakers have done nothing to force them to do a better job. If
the industry were vigorously competitive, each firm would have to worry a great deal more
about being caught with short supplies or inadequate capacity and they would hesitate to raise
prices for fear of losing sales to competitors. Oil companies do not behave this way because
they have power over price and can control supply. Mergers and acquisitions have created a
concentrated industry in several sections of the country and segments of the industry. The
amount of capacity and stocks and product on hand are no longer dictated by market forces,
they can be manipulated by the oil industry oligopoly to maximize profits.
...
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Israel has been warned.
They cannot say "Nobody told us, I didn't know, I heard rumors, but I didn't know. You were told. When you are tried in the courts, we will remember when and where you were told.
They cannot say "Nobody told us, I didn't know, I heard rumors, but I didn't know. You were told. When you are tried in the courts, we will remember when and where you were told.
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Friday, May 21, 2004
We are committed to the service of humanity, especially those who are economically and socially disadvantaged in our society.
Ours is a mission to do good for its own sake, without thought or expectation of reward or recognition, but with the hope of making a better world.
Ours is a mission to do good for its own sake, without thought or expectation of reward or recognition, but with the hope of making a better world.
This is too funny not to pass on...
According to a new report, the Bush Administration has taken its strong support for outsourcing further than previously thought -- opting to move key political operations offshore. India's Hindustan Times reports that, during a 14 month period from 2002 to 2003 when the Republican Party was playing up patriotism, its fund-raising and vote-seeking campaign was performed in part by two call centers located in India [1].
Source:
1. "Bush campaign ran from Noida call center", Hindustan Times, 05/16/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36523.
According to a new report, the Bush Administration has taken its strong support for outsourcing further than previously thought -- opting to move key political operations offshore. India's Hindustan Times reports that, during a 14 month period from 2002 to 2003 when the Republican Party was playing up patriotism, its fund-raising and vote-seeking campaign was performed in part by two call centers located in India [1].
Source:
1. "Bush campaign ran from Noida call center", Hindustan Times, 05/16/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36523.
More from the Howard Dean interview. This is great.
Q: People often ask me, "Will Bush give up power if he loses?" Do you have any fear that he would not go quietly?
HD: My biggest fear is that the election will be stolen again as it was in Florida by the elimination of large numbers of the African American community from the voter rolls by a private company contracting with the state. The election was clearly not won by George Bush in Florida, and then the Supreme Court put politics above loyalty to the country. So that's my greatest fear: not that George Bush won't go quietly according to the law, but that before the law gets enforced there will be a great deal of fiddling with it.
Q: What can be done to stop that?
HD: I've spoken to John Kerry about that, and he's going to have some legal teams in Florida. And I think we clearly have to deal with the voting machine issue: The Diebold voting machines have been undermined by their own chairman, who said he was going to do everything he could to get George Bush reelected. We've got to have legal advice, and we've got to have technical advice to make sure that those voting machines, which cannot be recounted, are used properly.
Q: People often ask me, "Will Bush give up power if he loses?" Do you have any fear that he would not go quietly?
HD: My biggest fear is that the election will be stolen again as it was in Florida by the elimination of large numbers of the African American community from the voter rolls by a private company contracting with the state. The election was clearly not won by George Bush in Florida, and then the Supreme Court put politics above loyalty to the country. So that's my greatest fear: not that George Bush won't go quietly according to the law, but that before the law gets enforced there will be a great deal of fiddling with it.
Q: What can be done to stop that?
HD: I've spoken to John Kerry about that, and he's going to have some legal teams in Florida. And I think we clearly have to deal with the voting machine issue: The Diebold voting machines have been undermined by their own chairman, who said he was going to do everything he could to get George Bush reelected. We've got to have legal advice, and we've got to have technical advice to make sure that those voting machines, which cannot be recounted, are used properly.
The StoryCorps! right here!!!
Ok, well, here...
AND there is audio blogging on blogger...
(see jerrysjournal.blogspot.com)
Storycorps AND audio blogging!
Ok, well, here...
AND there is audio blogging on blogger...
(see jerrysjournal.blogspot.com)
Storycorps AND audio blogging!
Check out the latest on-line ad of Kerry's. What do you think?
http://www.johnkerry.com/features/oil_house/
http://www.johnkerry.com/features/oil_house/
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Please note the mention of Bush near the end of the article.
Pathways to Peace
A Language of Love
Nonviolent Communication offers path to heart connection.
by Aria Seligmann
Dammit! You left dirty dishes in the sink again!
So wash them.
You wash them!
I'm doing something else right now.
I'm not your maid! (Storms out).
Scene sound familiar? Admit it; you know it does. Let's reframe the preceding argument, using Nonviolent Communication (NVC). Here's how you might think it would sound:
"I'm noticing the dishes in the sink and feeling overwhelmed and need a minute to just talk. Could you take a minute to talk to me about how we can do this dishes thing in a way that will work for all of us?"
You're closer, but that may be a trap to use to get someone else to do what you want them to do. Imagine adding to the sentence, "If these dishes don't somehow end up getting done, you're not getting your allowance," or there may be some other sort of punishment, such as a guilt trip, or rejection.
Nonviolent Communication, a process developed and refined over a period of 35 years by Dr. Marshall B. Rosenberg, provides a path to the deeper connection. Is our anger really about the dishes or do we want understanding about how our needs for cooperation, teamwork and support are not getting met? The outcome may not be getting the dishes done at that moment, but the need for understanding, for shared responsibility in the house, may become clear. The tension will dissolve, and the conflict will end.
Ending conflict is the life work of Rosenberg, who grew up in a turbulent Detroit neighborhood. The quest for understanding violence led to Rosenberg's studying and earning his doctorate in psychology. But traditional psychology did not satisfy his desire to understand how to resolve conflicts among people, whom he believed to be inherently nonviolent.
Rosenberg founded the Center for Nonviolent Communication in 1984, and has since traveled the world, holding NVC workshops and training others to do so. He is the author of Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life and Life-Enriching Education. He has worked with individuals, couples, corporations and nations. Recently, he was in Israel and Palestine listening to the concerns of people there. He has also had significant influence in the field of restorative justice, bringing together perpetrators and their victims to help them achieve mutual understanding.
Rosenberg will be traveling through Oregon in early May, holding a series of workshops throughout the state. He'll hold two workshops in Eugene on May 7. Those workshops offer an opportunity for peace activists and others to get training in conflict resolution and to apply NVC on a personal level, as well.
NVC centers around observations, feelings, needs and requests. For example: "I'm observing there are dirty dishes in the sink. I have already washed all of mine. I would like to make dinner, and I'm unable to do so without a clean sink. I'm feeling frustrated and irritated, because I have a need for order, respect and support. Would you be willing to help with the dishes?"
By identifying our needs, which include basic needs such as food, shelter and water, interdependency needs such as understanding, trust, respect and support, or broader needs such as celebration, we can understand where anger, or any emotion, ultimately comes from. "All violence," says Rosenberg, "is the tragic expression of unmet needs."
In order to check in with what emotions we or others are feeling and why, NVC requires us to slow down, in our speech as well as reactive tendencies, and consciously become aware of what we are experiencing.
The techniques are not only suitable to interpersonal relationships, but apply to healing oneself, to working with contentious groups, such as gangs and police or labor and management, and ultimately can be used to resolve conflicts among nations.
One of the basic concepts of NVC is adopting a "power with" rather than "power over" structure. Rosenberg points to the domination structure humankind has been living under for the past 8,000 years. From the parent/child relationship to political forces, that structure defeats every human's basic need for autonomy. But how are we to undo what's been ingrained in us for so long?
Rosenberg, speaking from his home in Wasserfallenhof, Switzerland, says his approach is "radical." Beginning on the home front, he says, "get rid of the word 'child.' When I sometimes work with groups of parents I put half in one room and half in the other. Then we break down into smaller groups. We have a written role play of how they would communicate with someone who's borrowed something and hasn't returned it. One group is talking to a neighbor; the other to a child. The neighbor always gets more love and respect than the child."
Rosenberg says it's that very domination system that makes it "really hard to see a child as a neighbor."
That myopia can cut us off from connecting at a deeper level. Rosenberg recounts the time he came home from work, exhausted from having tried to mediate between street gangs and police in East St. Louis, Ill.
"It was very hard. I walked in the back door and my kids were fighting. I said in NVC, 'I need peace. Will you be willing to postpone this war?' My eldest son said, 'Do you want to talk about it?' I thought how cute. In doing so, I dehumanized him. I was doing the same thing the street gang and police were doing: not seeing human beings in each other. Here this human offers listening to me in distress. I have him labeled my child."
He accepted his son's offer of support, and says he "listened beautifully while I got out of my pain."
Using the word "child" is fine for shorthand, he says, but "don't see the person as a child, or especially, as my child. Extend the same respect to children as to a 40 year old."
The same "power with" model can be applied to the workplace, between management and labor. "In Switzerland, I coach people in the corporate area," says Rosenberg. "We're trained to tell managers to give praise and compliments every day, and research says productivity goes up. But it's only for a short time, until people sense the motivation behind it. That destroys trust in real gratitude."
People want ownership over their jobs, and the power with model usually results in greater satisfaction as each individual achieves greater autonomy.
Balancing that quest for autonomy with one's dependency needs is a dance. Rosenberg says, "We are interdependent; our well-being is one and the same. I can't benefit at your expense and you can't benefit at my expense." When people try to take advantage of others, or try to dominate them, violence occurs. From a child not wanting to go to bed to a nation striving for statehood, the needs are the same.
"A couple of days ago I was in Palestine," says Rosenberg. "The concerns of people there are all about autonomy. They don't want others telling them what to do. Every day, everywhere, there are fights going on regarding this. 'Please get ready for bed.' 'I don't want to.' It's about autonomy — we can tell from the child's tone of voice."
How we react to someone else's need for autonomy, which may come out as anger, is a matter of conscious choosing. By having empathy with the other and asking what they are feeling, we can help the anger dissolve. We can apply the same empathy to ourselves, in questioning what unmet need our feelings are resulting from. To do that, says Rosenberg, slow down and take your time.
He says, "My son was 12 and had done something I didn't like and I was telling myself to take my time so I could respond to him in a way that I liked. Meanwhile, his friends were waiting. He said, 'Daddy, it's taking you such a long time to talk.' I told him, 'Here's what I can say quickly: 'Do it my way or I'll kick your ass.' He waited."
Local NVC trainer and co-founder of the Oregon Network for Compassionate Communication (founded in September 2001 and sponsor of Rosenberg's visit), Michael Dreiling, a UO sociology professor, says NVC works by releasing people from criticism, blame and judgment, allowing them to connect with their own needs and those of others.
"Thoughts such as, 'Things would be better,' or 'I would be happier if you would have taken the trash out, or Bush would get out of office,' can deny our own responsibility and state of being," he says. "Instead, we can create alternative possibilities for meeting our own and others' needs. Criticism and blame can dehumanize the people we're connecting with, by holding them responsible for our anxiety, fear, hurt, pain, sadness, or anger, turning them into an object that is to be controlled or manipulated so we can be relieved of our pain."
NVC teaches that when we turn another human being into an object, "We've removed ourselves from the place of heart connection and having compassion for that human being and understanding why they might be doing what they're doing," says Dreiling. That objectification can also separate us from truly understanding our own needs and what Rosenberg says is "alive in us at that moment."
That consciousness is what gets us out of the reactive trap and allows for deeper connection and understanding to occur at a heart level. NVC also gets us out of the co-dependent trap. By checking in with our own feelings and needs first, we don't give ourselves away in the process of trying to understand the other. In fact, the final part of NVC, the request, allows us to say "No" — nonviolently. "No, I can't do the dishes right now, because I have a need for safety, and with you standing there raging at me, I don't feel safe. So I'm going to walk away and take 10 minutes and then I'll come back and we can talk about this."
In hearing that "no," says Dreiling, we can also hear a "yes."
For example, "Yes, I'm choosing to meet my own needs for safety, and yes, I am willing to resolve this matter, after my need for safety has been met."
Notice the non-dish-doer did not escalate the matter by yelling back, by calling names, "Quit yelling at me, you jerk," or increase the violence against himself by feeling guilty or allowing himself to be manipulated.
"The 'I'm feeling hurt and you're the cause' mentality, or 'You're feeling hurt and I'm bad because I'm the cause' mentality is so prevalent in our culture it is difficult to undo," says Dreiling. And it creates a cycle of violence, from domestic violence to community disputes to international warfare, that NVC can get us out of.
In fact, NVC reminds us that we have a deep need to nurture each other, to give, to care for others — what Rosenberg calls serving life.
"There's nothing more enjoyable or natural for we human beings than contributing to life and in seeing our power used for life," says Rosenberg. "It's not based on an abstract belief, but on the innate goodness of people. I've asked children or adults what you did that made somebody's life more wonderful. Now how did it feel when you realized you have that impact? I've asked in Africa, Asia, and the U.S.: Does anyone know anything that feels better?"
When we get beyond the image of the other as enemy, be it a family member, co-worker, neighbor or nation, and check in with what the other is needing, says Rosenberg, "Conflicts are resolved."
Pathways to Peace
A Language of Love
Nonviolent Communication offers path to heart connection.
by Aria Seligmann
Dammit! You left dirty dishes in the sink again!
So wash them.
You wash them!
I'm doing something else right now.
I'm not your maid! (Storms out).
Scene sound familiar? Admit it; you know it does. Let's reframe the preceding argument, using Nonviolent Communication (NVC). Here's how you might think it would sound:
"I'm noticing the dishes in the sink and feeling overwhelmed and need a minute to just talk. Could you take a minute to talk to me about how we can do this dishes thing in a way that will work for all of us?"
You're closer, but that may be a trap to use to get someone else to do what you want them to do. Imagine adding to the sentence, "If these dishes don't somehow end up getting done, you're not getting your allowance," or there may be some other sort of punishment, such as a guilt trip, or rejection.
Nonviolent Communication, a process developed and refined over a period of 35 years by Dr. Marshall B. Rosenberg, provides a path to the deeper connection. Is our anger really about the dishes or do we want understanding about how our needs for cooperation, teamwork and support are not getting met? The outcome may not be getting the dishes done at that moment, but the need for understanding, for shared responsibility in the house, may become clear. The tension will dissolve, and the conflict will end.
Ending conflict is the life work of Rosenberg, who grew up in a turbulent Detroit neighborhood. The quest for understanding violence led to Rosenberg's studying and earning his doctorate in psychology. But traditional psychology did not satisfy his desire to understand how to resolve conflicts among people, whom he believed to be inherently nonviolent.
Rosenberg founded the Center for Nonviolent Communication in 1984, and has since traveled the world, holding NVC workshops and training others to do so. He is the author of Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life and Life-Enriching Education. He has worked with individuals, couples, corporations and nations. Recently, he was in Israel and Palestine listening to the concerns of people there. He has also had significant influence in the field of restorative justice, bringing together perpetrators and their victims to help them achieve mutual understanding.
Rosenberg will be traveling through Oregon in early May, holding a series of workshops throughout the state. He'll hold two workshops in Eugene on May 7. Those workshops offer an opportunity for peace activists and others to get training in conflict resolution and to apply NVC on a personal level, as well.
NVC centers around observations, feelings, needs and requests. For example: "I'm observing there are dirty dishes in the sink. I have already washed all of mine. I would like to make dinner, and I'm unable to do so without a clean sink. I'm feeling frustrated and irritated, because I have a need for order, respect and support. Would you be willing to help with the dishes?"
By identifying our needs, which include basic needs such as food, shelter and water, interdependency needs such as understanding, trust, respect and support, or broader needs such as celebration, we can understand where anger, or any emotion, ultimately comes from. "All violence," says Rosenberg, "is the tragic expression of unmet needs."
In order to check in with what emotions we or others are feeling and why, NVC requires us to slow down, in our speech as well as reactive tendencies, and consciously become aware of what we are experiencing.
The techniques are not only suitable to interpersonal relationships, but apply to healing oneself, to working with contentious groups, such as gangs and police or labor and management, and ultimately can be used to resolve conflicts among nations.
One of the basic concepts of NVC is adopting a "power with" rather than "power over" structure. Rosenberg points to the domination structure humankind has been living under for the past 8,000 years. From the parent/child relationship to political forces, that structure defeats every human's basic need for autonomy. But how are we to undo what's been ingrained in us for so long?
Rosenberg, speaking from his home in Wasserfallenhof, Switzerland, says his approach is "radical." Beginning on the home front, he says, "get rid of the word 'child.' When I sometimes work with groups of parents I put half in one room and half in the other. Then we break down into smaller groups. We have a written role play of how they would communicate with someone who's borrowed something and hasn't returned it. One group is talking to a neighbor; the other to a child. The neighbor always gets more love and respect than the child."
Rosenberg says it's that very domination system that makes it "really hard to see a child as a neighbor."
That myopia can cut us off from connecting at a deeper level. Rosenberg recounts the time he came home from work, exhausted from having tried to mediate between street gangs and police in East St. Louis, Ill.
"It was very hard. I walked in the back door and my kids were fighting. I said in NVC, 'I need peace. Will you be willing to postpone this war?' My eldest son said, 'Do you want to talk about it?' I thought how cute. In doing so, I dehumanized him. I was doing the same thing the street gang and police were doing: not seeing human beings in each other. Here this human offers listening to me in distress. I have him labeled my child."
He accepted his son's offer of support, and says he "listened beautifully while I got out of my pain."
Using the word "child" is fine for shorthand, he says, but "don't see the person as a child, or especially, as my child. Extend the same respect to children as to a 40 year old."
The same "power with" model can be applied to the workplace, between management and labor. "In Switzerland, I coach people in the corporate area," says Rosenberg. "We're trained to tell managers to give praise and compliments every day, and research says productivity goes up. But it's only for a short time, until people sense the motivation behind it. That destroys trust in real gratitude."
People want ownership over their jobs, and the power with model usually results in greater satisfaction as each individual achieves greater autonomy.
Balancing that quest for autonomy with one's dependency needs is a dance. Rosenberg says, "We are interdependent; our well-being is one and the same. I can't benefit at your expense and you can't benefit at my expense." When people try to take advantage of others, or try to dominate them, violence occurs. From a child not wanting to go to bed to a nation striving for statehood, the needs are the same.
"A couple of days ago I was in Palestine," says Rosenberg. "The concerns of people there are all about autonomy. They don't want others telling them what to do. Every day, everywhere, there are fights going on regarding this. 'Please get ready for bed.' 'I don't want to.' It's about autonomy — we can tell from the child's tone of voice."
How we react to someone else's need for autonomy, which may come out as anger, is a matter of conscious choosing. By having empathy with the other and asking what they are feeling, we can help the anger dissolve. We can apply the same empathy to ourselves, in questioning what unmet need our feelings are resulting from. To do that, says Rosenberg, slow down and take your time.
He says, "My son was 12 and had done something I didn't like and I was telling myself to take my time so I could respond to him in a way that I liked. Meanwhile, his friends were waiting. He said, 'Daddy, it's taking you such a long time to talk.' I told him, 'Here's what I can say quickly: 'Do it my way or I'll kick your ass.' He waited."
Local NVC trainer and co-founder of the Oregon Network for Compassionate Communication (founded in September 2001 and sponsor of Rosenberg's visit), Michael Dreiling, a UO sociology professor, says NVC works by releasing people from criticism, blame and judgment, allowing them to connect with their own needs and those of others.
"Thoughts such as, 'Things would be better,' or 'I would be happier if you would have taken the trash out, or Bush would get out of office,' can deny our own responsibility and state of being," he says. "Instead, we can create alternative possibilities for meeting our own and others' needs. Criticism and blame can dehumanize the people we're connecting with, by holding them responsible for our anxiety, fear, hurt, pain, sadness, or anger, turning them into an object that is to be controlled or manipulated so we can be relieved of our pain."
NVC teaches that when we turn another human being into an object, "We've removed ourselves from the place of heart connection and having compassion for that human being and understanding why they might be doing what they're doing," says Dreiling. That objectification can also separate us from truly understanding our own needs and what Rosenberg says is "alive in us at that moment."
That consciousness is what gets us out of the reactive trap and allows for deeper connection and understanding to occur at a heart level. NVC also gets us out of the co-dependent trap. By checking in with our own feelings and needs first, we don't give ourselves away in the process of trying to understand the other. In fact, the final part of NVC, the request, allows us to say "No" — nonviolently. "No, I can't do the dishes right now, because I have a need for safety, and with you standing there raging at me, I don't feel safe. So I'm going to walk away and take 10 minutes and then I'll come back and we can talk about this."
In hearing that "no," says Dreiling, we can also hear a "yes."
For example, "Yes, I'm choosing to meet my own needs for safety, and yes, I am willing to resolve this matter, after my need for safety has been met."
Notice the non-dish-doer did not escalate the matter by yelling back, by calling names, "Quit yelling at me, you jerk," or increase the violence against himself by feeling guilty or allowing himself to be manipulated.
"The 'I'm feeling hurt and you're the cause' mentality, or 'You're feeling hurt and I'm bad because I'm the cause' mentality is so prevalent in our culture it is difficult to undo," says Dreiling. And it creates a cycle of violence, from domestic violence to community disputes to international warfare, that NVC can get us out of.
In fact, NVC reminds us that we have a deep need to nurture each other, to give, to care for others — what Rosenberg calls serving life.
"There's nothing more enjoyable or natural for we human beings than contributing to life and in seeing our power used for life," says Rosenberg. "It's not based on an abstract belief, but on the innate goodness of people. I've asked children or adults what you did that made somebody's life more wonderful. Now how did it feel when you realized you have that impact? I've asked in Africa, Asia, and the U.S.: Does anyone know anything that feels better?"
When we get beyond the image of the other as enemy, be it a family member, co-worker, neighbor or nation, and check in with what the other is needing, says Rosenberg, "Conflicts are resolved."
===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36308 > ===============================
STONEWALLING ON BIN LADEN/SAUDI FLIGHTS AFTER 9/11
With questions swirling about who authorized allowing relatives of Osama bin Laden to fly out of the country immediately after 9/11, The Hill newspaper is reporting that President Bush is "refusing to answer repeated requests by the September 11 commission" about the matter [1].
Last year, Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged that, even as all foreign and domestic flights were grounded after 9/11, the bin Ladens and other wealthy Saudis were allowed to fly out of the United States. He said that "the flights were well-known and it was coordinated within the government" [2].
Yet now, even as White House officials claim that "the [P]resident has fully cooperated with this commission in an unprecedented way" [3], the panel vice chairman Lee Hamilton disclosed that the Administration is refusing to answer any questions on the subject -- even in closed-door meetings with Senators [4]. The President is also still refusing to release 28 pages of the bipartisan 9/11 congressional report about the Saudi Government. That report is known to "depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda" [5]. Some of that money may have even flowed through Riggs Bank [6], where the President's uncle [7] (and major fundraiser [8]) is a top executive. Nonetheless, the President continues to refer to the Saudi government as "our friend" [9].
Sources:
1. "Who let bin Ladens leave U.S.?", The Hill, 05/18/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36309.
2. Interview on NBC's Meet the Press With Tim Russert, 09/07/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36310.
3. Meet The Press transcript, 04/04/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36311.
4. "Who let bin Ladens leave U.S.?", The Hill, 05/18/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36309.
5. "Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say", Los
Angeles Times, 08/02/2003, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36312.
6. Riggs Press Release, 05/31/2000,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36313.
7. Riggs Press Release, 05/31/2000,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36313.
8. Texans for Public Justice,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36314.
9. President Bush Vows to Bring Terrorists to Justice, 05/16/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36315.
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36308 > ===============================
STONEWALLING ON BIN LADEN/SAUDI FLIGHTS AFTER 9/11
With questions swirling about who authorized allowing relatives of Osama bin Laden to fly out of the country immediately after 9/11, The Hill newspaper is reporting that President Bush is "refusing to answer repeated requests by the September 11 commission" about the matter [1].
Last year, Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged that, even as all foreign and domestic flights were grounded after 9/11, the bin Ladens and other wealthy Saudis were allowed to fly out of the United States. He said that "the flights were well-known and it was coordinated within the government" [2].
Yet now, even as White House officials claim that "the [P]resident has fully cooperated with this commission in an unprecedented way" [3], the panel vice chairman Lee Hamilton disclosed that the Administration is refusing to answer any questions on the subject -- even in closed-door meetings with Senators [4]. The President is also still refusing to release 28 pages of the bipartisan 9/11 congressional report about the Saudi Government. That report is known to "depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda" [5]. Some of that money may have even flowed through Riggs Bank [6], where the President's uncle [7] (and major fundraiser [8]) is a top executive. Nonetheless, the President continues to refer to the Saudi government as "our friend" [9].
Sources:
1. "Who let bin Ladens leave U.S.?", The Hill, 05/18/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36309.
2. Interview on NBC's Meet the Press With Tim Russert, 09/07/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36310.
3. Meet The Press transcript, 04/04/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36311.
4. "Who let bin Ladens leave U.S.?", The Hill, 05/18/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36309.
5. "Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say", Los
Angeles Times, 08/02/2003, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36312.
6. Riggs Press Release, 05/31/2000,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36313.
7. Riggs Press Release, 05/31/2000,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36313.
8. Texans for Public Justice,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36314.
9. President Bush Vows to Bring Terrorists to Justice, 05/16/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1675067&l=36315.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
The election IS lost.
more...
As to Nader having moral integrity, that is ludicrous! Nader's flaws are legion: how about just one: the end justifies the means.
If you have not come here to die, you must be lost, for you are in the wrong place...
more...
As to Nader having moral integrity, that is ludicrous! Nader's flaws are legion: how about just one: the end justifies the means.
If you have not come here to die, you must be lost, for you are in the wrong place...
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Should cowboy Bush ride into the sunset?
As a former combat infantryman in World War II, I've always believed we must fully support our troops. Reluctantly, I now believe the best way to support troops in Iraq is to bring them home, starting with the "hand-over" on June 30.
Only a carefully planned withdrawal can clean up the biggest military mess miscreated in the Oval Office and miscarried by the Pentagon in my 80-year lifetime. In Journalese, the traditional five Ws of Who, What, When, Where, Why:
Who? George W. Bush.
What? His cowboy culture. Ride fast and alone or with just a few buddies. Shoot first. Ask questions later.
When? After 9/11. Bush bravely took on a necessary fight against terrorists who attacked us. But then he diverted his attention to an unrelated and unnecessary "pre-emptive" war.
Where? Iraq. He led us astray by falsely claiming Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that threatened us. After the "Mission Accomplished" boast in May 2003, he put our troops in new jeopardy by taunting terrorists from other countries with his "Bring 'em on!" challenge last July 2. His anything-goes-against-the-bad-guys attitude and his total lack of postwar planning helped prompt the ongoing prison-abuse embarrassments and brutal retaliations.
Why? Because he believes he can be re-elected as a tough-talking, self-proclaimed "War President."
Maybe Bush should take a cue from a fellow Texan, former president Lyndon Baines Johnson, who also had some cowboy characteristics.
LBJ, after mismanaging the Vietnam War that so bitterly divided the nation and the world, decided he owed it to his political party and to his country not to run for re-election. So, he turned tail and rode off into the sunset of his Texas ranch.
How do you say déjà vu in Cowboyese?
Monday, May 17, 2004
US guards 'filmed beatings' at terror camp
Senator urges action as Briton reveals Guantanamo abuse
David Rose and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday May 16, 2004
The Observer
Dozens of videotapes of American guards allegedly engaged in brutal attacks on Guantanamo Bay detainees have been stored and catalogued at the camp, an investigation by The Observer has revealed.
More...
Senator urges action as Briton reveals Guantanamo abuse
David Rose and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday May 16, 2004
The Observer
Dozens of videotapes of American guards allegedly engaged in brutal attacks on Guantanamo Bay detainees have been stored and catalogued at the camp, an investigation by The Observer has revealed.
More...
White House 'tried to block film'
The White House tried to halt the making and release of Michael Moore's new film Fahrenheit 9/11, the film-maker alleged in Cannes on Sunday.
The director told a Cannes audience the Bush administration wanted to keep the film off screens in the run-up to November's US election.
The film examines the Iraq war and alleges connections between the Bush and Bin Laden families.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is to get its world premiere in Cannes on Monday.
Film studio Disney had backed out of a deal to distribute the film in the US for political reasons, Moore says.
He has given no evidence to substantiate his allegations, but said "someone connected to the White House" and a "top Republican" had put pressure on film companies not to release the film.
Moore said the few who had seen the film had told him "the potential for this film to have an impact on the election was much larger than they thought".
Undercover in Iraq
The film was originally scheduled to be released through Disney-backed independent studio Miramax, before Disney blocked it.
It is now expected to be released through a third party.
Disney accused Moore of engineering a dispute about the film's release to gain maximum publicity. It said it had blocked the film because it wanted to be impartial during the election, but strongly denied coming under any outside pressure.
The director has already shown the film at test screenings in the Midwest of the US.
"The reaction was overwhelming," he said. "People who were on the fence - undecided voters - suddenly weren't on the fence."
No-one from the White House was available to comment on his remarks.
Moore has also revealed that he had three undercover film crews embedded with US troops in Iraq.
"I was able to sneak three different freelance crews into Iraq," he said on Saturday.
The soldiers had "expressed disillusionment that they had been lied to", said Moore.
The film from Iraq was a "very important" part of the documentary, he added.
"It is certainly something the Bush administration does not want people to see," said Moore.
The White House tried to halt the making and release of Michael Moore's new film Fahrenheit 9/11, the film-maker alleged in Cannes on Sunday.
The director told a Cannes audience the Bush administration wanted to keep the film off screens in the run-up to November's US election.
The film examines the Iraq war and alleges connections between the Bush and Bin Laden families.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is to get its world premiere in Cannes on Monday.
Film studio Disney had backed out of a deal to distribute the film in the US for political reasons, Moore says.
He has given no evidence to substantiate his allegations, but said "someone connected to the White House" and a "top Republican" had put pressure on film companies not to release the film.
Moore said the few who had seen the film had told him "the potential for this film to have an impact on the election was much larger than they thought".
Undercover in Iraq
The film was originally scheduled to be released through Disney-backed independent studio Miramax, before Disney blocked it.
It is now expected to be released through a third party.
Disney accused Moore of engineering a dispute about the film's release to gain maximum publicity. It said it had blocked the film because it wanted to be impartial during the election, but strongly denied coming under any outside pressure.
The director has already shown the film at test screenings in the Midwest of the US.
"The reaction was overwhelming," he said. "People who were on the fence - undecided voters - suddenly weren't on the fence."
No-one from the White House was available to comment on his remarks.
Moore has also revealed that he had three undercover film crews embedded with US troops in Iraq.
"I was able to sneak three different freelance crews into Iraq," he said on Saturday.
The soldiers had "expressed disillusionment that they had been lied to", said Moore.
The film from Iraq was a "very important" part of the documentary, he added.
"It is certainly something the Bush administration does not want people to see," said Moore.
Sunday, May 16, 2004
When the administration denies something as passionately as this, we can only assume it is true.
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Article Saying Rumsfeld Backed Harsh Tactics Stirs Controversy
CHAIN OF COMMAND
How the Department of Defense mishandled the disaster at Abu Ghraib.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH "Soon after 9/11, as the war on terror got under way, Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly made public his disdain for the Geneva conventions. Complaints about America’s treatment of prisoners, Rumsfeld said in early 2002, amounted to “isolated pockets of international hyperventilation.”"
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Article Saying Rumsfeld Backed Harsh Tactics Stirs Controversy
CHAIN OF COMMAND
How the Department of Defense mishandled the disaster at Abu Ghraib.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH "Soon after 9/11, as the war on terror got under way, Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly made public his disdain for the Geneva conventions. Complaints about America’s treatment of prisoners, Rumsfeld said in early 2002, amounted to “isolated pockets of international hyperventilation.”"
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Our country was founded on secular ideals. The rise of the fundamentalists (American Taliban?) within our political system is rapidly eroding the principles that have made our nation's political and justice system stand out as unique in the world. These days, being known as "too secular" means you are unelectable. Thomas Jefferson would be unelectable if he were alive today.
beliefnet: Excerpt from 'Freethinkers' by Susan Jacoby "It is difficult, in an era in which most Americans acquire their information from packaged sound bites that require almost no effort from audiences, to convey the excitement of a time when people were willing to expend a good deal of energy looking at evidence, and listening to opinions, that challenged the received wisdom of previous ages."
Progressive News - Our Secular Nation by Susan Jacoby: "In fact�and it is a little-known fact today�devout evangelical Christians were among the strongest supporters of the separation between church and state that took shape in the formative years of the republic."
Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state"
NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. God and Government. Separating Church and State | PBS
beliefnet: Excerpt from 'Freethinkers' by Susan Jacoby "It is difficult, in an era in which most Americans acquire their information from packaged sound bites that require almost no effort from audiences, to convey the excitement of a time when people were willing to expend a good deal of energy looking at evidence, and listening to opinions, that challenged the received wisdom of previous ages."
Progressive News - Our Secular Nation by Susan Jacoby: "In fact�and it is a little-known fact today�devout evangelical Christians were among the strongest supporters of the separation between church and state that took shape in the formative years of the republic."
Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state"
NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. God and Government. Separating Church and State | PBS
Friday, May 14, 2004
Beheading Victim 'Loved Adventure and Risk'
By Sewell Chan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A01
he found it
Let's be fair: there are lots of nice people who get killed. I think some of them are Iraqies. And some Americans and their corporations are carpetbagging opportunists. And getting your head chopped off vs fried in an American electric chair or being on death row for 15 years when you are not guilty or when you are just generally fucked for being black... ah, but don't get me started.
Berg was clearly exceptional: and there was work to be done at home.
By Sewell Chan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A01
he found it
Let's be fair: there are lots of nice people who get killed. I think some of them are Iraqies. And some Americans and their corporations are carpetbagging opportunists. And getting your head chopped off vs fried in an American electric chair or being on death row for 15 years when you are not guilty or when you are just generally fucked for being black... ah, but don't get me started.
Berg was clearly exceptional: and there was work to be done at home.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Since it is nearly imposible to keep tabs on the number of wounded men and women of our military in Iraq by reading the news, I post here an update and a link.
The Wounded: US Military as reported after 4/3
Period Wnd-RTD Wounded
19-Mar-03 thru 03-Apr-03 115 426
04-Apr-03 thru 02-Apr-04 963 1484
03-Apr-04 thru 09-Apr-04 59 222
10-Apr-04 thru 16-Apr-04 119 242
17-Apr-04 thru 23-Apr-04 138 96
24-Apr-04 thru 03-May-04 193 76
04-May-04 thru 11-May-04 82 116
Total 1669 2662
Wnd-RTD: Wounded in Action Return to Duty within 72 hours
Wnd: Wounded in Action Not Return to Duty within 72 hours
The Wounded: US Military as reported after 4/3
Period Wnd-RTD Wounded
19-Mar-03 thru 03-Apr-03 115 426
04-Apr-03 thru 02-Apr-04 963 1484
03-Apr-04 thru 09-Apr-04 59 222
10-Apr-04 thru 16-Apr-04 119 242
17-Apr-04 thru 23-Apr-04 138 96
24-Apr-04 thru 03-May-04 193 76
04-May-04 thru 11-May-04 82 116
Total 1669 2662
Wnd-RTD: Wounded in Action Return to Duty within 72 hours
Wnd: Wounded in Action Not Return to Duty within 72 hours
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Letters to the Editor from today's NYTimes
To the Editor:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's declaration that the United States supports the rule of law was gratifying (excerpts from the Congressional hearing, May 8). It might have been more convincing if we had not repudiated the International Criminal Court and continued to pressure other countries into guaranteeing that no American would ever be sent to The Hague for war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Credibility suffers when we approve international law, but only for others.
BENJAMIN B. FERENCZ
New Rochelle, N.Y., May 8, 2004
The writer was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials.
•
To the Editor:
Once again, David Brooks steadfastly approves of a demonstrably failed foreign policy ("Crisis of Confidence," column, May 8). "We've got to reboot," he writes.
Although an amusing metaphor, rebooting foreign policy implies that the policy is essentially sound, with only an operational glitch.
This administration's foreign policy is not computer software; it is dead and wounded American soldiers and civilians, uncounted Iraqi casualties, collapsed international credibility and now, with Abu Ghraib, destruction of American moral values that will not be recovered in the lifetimes of my great-grandchildren.
My father and oldest brother were graduates of West Point. Dad served in World War II. My oldest brother served three tours in Vietnam. Another brother served in the Navy for six years. I served in the Army Reserve. My sons served in Desert Storm. My youngest son is in Afghanistan as I write.
There is no excuse for what just happened.
WILLIAM A. FERRY
Lafayette, La., May 8, 2004
•
To the Editor:
David Brooks has it almost right in his analysis of our current national crisis (column, May 8). But when he asserts, "It was U.S. inaction against Al Qaeda that got us into this mess in the first place," he has it all wrong.
What got us into this mess was the unnecessary invasion of Iraq, which played perfectly into the plans of Osama bin Laden.
It has subverted the war against terrorism by diverting military and financial resources and political attention away from that war and directing them toward fighting Saddam Hussein, who, as a secular ruler, was one of Osama bin Laden's main enemies.
It has also produced the greatest boon to recruitment for Al Qaeda worldwide.
Thus it has made us less safe, financially strapped and isolated from the world community.
OWEN C. THOMAS
Berkeley, Calif., May 8, 2004
To the Editor:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's declaration that the United States supports the rule of law was gratifying (excerpts from the Congressional hearing, May 8). It might have been more convincing if we had not repudiated the International Criminal Court and continued to pressure other countries into guaranteeing that no American would ever be sent to The Hague for war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Credibility suffers when we approve international law, but only for others.
BENJAMIN B. FERENCZ
New Rochelle, N.Y., May 8, 2004
The writer was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials.
•
To the Editor:
Once again, David Brooks steadfastly approves of a demonstrably failed foreign policy ("Crisis of Confidence," column, May 8). "We've got to reboot," he writes.
Although an amusing metaphor, rebooting foreign policy implies that the policy is essentially sound, with only an operational glitch.
This administration's foreign policy is not computer software; it is dead and wounded American soldiers and civilians, uncounted Iraqi casualties, collapsed international credibility and now, with Abu Ghraib, destruction of American moral values that will not be recovered in the lifetimes of my great-grandchildren.
My father and oldest brother were graduates of West Point. Dad served in World War II. My oldest brother served three tours in Vietnam. Another brother served in the Navy for six years. I served in the Army Reserve. My sons served in Desert Storm. My youngest son is in Afghanistan as I write.
There is no excuse for what just happened.
WILLIAM A. FERRY
Lafayette, La., May 8, 2004
•
To the Editor:
David Brooks has it almost right in his analysis of our current national crisis (column, May 8). But when he asserts, "It was U.S. inaction against Al Qaeda that got us into this mess in the first place," he has it all wrong.
What got us into this mess was the unnecessary invasion of Iraq, which played perfectly into the plans of Osama bin Laden.
It has subverted the war against terrorism by diverting military and financial resources and political attention away from that war and directing them toward fighting Saddam Hussein, who, as a secular ruler, was one of Osama bin Laden's main enemies.
It has also produced the greatest boon to recruitment for Al Qaeda worldwide.
Thus it has made us less safe, financially strapped and isolated from the world community.
OWEN C. THOMAS
Berkeley, Calif., May 8, 2004
From the conservative David Brooks
For Iraqis to Win, the U.S. Must Lose
This has been a crushingly depressing period, especially for people who support the war in Iraq. The predictions people on my side made about the postwar world have not yet come true. The warnings others made about the fractious state of post-Saddam society have.
It's still too soon to declare the Iraq mission a failure. Some of the best reporting out of Iraq suggests that many Iraqis have stared into the abyss of what their country could become and have decided to work with renewed vigor toward the democracy that both we and they want.
Nonetheless, it's not too early to begin thinking about what was clearly an intellectual failure. There was, above all, a failure to understand the consequences of our power. There was a failure to anticipate the response our power would have on the people we sought to liberate. They resent us for our power and at the same time expect us to be capable of everything. There was a failure to understand the effect our power would have on other people around the world. We were so sure we were using our might for noble purposes, we assumed that sooner or later, everybody else would see that as well. Far from being blinded by greed, we were blinded by idealism.
Just after World War II, there were Americans who were astute students of the nature and consequences of American power. America's midcentury leaders — politicians like F.D.R. and Harry Truman, as well as public intellectuals like Reinhold Niebuhr and James Burnham — had seen American might liberate death camps. They had also seen Americans commit wartime atrocities that surpass those at Abu Ghraib.
These midcentury leaders were idealists, but they were rugged idealists, because they combined a cold-eyed view of reality with a warm self-confidence in their ability to do history-changing good.
They took a tragically ironic view of their situation. They understood that we can't defeat ruthless enemies without wielding power. But we can't wield power without sometimes being corrupted by it. Therefore, we can't do good without losing our innocence.
History had assigned them a dirty job: taking morally hazardous action. They did not try to escape, but they did not expect sainthood.
That rugged idealism looks appealing today. We went into Iraq with what, in retrospect, seems like a childish fantasy. We were going to topple Saddam, establish democracy and hand the country back to grateful Iraqis. We expected to be universally admired when it was all over.
We didn't understand the tragic irony that our power is also our weakness. As long as we seemed so mighty, others, even those we were aiming to assist, were bound to revolt. They would do so for their own self-respect. In taking out Saddam, we robbed the Iraqis of the honor of liberating themselves. The fact that they had no means to do so is beside the point.
Now, looking ahead, we face another irony. To earn their own freedom, the Iraqis need a victory. And since it is too late for the Iraqis to have a victory over Saddam, it is imperative that they have a victory over us. If the future textbooks of a free Iraq get written, the toppling of Saddam will be vaguely mentioned in one clause in one sentence. But the heroic Iraqi resistance against the American occupation will be lavishly described, page after page. For us to succeed in Iraq, we have to lose.
That means the good Iraqis, the ones who support democracy, have to have a forum in which they can defy us. If the insurgents are the only anti-Americans, then there will always be a soft spot for them in the hearts of Iraqi patriots.
That forum is an election campaign. There would be significant risks involved in moving the Iraq elections up to this fall. Parties might use their militias to coerce votes. But Iraqis have to see their candidates and themselves standing up with speeches and ideas, not just with R.P.G.'s. The insurgency would come to look anti-democratic, which would be seen to be bad, not just anti-American, which is seen to be good.
If the Iraqis do campaign this fall, then at their rallies they will jeer at us. We will still be hated around the world. But we will have succeeded in doing what we set out to do.
And we will have learned about the irony of our situation.
For Iraqis to Win, the U.S. Must Lose
This has been a crushingly depressing period, especially for people who support the war in Iraq. The predictions people on my side made about the postwar world have not yet come true. The warnings others made about the fractious state of post-Saddam society have.
It's still too soon to declare the Iraq mission a failure. Some of the best reporting out of Iraq suggests that many Iraqis have stared into the abyss of what their country could become and have decided to work with renewed vigor toward the democracy that both we and they want.
Nonetheless, it's not too early to begin thinking about what was clearly an intellectual failure. There was, above all, a failure to understand the consequences of our power. There was a failure to anticipate the response our power would have on the people we sought to liberate. They resent us for our power and at the same time expect us to be capable of everything. There was a failure to understand the effect our power would have on other people around the world. We were so sure we were using our might for noble purposes, we assumed that sooner or later, everybody else would see that as well. Far from being blinded by greed, we were blinded by idealism.
Just after World War II, there were Americans who were astute students of the nature and consequences of American power. America's midcentury leaders — politicians like F.D.R. and Harry Truman, as well as public intellectuals like Reinhold Niebuhr and James Burnham — had seen American might liberate death camps. They had also seen Americans commit wartime atrocities that surpass those at Abu Ghraib.
These midcentury leaders were idealists, but they were rugged idealists, because they combined a cold-eyed view of reality with a warm self-confidence in their ability to do history-changing good.
They took a tragically ironic view of their situation. They understood that we can't defeat ruthless enemies without wielding power. But we can't wield power without sometimes being corrupted by it. Therefore, we can't do good without losing our innocence.
History had assigned them a dirty job: taking morally hazardous action. They did not try to escape, but they did not expect sainthood.
That rugged idealism looks appealing today. We went into Iraq with what, in retrospect, seems like a childish fantasy. We were going to topple Saddam, establish democracy and hand the country back to grateful Iraqis. We expected to be universally admired when it was all over.
We didn't understand the tragic irony that our power is also our weakness. As long as we seemed so mighty, others, even those we were aiming to assist, were bound to revolt. They would do so for their own self-respect. In taking out Saddam, we robbed the Iraqis of the honor of liberating themselves. The fact that they had no means to do so is beside the point.
Now, looking ahead, we face another irony. To earn their own freedom, the Iraqis need a victory. And since it is too late for the Iraqis to have a victory over Saddam, it is imperative that they have a victory over us. If the future textbooks of a free Iraq get written, the toppling of Saddam will be vaguely mentioned in one clause in one sentence. But the heroic Iraqi resistance against the American occupation will be lavishly described, page after page. For us to succeed in Iraq, we have to lose.
That means the good Iraqis, the ones who support democracy, have to have a forum in which they can defy us. If the insurgents are the only anti-Americans, then there will always be a soft spot for them in the hearts of Iraqi patriots.
That forum is an election campaign. There would be significant risks involved in moving the Iraq elections up to this fall. Parties might use their militias to coerce votes. But Iraqis have to see their candidates and themselves standing up with speeches and ideas, not just with R.P.G.'s. The insurgency would come to look anti-democratic, which would be seen to be bad, not just anti-American, which is seen to be good.
If the Iraqis do campaign this fall, then at their rallies they will jeer at us. We will still be hated around the world. But we will have succeeded in doing what we set out to do.
And we will have learned about the irony of our situation.
American exceptionalism? home of creation science, and supply side economics... the freedom to be quite stupid indeed. Note that 12 out of 18000 economists called themselves supply side economists, and that president Regan embraced that... and so did many Americans: number those that would tell the president he was full of shit.
The supply-side idea is a simple one, and makes a popular political message. However, it is interesting to note that mainstream economists -- even conservative ones -- almost universally reject supply-side theory. In the early 80s, the influential and multi-partisan American Economics Association had 18,000 members. Only 12 called themselves supply-side economists.1 In American universities, there is no major department that could be called "supply-side," and there is no supply-side economist at any major department.2 This is significant, because academia in the 70s was dominated by conservative economic theory, and conservative economists normally welcome any ideas that make the case against government intervention. The fact that they scrutinized supply-side theory and rejected it wholesale gives eloquent testimony to the theory's bankruptcy. When candidate George Bush called it "voodoo economics" in the 1980 presidential campaign, he was doing so with the full backing of America's economic community.
Oh so much more...
The supply-side idea is a simple one, and makes a popular political message. However, it is interesting to note that mainstream economists -- even conservative ones -- almost universally reject supply-side theory. In the early 80s, the influential and multi-partisan American Economics Association had 18,000 members. Only 12 called themselves supply-side economists.1 In American universities, there is no major department that could be called "supply-side," and there is no supply-side economist at any major department.2 This is significant, because academia in the 70s was dominated by conservative economic theory, and conservative economists normally welcome any ideas that make the case against government intervention. The fact that they scrutinized supply-side theory and rejected it wholesale gives eloquent testimony to the theory's bankruptcy. When candidate George Bush called it "voodoo economics" in the 1980 presidential campaign, he was doing so with the full backing of America's economic community.
Oh so much more...
Monday, May 10, 2004
The System Was Lacking
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, May 7, 2004; Page A33
"The system worked."
That's what Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told NBC's Matt Lauer this week of the response to those despicable acts of abuse committed in our names in the most notorious of Saddam Hussein's prisons. It all came out, and all is well because the Defense Department investigated itself.
more...
A system that fixes itself when it breaks is NOT a system that is working... we need to get far far away from that nonsense.
Our economic system is NOT working: our war machinery is certainly not "working"...
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, May 7, 2004; Page A33
"The system worked."
That's what Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told NBC's Matt Lauer this week of the response to those despicable acts of abuse committed in our names in the most notorious of Saddam Hussein's prisons. It all came out, and all is well because the Defense Department investigated itself.
more...
A system that fixes itself when it breaks is NOT a system that is working... we need to get far far away from that nonsense.
Our economic system is NOT working: our war machinery is certainly not "working"...
Friday, May 07, 2004
from the "gimme that old time religion, eh?" dept
"a convert to Islam..."
The magazine, citing unnamed sources, said that "Mayfield's fingerprints were found on a bag containing bomb material connected to the Spanish attack" but that officials remained uncertain about any role Mayfield may have had.
"a convert to Islam..."
The magazine, citing unnamed sources, said that "Mayfield's fingerprints were found on a bag containing bomb material connected to the Spanish attack" but that officials remained uncertain about any role Mayfield may have had.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
I have to say that the more I read about this weird pseudo-sexual and physical abuse of prisoners by the U.S. Army in Iraq then more humiliated I become. What the HELL is going on in our military??????????????
New Prison Images Emerge
Graphic Photos May Be More Evidence of Abuse
By Christian Davenport
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 6, 2004; Page A01
The collection of photographs begins like a travelogue from Iraq. Here are U.S. soldiers posing in front of a mosque. Here is a soldier riding a camel in the desert. And then: a soldier holding a leash tied around a man's neck in an Iraqi prison. He is naked, grimacing and lying on the floor.
Mixed in with more than 1,000 digital pictures obtained by The Washington Post are photographs of naked men, apparently prisoners, sprawled on top of one another while soldiers stand around them. There is another photograph of a naked man with a dark hood over his head, handcuffed to a cell door. And another of a naked man handcuffed to a bunk bed, his arms splayed so wide that his back is arched. A pair of women's underwear covers his head and face.
New Prison Images Emerge
Graphic Photos May Be More Evidence of Abuse
By Christian Davenport
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 6, 2004; Page A01
The collection of photographs begins like a travelogue from Iraq. Here are U.S. soldiers posing in front of a mosque. Here is a soldier riding a camel in the desert. And then: a soldier holding a leash tied around a man's neck in an Iraqi prison. He is naked, grimacing and lying on the floor.
Mixed in with more than 1,000 digital pictures obtained by The Washington Post are photographs of naked men, apparently prisoners, sprawled on top of one another while soldiers stand around them. There is another photograph of a naked man with a dark hood over his head, handcuffed to a cell door. And another of a naked man handcuffed to a bunk bed, his arms splayed so wide that his back is arched. A pair of women's underwear covers his head and face.
Well I'm sure glad that Bush's record tax breaks for the wealthy are being put to good use and getting reinvested in the economy.
My favorite is glowing article in the International Herald Tribune that speaks of;
" Constantly hailed as the giant of modern art, Picasso was probably at his greatest when working under the spell of Old Masters. The rigorous composition, the color balance and the profound psychological probe of the young sitter place the likeness in a category that begins with Italian Renaissance portraitists and continues right through the 19th century with Corot and Degas."
You can just hear the breathlessness of the writer has they espouse
"Buyers sensed the unique character of the occasion. They responded to pictures that played each other up, linked by affinities that went beyond style or school."
"Edouard Manet's "Les Courses au Bois de Boulogne" (Races in the Bois de Boulogne) is as important regarding the Impressionist's painting as "Garçon" is within Picasso's oeuvre. The complex composition worthy of 17th-century masters is combined with a sketchiness in much of the detail that already heralds the march toward Abstractionism."
What a load of crap!
So millions unemployed with more under-employed, and our privileged class merchants come "landed-gentry" throw money at a painting. Ah well, to each their own.
At $104 Million, Picasso Smashes Auction Record
My favorite is glowing article in the International Herald Tribune that speaks of;
" Constantly hailed as the giant of modern art, Picasso was probably at his greatest when working under the spell of Old Masters. The rigorous composition, the color balance and the profound psychological probe of the young sitter place the likeness in a category that begins with Italian Renaissance portraitists and continues right through the 19th century with Corot and Degas."
You can just hear the breathlessness of the writer has they espouse
"Buyers sensed the unique character of the occasion. They responded to pictures that played each other up, linked by affinities that went beyond style or school."
"Edouard Manet's "Les Courses au Bois de Boulogne" (Races in the Bois de Boulogne) is as important regarding the Impressionist's painting as "Garçon" is within Picasso's oeuvre. The complex composition worthy of 17th-century masters is combined with a sketchiness in much of the detail that already heralds the march toward Abstractionism."
What a load of crap!
So millions unemployed with more under-employed, and our privileged class merchants come "landed-gentry" throw money at a painting. Ah well, to each their own.
What did Andrew Card wisper into Bush's ear the morning of September 11th? Let's hear from Andrew Card himself as quoted by a conservative web site.
Card told that audience that he walked in and whispered in the President's ear: "'Mr. President, a second plane has hit the second tower. America is under attack.' Then I stepped back so he could not ask me any other questions."
Card told that audience that he walked in and whispered in the President's ear: "'Mr. President, a second plane has hit the second tower. America is under attack.' Then I stepped back so he could not ask me any other questions."
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
GWBush on 9/11
>>> At 9:03 AM on 11 September 2001, the second airplane hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center. President Bush was in Florida, at the Emma T. Booker Elementary School, listening to children read. Chief of Staff Andrew Card came over and whispered in Bush's ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."
What did the Commander in Chief do? Nothing. He sat there. He sat for well over 5 minutes, doing nothing while 3,000 people were dying and the attacks were still in progress.
Not only did the leader of the free world sit as his country was attacked, the Secret Service also did nothing. Bush was appearing in public at a previously announced photo-op. He was a sitting duck. The attacks were ongoing at that point (planes had yet to hit the Pentagon or the field in Pennsylvania), and nobody knew how much more destruction was going to happen. Were there two, three, four, eight more planes hijacked and on their way to crash into prominent buildings? Was one headed for the school, where anyone who checked the President's public itinerary would know he was located? Were other terrorists planning to detonate dirty nukes? Were they going to release anthrax or smallpox or sarin? Was an assassination squad going to burst into the school and get Bush? Was a suicide bomber going to ram a truck full of explosives into that classroom?
During the midst of the attacks, any of these things could've happened. Yet there sits Bush, seemingly unconcerned. His Chief of Staff likewise doesn't think that America in flames warrants the President's immediate attention. And the Secret Service utterly fails to do its job by grabbing the President of the United States and getting him to safety. It's truly inexplicable.
And it's something the administration isn't too eager to trumpet. They haven't released footage of the President's (non)actions during this historic moment of American history. Until now, the only available footage had been a little film put together by Booker Elementary. [See it here.] The problem is, there's a jump edit in the footage: From the time Card whispers to Bush until the end of the scene in the classroom, only 2 minutes and 10 seconds elapse.
But this new, fuller footage shows Bush sitting for a full five minutes after he'd been told that "America is under attack."
He declined to take action even longer than this, but unfortunately this footage ends before he leaves the classroom. Thanks to an amazing article by Allan Wood and Paul Thompson, we know what happened after the footage suddenly cuts off:
For a detailed portrait of what Bush did and didn't do on 9/11, you can do no better than to read this article here. It is based completely on reports from mainstream media and statements from government officials.
Apologists claim that Bush didn't leave simply because he didn't want to interrupt and upset the children, but this falls apart for several reasons:
1) America is being attacked, thousands are dying, and Bush doesn't know if we're facing nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks, as well. Couldn't he just say, "Excuse me, kids, I need to take care of something. It's part of being President, y'understand. I'll be back as soon as I can."
2) At the moment Card told Bush about the second plane, the children weren't reading to Bush. They had finished reading words from an easel and were reaching under their chairs for a book when Card whispered to Bush. Another 30 seconds would elapse before they started reading again. This pause was a perfect time for Bush to politely excuse himself.
3) By staying, he not only endangered his own life, but the lives of all of those children. Wouldn't it be better to risk upsetting them than to risk letting them die in a terror attack?
4) Even if Bush was afraid of hurting the kiddies' feelings, what about the Secret Service? Have they been trained not to attempt to save the President's life if it might bother some schoolchildren?
5) What about Chief of Staff Andrew Card, White House Spokesperson Ari Fleischer, and other officials who were in that classroom? Didn't they feel that a 21st-century Pearl Harbor and a potential attack on the President himself were worth some sort of action?
6) Finally, and most damningly, this excuse doesn't explain why Bush continued to mill around the classroom for several minutes after the children had finished reading.
Somewhere, someone has the complete, uncut footage of Bush in Booker Elementary, from the time he enters the classroom until he finally walks out. If you have this footage, please send it to me.
>>> At 9:03 AM on 11 September 2001, the second airplane hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center. President Bush was in Florida, at the Emma T. Booker Elementary School, listening to children read. Chief of Staff Andrew Card came over and whispered in Bush's ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."
What did the Commander in Chief do? Nothing. He sat there. He sat for well over 5 minutes, doing nothing while 3,000 people were dying and the attacks were still in progress.
Not only did the leader of the free world sit as his country was attacked, the Secret Service also did nothing. Bush was appearing in public at a previously announced photo-op. He was a sitting duck. The attacks were ongoing at that point (planes had yet to hit the Pentagon or the field in Pennsylvania), and nobody knew how much more destruction was going to happen. Were there two, three, four, eight more planes hijacked and on their way to crash into prominent buildings? Was one headed for the school, where anyone who checked the President's public itinerary would know he was located? Were other terrorists planning to detonate dirty nukes? Were they going to release anthrax or smallpox or sarin? Was an assassination squad going to burst into the school and get Bush? Was a suicide bomber going to ram a truck full of explosives into that classroom?
During the midst of the attacks, any of these things could've happened. Yet there sits Bush, seemingly unconcerned. His Chief of Staff likewise doesn't think that America in flames warrants the President's immediate attention. And the Secret Service utterly fails to do its job by grabbing the President of the United States and getting him to safety. It's truly inexplicable.
And it's something the administration isn't too eager to trumpet. They haven't released footage of the President's (non)actions during this historic moment of American history. Until now, the only available footage had been a little film put together by Booker Elementary. [See it here.] The problem is, there's a jump edit in the footage: From the time Card whispers to Bush until the end of the scene in the classroom, only 2 minutes and 10 seconds elapse.
But this new, fuller footage shows Bush sitting for a full five minutes after he'd been told that "America is under attack."
He declined to take action even longer than this, but unfortunately this footage ends before he leaves the classroom. Thanks to an amazing article by Allan Wood and Paul Thompson, we know what happened after the footage suddenly cuts off:
The only source to describe what happened next is Fighting Back by Bill Sammon. Publishers Weekly described Sammon's book as an "inside account of the Bush administration's reaction to 9-11 [and] a breathless, highly complimentary portrait of the president [showing] the great merit and unwavering moral vision of his inner circle." [Publisher's Weekly, 10/15/02] Sammon's conservative perspective makes his account of Bush's behavior at the end of the photo-op all the more surprising. Bush is described as smiling and chatting with the children "as if he didn't have a care in the world" and "in the most relaxed manner imaginable." White House aide Gordon Johndroe, then came in as he usually does at the end of press conferences, and said, "Thank you, press. If you could step out the door we came in, please." A reporter then asked, "Mr. President, are you aware of the reports of the plane crash in New York? Is there anything...", But Bush interrupted, and no doubt recalling his order, "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET," Bush responded, "I'll talk about it later." But still the president did not leave. "He stepped forward and shook hands with [classroom teacher] Daniels, slipping his left hand behind her in another photo-op pose. He was taking his good old time. ... Bush lingered until the press was gone." [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 90]
For a detailed portrait of what Bush did and didn't do on 9/11, you can do no better than to read this article here. It is based completely on reports from mainstream media and statements from government officials.
Apologists claim that Bush didn't leave simply because he didn't want to interrupt and upset the children, but this falls apart for several reasons:
1) America is being attacked, thousands are dying, and Bush doesn't know if we're facing nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks, as well. Couldn't he just say, "Excuse me, kids, I need to take care of something. It's part of being President, y'understand. I'll be back as soon as I can."
2) At the moment Card told Bush about the second plane, the children weren't reading to Bush. They had finished reading words from an easel and were reaching under their chairs for a book when Card whispered to Bush. Another 30 seconds would elapse before they started reading again. This pause was a perfect time for Bush to politely excuse himself.
3) By staying, he not only endangered his own life, but the lives of all of those children. Wouldn't it be better to risk upsetting them than to risk letting them die in a terror attack?
4) Even if Bush was afraid of hurting the kiddies' feelings, what about the Secret Service? Have they been trained not to attempt to save the President's life if it might bother some schoolchildren?
5) What about Chief of Staff Andrew Card, White House Spokesperson Ari Fleischer, and other officials who were in that classroom? Didn't they feel that a 21st-century Pearl Harbor and a potential attack on the President himself were worth some sort of action?
6) Finally, and most damningly, this excuse doesn't explain why Bush continued to mill around the classroom for several minutes after the children had finished reading.
Somewhere, someone has the complete, uncut footage of Bush in Booker Elementary, from the time he enters the classroom until he finally walks out. If you have this footage, please send it to me.
FCC Swamped With Oprah Indecency Complaints
Stern, Kimmel fans attack Winfrey teen sex show
MAY 4--In the wake of an Oprah Winfrey show that included explicit talk about teen sexuality (and addressed topics such as rainbows and getting one's salad tossed), the Federal Communications Commission received more than 1600 letters complaining about the racy March 18 broadcast and demanding that the talk show host be cited for indecency. And since most FCC correspondents were prodded to write by the agency's Public Enemy Number One, Howard Stern, and ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel, the Oprah complaints are particularly entertaining and vituperative in their decrying of a double standard employed by the fine-happy FCC brass. Below you'll find a sampling of the Oprah complaints, a small chunk of the stack we received via a Freedom of Information Act request (the name of the FCC official who handles FOIA requests, one Sharon Jenkins, appears at the top of each letter because she is the one who prints out the individual missives before providing them to TSG). Since the commission redacts the names of letter writers, there is no way to actually confirm the true identity of letter writers like the "parent" who, having returned home from "Bible day camp" with their three-year-old twins, had to endure Oprah's "disgusting rhetoric." Or the "teacher" who worried about his third grade students "viewing these vulgar conversations about sex." Despite the complaints, it is unlikely that stations broadcasting Winfrey's March show--which originally aired, to little apparent notice, in October 2003--will be sanctioned.
Stern, Kimmel fans attack Winfrey teen sex show
MAY 4--In the wake of an Oprah Winfrey show that included explicit talk about teen sexuality (and addressed topics such as rainbows and getting one's salad tossed), the Federal Communications Commission received more than 1600 letters complaining about the racy March 18 broadcast and demanding that the talk show host be cited for indecency. And since most FCC correspondents were prodded to write by the agency's Public Enemy Number One, Howard Stern, and ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel, the Oprah complaints are particularly entertaining and vituperative in their decrying of a double standard employed by the fine-happy FCC brass. Below you'll find a sampling of the Oprah complaints, a small chunk of the stack we received via a Freedom of Information Act request (the name of the FCC official who handles FOIA requests, one Sharon Jenkins, appears at the top of each letter because she is the one who prints out the individual missives before providing them to TSG). Since the commission redacts the names of letter writers, there is no way to actually confirm the true identity of letter writers like the "parent" who, having returned home from "Bible day camp" with their three-year-old twins, had to endure Oprah's "disgusting rhetoric." Or the "teacher" who worried about his third grade students "viewing these vulgar conversations about sex." Despite the complaints, it is unlikely that stations broadcasting Winfrey's March show--which originally aired, to little apparent notice, in October 2003--will be sanctioned.
From Dirk
The Yes Men
These guys continue to be brilliant, melding
performance and politics in a way that strips naked
certain capitalist and conservative organizations.
I received this link recently...
http://www.theyesmen.org/hijinks/bush/heritage.shtml
More fun available at:
http://www.theyesmen.org/
Dirk
The Yes Men
These guys continue to be brilliant, melding
performance and politics in a way that strips naked
certain capitalist and conservative organizations.
I received this link recently...
http://www.theyesmen.org/hijinks/bush/heritage.shtml
More fun available at:
http://www.theyesmen.org/
Dirk
Is Google reading my email?:
Comments are down at the moment so I'm posting this to the blog
Many, many, websites, including the google search engine, already do what you're saying. That is how ad servers target ads to viewers - they base the ad they serve on what you're looking at. Go to amazon.com and you'll see an extreme version of this in action. If you read the GMail privacy policy, you'll see that they aren't doing anything new in concept, they're just doing it with email.
Gmail Privacy Policy
Comments are down at the moment so I'm posting this to the blog
Many, many, websites, including the google search engine, already do what you're saying. That is how ad servers target ads to viewers - they base the ad they serve on what you're looking at. Go to amazon.com and you'll see an extreme version of this in action. If you read the GMail privacy policy, you'll see that they aren't doing anything new in concept, they're just doing it with email.
Gmail Privacy Policy
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?hp
The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.
The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.
The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Moral Accounting An Activist Draws Interest at the Bank
By Philip Kennicott
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 4, 2004; Page C01 Shirin Ebadi's big day at the World Bank, her first visit to Washington since winning the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize, began outside, on Pennsylvania Avenue, in the chill wind of a very gray morning. She was immaculate in a light blue pantsuit, better suited to August, and her hair and makeup were television-worthy. It was just after 9 and she was about to spend the next six hours meeting the suits.
Hair, makeup, clothing -- none of this matters much, except that Ebadi has an untouchable, remote, hands-off quality that is seamless, from the way she looks to the way she talks to the way she moves through a room. The Iranian lawyer, the first Muslim woman to win the Peace Prize, is a civil rights activist, a champion of women and children's issues, a former magistrate in Iran and now a Nobel laureate traveling the world at breakneck speed, using the limelight while it lasts. She is never off-message. She has put on determination like a coat of armor, and there are no chinks in it.
more...
By Philip Kennicott
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 4, 2004; Page C01 Shirin Ebadi's big day at the World Bank, her first visit to Washington since winning the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize, began outside, on Pennsylvania Avenue, in the chill wind of a very gray morning. She was immaculate in a light blue pantsuit, better suited to August, and her hair and makeup were television-worthy. It was just after 9 and she was about to spend the next six hours meeting the suits.
Hair, makeup, clothing -- none of this matters much, except that Ebadi has an untouchable, remote, hands-off quality that is seamless, from the way she looks to the way she talks to the way she moves through a room. The Iranian lawyer, the first Muslim woman to win the Peace Prize, is a civil rights activist, a champion of women and children's issues, a former magistrate in Iran and now a Nobel laureate traveling the world at breakneck speed, using the limelight while it lasts. She is never off-message. She has put on determination like a coat of armor, and there are no chinks in it.
more...
Monday, May 03, 2004
Imagining a $7-a-Gallon Future
By Daniel Yergin
No price in America is more visible, indeed inescapable, than that of gasoline. And Americans don't like the numbers they're seeing today, and their anger has turned high prices at the pump into highly flammable political fodder. OPEC's decision last week to cut production has further fueled the fire.
But what are those prices telling us? That driving this summer will be expensive? Or that $3 a gallon, which spouted last week at a California station, is our future? Or more worrying, that after many years of false alarms, the world is truly beginning to run out of oil?
That last question is at the center of a fierce debate. Adherents of the "peak oil" theory warn of a permanent oil shortage. In the next five or 10 years, they maintain, the world's capacity to produce oil will reach its geological limit and fall behind growing demand. They trace their arguments back to the geophysicist M. King Hubbert, who in 1956 accurately predicted that American oil production would reach its apex around 1970. In a recent book, "Hubbert's Peak," Kenneth S. Defeyes, an emeritus professor of geology at Princeton, wrote that "Global oil production will probably reach a peak sometime during this decade." Current prices, he adds, "may be the preamble to a major crisis."
In "Out of Gas," David Goodstein, a professor at the California Institute of Technology, also argues that world oil output will peak "most probably within this decade" and thereafter "will decline forever."
For Americans rattled by current prices, this theory holds out the unsettling prospect of gasoline prices at $5, $6, $7 a gallon and higher still. In the face of such a grim prospect, $1.76 - last week's national average - fades in importance.
Of course, today's average price doesn't approach the one reached in 1981, around $2.80, adjusted for inflation, and prices in Europe are typically far higher than that.
Still, are the peakists right?
Yes, oil is a finite resource, and fear of running out has always haunted the petroleum industry. In the 1880's, John Archbold, who would succeed John D. Rockefeller as head of the Standard Oil Trust, began to sell his shares in the company because engineers told him that America's days as an oil producer were numbered.
After World War I, the American government's top oil expert predicted a coming "gasoline famine." One solution was to cobble together the three easternmost provinces of the defunct Ottoman Empire into a new country, called Iraq, believed to be rich in oil resources and safely under British control.
After World War II, fears of shortages spiked again, and the industry invented offshore drilling. (Today, 30 percent of America's crude oil comes from the Gulf of Mexico.) Reserves in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, discovered just before World War II, were rapidly developed.
The oil crises of the 1970's - the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the 1979-80 Iranian revolution - were also seen as the harbingers of the "end of oil." In 1972, an international research group called the Club of Rome predicted the world would soon run short of natural resources. Spiraling oil prices in the following years - from $3 a barrel to $34 a barrel - seemed like a confirmation.
Of course, that's not what happened. Supply steeply increased from new non-OPEC sources like Alaska and the North Sea; coal and nuclear power plants pushed oil out of electricity generation, and conservation reduced demand. By the mid-1980's, oil, supposedly headed for $100 a barrel, instead fell to as low as $6.
Historically, then, dire oil predictions have been undone by two factors. One is the opening (or reopening) of territories to exploration by companies faced with a constant demand to replace declining reserves. The second is the tremendous impact of new technology. After World War I, seismic technology, used for locating enemy artillery, was adapted to oil field exploration. And in the 1990's, it became feasible to drill into deep offshore fields, which was inconceivable during those crisis years of the 1970's.
Better technology and management have increased Russian output by 45 percent since 1998, making Russia the world's second-largest oil producer. And if United States sanctions are lifted on Libya, new investment there could push up production. In the meantime, advanced information technologies and sophisticated remote sensing techniques are making exploration and production much more efficient, which could make an additional 125 billion barrels available over the next decade, an amount greater than the current proved reserves of Iraq.
Those who don't believe a shortage is imminent do not deny that a peak will eventually be reached. They just believe that it is much farther off into the future.
"You can certainly make a good case that sometime before the year 2050 conventional oil production will have peaked," said the head of exploration for a major oil company. He and others believe, however, that oil production will simply plateau, and then farther into the future begin to decline.
They also argue that the proponents of peak oil consistently underestimate the reserves of regions in Russia, the Caspian Sea, the Middle East and the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Also, they say, the industry will continue to increase the percentage of oil that can be recovered from a given field.
A major question concerns the real size of the Persian Gulf reserves. The world's proven reserves, in total, currently stand at 1.2 trillion barrels (almost double the level of the early 1970's). Of that, nearly 60 percent is in the Persian Gulf. But many worried about near-term oil shortages believe that the gulf reserves been overstated for political purposes by Persian Gulf countries. Others believe that with so much still to be explored, the reserves will prove to be much larger. Both views may be right.
Meanwhile, technology is expanding the definition of oil. In the decades ahead, more and more of our gasoline, heating oil and jet fuel will be made of so-called unconventional oils. These include petroleum mined from Canada's oil sands, once prohibitively expensive to extract, and liquids derived from natural gas. Conversion of large, remote deposits of natural gas into usable liquids appears to be on the edge of commercial viability.
The world will need all these sources of supply, since even with increased energy conservation, economic growth, led by China and India, could well mean that the world will use 20 percent more oil a decade hence.
Yet it looks as if supplies will meet that demand. If there is an obstacle, it won't be the predicted peak in production, at least in the next few decades. Rather, it will be the politics and policies of oil-producing countries and swings in global economic growth. And the extent of these difficulties, whatever they turn out to be, will register in the ups and downs at the gasoline pump.
Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates or CERA, is the author of "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power." It views are not necessarily those of Petroleumworld.
This article originally appeared in the 4/4/2004 edition of the New York Times.Petroleumworld reprint the article in the interest of our readers.
Petroleumworld. News 05 02 04
Copyright © Cera 2004, All rights reserved
By Daniel Yergin
No price in America is more visible, indeed inescapable, than that of gasoline. And Americans don't like the numbers they're seeing today, and their anger has turned high prices at the pump into highly flammable political fodder. OPEC's decision last week to cut production has further fueled the fire.
But what are those prices telling us? That driving this summer will be expensive? Or that $3 a gallon, which spouted last week at a California station, is our future? Or more worrying, that after many years of false alarms, the world is truly beginning to run out of oil?
That last question is at the center of a fierce debate. Adherents of the "peak oil" theory warn of a permanent oil shortage. In the next five or 10 years, they maintain, the world's capacity to produce oil will reach its geological limit and fall behind growing demand. They trace their arguments back to the geophysicist M. King Hubbert, who in 1956 accurately predicted that American oil production would reach its apex around 1970. In a recent book, "Hubbert's Peak," Kenneth S. Defeyes, an emeritus professor of geology at Princeton, wrote that "Global oil production will probably reach a peak sometime during this decade." Current prices, he adds, "may be the preamble to a major crisis."
In "Out of Gas," David Goodstein, a professor at the California Institute of Technology, also argues that world oil output will peak "most probably within this decade" and thereafter "will decline forever."
For Americans rattled by current prices, this theory holds out the unsettling prospect of gasoline prices at $5, $6, $7 a gallon and higher still. In the face of such a grim prospect, $1.76 - last week's national average - fades in importance.
Of course, today's average price doesn't approach the one reached in 1981, around $2.80, adjusted for inflation, and prices in Europe are typically far higher than that.
Still, are the peakists right?
Yes, oil is a finite resource, and fear of running out has always haunted the petroleum industry. In the 1880's, John Archbold, who would succeed John D. Rockefeller as head of the Standard Oil Trust, began to sell his shares in the company because engineers told him that America's days as an oil producer were numbered.
After World War I, the American government's top oil expert predicted a coming "gasoline famine." One solution was to cobble together the three easternmost provinces of the defunct Ottoman Empire into a new country, called Iraq, believed to be rich in oil resources and safely under British control.
After World War II, fears of shortages spiked again, and the industry invented offshore drilling. (Today, 30 percent of America's crude oil comes from the Gulf of Mexico.) Reserves in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, discovered just before World War II, were rapidly developed.
The oil crises of the 1970's - the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the 1979-80 Iranian revolution - were also seen as the harbingers of the "end of oil." In 1972, an international research group called the Club of Rome predicted the world would soon run short of natural resources. Spiraling oil prices in the following years - from $3 a barrel to $34 a barrel - seemed like a confirmation.
Of course, that's not what happened. Supply steeply increased from new non-OPEC sources like Alaska and the North Sea; coal and nuclear power plants pushed oil out of electricity generation, and conservation reduced demand. By the mid-1980's, oil, supposedly headed for $100 a barrel, instead fell to as low as $6.
Historically, then, dire oil predictions have been undone by two factors. One is the opening (or reopening) of territories to exploration by companies faced with a constant demand to replace declining reserves. The second is the tremendous impact of new technology. After World War I, seismic technology, used for locating enemy artillery, was adapted to oil field exploration. And in the 1990's, it became feasible to drill into deep offshore fields, which was inconceivable during those crisis years of the 1970's.
Better technology and management have increased Russian output by 45 percent since 1998, making Russia the world's second-largest oil producer. And if United States sanctions are lifted on Libya, new investment there could push up production. In the meantime, advanced information technologies and sophisticated remote sensing techniques are making exploration and production much more efficient, which could make an additional 125 billion barrels available over the next decade, an amount greater than the current proved reserves of Iraq.
Those who don't believe a shortage is imminent do not deny that a peak will eventually be reached. They just believe that it is much farther off into the future.
"You can certainly make a good case that sometime before the year 2050 conventional oil production will have peaked," said the head of exploration for a major oil company. He and others believe, however, that oil production will simply plateau, and then farther into the future begin to decline.
They also argue that the proponents of peak oil consistently underestimate the reserves of regions in Russia, the Caspian Sea, the Middle East and the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Also, they say, the industry will continue to increase the percentage of oil that can be recovered from a given field.
A major question concerns the real size of the Persian Gulf reserves. The world's proven reserves, in total, currently stand at 1.2 trillion barrels (almost double the level of the early 1970's). Of that, nearly 60 percent is in the Persian Gulf. But many worried about near-term oil shortages believe that the gulf reserves been overstated for political purposes by Persian Gulf countries. Others believe that with so much still to be explored, the reserves will prove to be much larger. Both views may be right.
Meanwhile, technology is expanding the definition of oil. In the decades ahead, more and more of our gasoline, heating oil and jet fuel will be made of so-called unconventional oils. These include petroleum mined from Canada's oil sands, once prohibitively expensive to extract, and liquids derived from natural gas. Conversion of large, remote deposits of natural gas into usable liquids appears to be on the edge of commercial viability.
The world will need all these sources of supply, since even with increased energy conservation, economic growth, led by China and India, could well mean that the world will use 20 percent more oil a decade hence.
Yet it looks as if supplies will meet that demand. If there is an obstacle, it won't be the predicted peak in production, at least in the next few decades. Rather, it will be the politics and policies of oil-producing countries and swings in global economic growth. And the extent of these difficulties, whatever they turn out to be, will register in the ups and downs at the gasoline pump.
Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates or CERA, is the author of "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power." It views are not necessarily those of Petroleumworld.
This article originally appeared in the 4/4/2004 edition of the New York Times.Petroleumworld reprint the article in the interest of our readers.
Petroleumworld. News 05 02 04
Copyright © Cera 2004, All rights reserved
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Peak Oil
The "peak oil" story could be useful to scare people into conserving resources, but that appears unlikely. People aren't interested in this story. The candidates aren't parading this one around. Many people haven't heard and others are either unwilling to believe that global oil production has or will soon peak, or they do not realize the extent to which the world's economies are powered by oil. Some people are taking this seriously. Last night I went to a party with a friend who described his work on a solar concentrator. A large satellite dish type mirror that concentrates the sun's energy intensely on a single point. This energy is used to boil water and the resulting steam used to power an electric generator. His designs require that all components be readily available items that people already have, which precluded solar panels, fuel cells, etc. He's planning for the worse I guess.
Check out the articles on peak oil:
Peak Oil - A turning Point for Mankind: This plot shows the estimated depletion of the world’s oil and natural gas liquids, which are derived from gas, showing the effects on the principal regions. From:
ExxonMobil The Lamp, Number1-2003: "For example, we estimate that world oil and gas production from existing fields is declining at an average rate of about 4 to 6 percent a year. To meet projected demand in 2015, the industry will have to add about 100 million oil-equivalent barrels a day of new production. That's equal to about 80 percent of today's production level. In other words, by 2015, we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today. In addition, the cost associated with providing this additional oil and gas is expected to be considerably more than what industry is now spending."
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | When the last oil well runs dry: "Aspo suggests the key date is not when the oil runs out, but when production peaks, meaning supplies decline. It believes the peak may come by about 2010. "
CNN.com - World oil and gas 'running out' - Oct. 2, 2003
And much more on the web:
Google Search: "peak oil"
And in the news:
Google Search: "peak oil"
The "peak oil" story could be useful to scare people into conserving resources, but that appears unlikely. People aren't interested in this story. The candidates aren't parading this one around. Many people haven't heard and others are either unwilling to believe that global oil production has or will soon peak, or they do not realize the extent to which the world's economies are powered by oil. Some people are taking this seriously. Last night I went to a party with a friend who described his work on a solar concentrator. A large satellite dish type mirror that concentrates the sun's energy intensely on a single point. This energy is used to boil water and the resulting steam used to power an electric generator. His designs require that all components be readily available items that people already have, which precluded solar panels, fuel cells, etc. He's planning for the worse I guess.
Check out the articles on peak oil:
Peak Oil - A turning Point for Mankind: This plot shows the estimated depletion of the world’s oil and natural gas liquids, which are derived from gas, showing the effects on the principal regions. From:
ExxonMobil The Lamp, Number1-2003: "For example, we estimate that world oil and gas production from existing fields is declining at an average rate of about 4 to 6 percent a year. To meet projected demand in 2015, the industry will have to add about 100 million oil-equivalent barrels a day of new production. That's equal to about 80 percent of today's production level. In other words, by 2015, we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today. In addition, the cost associated with providing this additional oil and gas is expected to be considerably more than what industry is now spending."
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | When the last oil well runs dry: "Aspo suggests the key date is not when the oil runs out, but when production peaks, meaning supplies decline. It believes the peak may come by about 2010. "
CNN.com - World oil and gas 'running out' - Oct. 2, 2003
And much more on the web:
Google Search: "peak oil"
And in the news:
Google Search: "peak oil"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)