« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »

April 30, 2006

Peace Takes Courage

Activism  Iraq

Alabama native Ava Lowery, 15, has produced an excellent set of Flash animation videos against the Iraq war.

WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) is a powerful piece that provoked a lot of positive response, but also death threats and other vicious emails, as reported by my friend Matt Rothschild of The Progressive. Undaunted, Ava pieced together many of those comments for a new video, The 32%. As Ava says, peace takes courage.

Perhaps most poignant of all is No More Broken Promises, that looks at the heartbreak from American soldiers' families' point of view. Hard to watch without weeping.

Be sure to have the sound turned on.

[Thanks, Kent]

Posted by Jonathan at 07:02 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Bush: I Decide What's Law

Politics  Rights, Law

President Bush, alone among modern presidents, has never vetoed a bill. Why veto bills when he can just disobey them? Boston Globe:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to "execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws — many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.

"There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. "This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."

...[T]wice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act. [...]

[The administration says] "the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."

But the words "in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files "signing statements" — official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills — sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

"He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises — and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.

Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass — including the torture ban — involve the military.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military.

On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.

After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief. [...]

In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all. [...]

[A] new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector "shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself.

Bush had placed similar limits on an inspector general position created by Congress in November 2003 for the initial stage of the US occupation of Iraq. The earlier law also empowered the inspector to notify Congress if a US official refused to cooperate. Bush said the inspector could not give any information to Congress without permission from the administration. [Emphasis added]

Hello? Why do we even have a Congress anymore if Bush can ignore its laws? Why do we have a Supreme Court if Bush decides what's Constitutional? Is The Decider now Der Fuehrer?

Posted by Jonathan at 04:49 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

Stephen Colbert Has Brass Balls

Humor & Fun  Politics

Stop what you're doing and go watch Stephen Colbert at last night's White House Correspondents dinner. Seriously. Stop what you're doing and go watch.

The clip is only the second half of his performance, but it's stunning. Bush was not amused, nor were many of the White House correspondents present.

The truth hurts.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:17 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

Sunday Gumpagraph

Gumpagraphs

© Kent Tenney

Posted by Jonathan at 12:49 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Today's Bush Joke

Humor & Fun

President Bush said this week to help with gas prices he will temporarily ease environmental regulations. Great. Not only will you not be able to drive, you won't be able to breathe either. — Jay Leno

Posted by Jonathan at 12:43 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 29, 2006

2400

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2400.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

No end in sight.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:13 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Saturday Gumpagraph

Gumpagraphs

© Kent Tenney

Posted by Jonathan at 03:12 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Today's Bush Joke

Humor & Fun

The long-rumored merger between Fox News and the White House was made official this week, with the hiring of Fox News commentator Tony Snow to serve as the president's press secretary. A rebranding is in the works, and the new company will be called Integralux. The new way to govern. The company's expected to go public, uh, never. — Jon Stewart

TV's Tony Snow becomes the White House press secretary. How will he make the difficult transition from Fox News reporter to Republican apologist?...Mr. President, it is time to hire the folks who've never let you down. Limbaugh at Health and Human Services. Hannity at State. Then give Rummy the Medal of Freedom and install Bill O'Reilly as secretary of defense. Only problem, you might find yourself invading Vermont. And I'll replace Chertoff at Homeland Security. — Stephen Colbert

Posted by Jonathan at 03:05 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 28, 2006

Whose Cultural Heritage?

Politics

One of Digby's readers asks:

Please tell us again why the Spanish translation of the National Anthem is making wingnut heads explode when they all but genuflect at the waving of the Confederate Rebel flag?

Tell me please, which of these was meant to turn hearts to America, and which is meant to tear the country apart?

Good question.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:06 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

Costlier Than Vietnam, By Far

Iraq

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan taken together are going to cost far more, in constant dollars, than Vietnam. WaPo:

The cost of the war in Iraq will reach $320 billion after the expected passage next month of an emergency spending bill currently before the Senate, and that total is likely to more than double before the war ends, the Congressional Research Service estimated this week. [...]

Once the war spending bill is passed, military and diplomatic costs will have reached $101.8 billion this fiscal year, up from $87.3 billion in 2005, $77.3 billion in 2004 and $51 billion in 2003, the year of the invasion, congressional analysts said. Even if a gradual troop withdrawal begins this year, war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to rise by an additional $371 billion during the phaseout, the report said, citing a Congressional Budget Office study. When factoring in costs of the war in Afghanistan, the $811 billion total for both wars would have far exceeded the inflation-adjusted $549 billion cost of the Vietnam War.

"The costs are exceeding even the worst-case scenarios," said Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. [Emphasis added]

Amazing. Has any American administration in history done so much damage to the country in so little time? And note the year-to-year trend: 51 billion, 77.3, 87.3, 101.8. Remember Mission Accomplished?

Posted by Jonathan at 09:59 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Friday Gumpagraph

Gumpagraphs

© Kent Tenney

Posted by Jonathan at 10:41 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Today's Bush Joke

Humor & Fun

President Bush has picked FOX newsman Tony Snow to be his press secretary. Snow once said that President Bush was an embarrassment, a leader who has lost control of the federal budget, and the architect of a listless domestic policy. Good thing for Snow Bush doesn't read the newspapers. — Jay Leno

Posted by Jonathan at 10:29 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 27, 2006

What's In A Name?

Politics

This is just weird.

According to a CNN poll, people's opinion of Hillary depends significantly on whether she's refered to as Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Among Republicans, 16% approve of HC, but 23% approve of HRC. Among Independents, 42% approve of HC, but 48% approve of HRC. Tell me people aren't that clueless.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:26 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

Oil Drum To Politicians: Get A Clue

Peak Oil  Politics

The political posturing — on both sides of the aisle — in response to rising oil/gas prices is both disheartening and disgusting. Politicians of both parties seem to think the answer is to scapegoat oil companies with a lot of blather about price gouging and oil company profits. Yes, oil profits are obscenely large, but they are effect, not cause, of high oil prices. American oil companies control neither the futures markets nor the rate of oil production in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Apparently, almost no one in Washington understands where oil comes from.

The Oil Drum has written an important press release on this topic. It's so good I'm just going to quote it at length:

We strongly feel that the leaders of both political parties are not only headed in the wrong direction with respect to gas prices, but we also worry that they fundamentally misunderstand the factors behind the current situation at gasoline stations around the US. Public statements by political figures over the past several days would seem to suggest that oil companies and their record profits are the sole factor determining the price of gasoline. Not only is this untrue, but it is dangerous to give the American people the impression that only oil companies are to blame. The American people need to understand that the phenomenon of high gas prices cannot be attributed to a single source. They also need to understand that no one political party will be able to fix our current woes.

The major factor that determines gas prices is the price of crude oil from which gasoline is derived. When crude oil prices are high, so are gas prices. The following are just a few factors that affect the price of a barrel of oil:

1. Oil companies do not single-handedly determine the price of oil. The price of oil is set on the crude oil futures market. Simply put, these prices are affected by supply and demand because, at present, oil trades in a global commodity market where increased demand or reduced supply in one place instantly translates into price shifts everywhere. A variety of publicly available information sources show that supply is relatively static at the moment, while world demand continues to grow as economies grow.
   
2. We have provided evidence many times at The Oil Drum that the output of major oilfields is declining and that we may now have reached a peak or plateau in global oil supply. Oil companies have not been able to increase production for a number of years, and it is unclear that OPEC is accurately reporting their reserves. Even if there were significant sources of high quality oil remaining, it is getting increasingly difficult and expensive to drill. These factors, along with aging infrastructure for oil exploration and a retiring workforce are also contributing to high oil prices.
   
3. The geopolitical situation is volatile, and...every time there is news from Nigeria or Iran, the price of oil goes up because of the potential and real effects of these situations on world oil supply. Again, oil traders are fearful that the supply will not remain stable forever.
   
4. Countries like China and India are industrializing at a great pace...China is working furiously to secure new oil supplies...
   

These points demonstrate that disruptions in the supply of oil that affect the price of gasoline at the pump are not just a temporary glitch. For various reasons — decreased discoveries of new oilfields, geopolitical instability, international competition for oil supply — we can no longer assume that we will be able to consume as much oil as possible, or ever get it again for $1.50 a gallon.

Demagoguery and grandstanding are not strategies for addressing our energy problems. As an alternative, the editors of The Oil Drum put forth the following recommendations:

1. It is nonsensical for political leaders of both parties to eliminate the gas tax temporarily or permanently as this will only worsen our dependence on oil by disincentivizing the innovation of oil alternatives and oil conservation efforts.
   
2. Both mainstream American political parties are doing their country a disservice by accusing convenient scapegoats of price gouging or price fixing instead of educating the public about how the price of gas is actually set.
   
3. Right now, governments should be focused on helping us cure our "addiction to oil." The answer does not lie in lowering gas prices, which will only encourage people to drive more and further waste our valuable resources. As the Department of Energy funded Hirsch Report on Peak Oil laid out, the consequences of not taking steps to transition away from oil could be dramatic to our economic system. Appropriate solutions include large-scale research, development, and implementation programs to improve the scalability of alternative sources of energy, other projects geared towards improving mass transit and carpooling programs across the country, providing incentives to buy smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles, and promoting a campaign to increase awareness about conservation.
   

The political discourse on this topic is simply so devoid of fact, and constructive discourse so buried and out of the mainstream, that we felt we needed to raise a voice of reason. Public officials will continue to misinform and obfuscate if we allow it.

The only solution is to educate the public about the most important problem we face as a generation. We, the citizens of the US and the world, must move our attention to this the issue of energy more than any other. We must hold our representative governments accountable for having an open and honest debate on the subject.

Simply put, we must learn more about where our energy comes from. [Emphasis added]

Last summer, I had the opportunity to talk with Senator Feingold for a few minutes, and I quickly outlined for him the evidence on peak oil. I was somewhat taken aback that it seemed like news to him. And he's one of the good guys.

All the price gouging posturing is worse than useless, it's harmful. It perpetuates myths about what are the causes and what, therefore, are the cures. It's time for politicians to get a clue, start acting like grownups, and tell people the honest truth. The world energy situation is not a temporary hiccup. We are faced with an extraordinarily serious long-term problem. Given the sheer scale of world energy use, solutions will require a long lead time. When the crisis hits in full force, it will already be too late.

If you ask me, there's a real opportunity here for Progressives, Greens, and Democrats. People are hungry for some politicians who actually speak the unvarnished truth. And we never needed the truth more than we do now.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:56 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

Thursday Gumpagraph

Gumpagraphs

© Kent Tenney

Posted by Jonathan at 11:04 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Today's Bush Joke

Humor & Fun

Republicans in Congress are demanding that President Bush investigate whether oil companies are now gouging consumers on these gas prices. That's a good idea, Republicans asking Republicans to investigate other Republicans. And you know who they're going to blame? The Democrats. — Jay Leno

Posted by Jonathan at 11:02 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 26, 2006

Class Cleansing

Disasters  Politics

In the immediate aftermath of Katrina, I wrote that New Orleans was going to be subject to a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing. Black neighborhoods were going to be razed and replaced by a Disney-fied New Orleans for yuppies. Some readers thought that was over the top: surely, once the smoke cleared, poor Blacks would be allowed to return to the city.

Guess again. From the New Orleans Times-Picayune, yesterday:

U.S. Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson shed little light Monday on the future of public housing in hurricane-battered New Orleans, but said that "only the best residents" of the former St. Thomas housing complex should be allowed into the new mixed-income development that replaced it.

In a wide-ranging interview with reporters, Jackson was asked about the relatively small number of apartments in the 60-acre River Gardens development in Uptown that have been set aside for former residents of St. Thomas. Jackson estimated it was 18 percent to 20 percent, although housing advocates said it is less.

"Some of the people shouldn't return," Jackson said. "The (public housing) developments were gang-ridden by some of the most notorious gangs in this country. People hid and took care of those persons because they took care of them. Only the best residents should return. Those who paid rent on time, those who held a job and those who worked."

The blunt-spoken Jackson, who is black, acknowledged his comments might be seen as racially offensive because virtually all of the former St. Thomas residents were African-American. He told a white reporter, "If you said this, they would say you were racist."

He went on to say, "I don't care what color they are, if they are devastating a community, they shouldn't be allowed to return." [...]

[Housing Authority of New Orleans] spokesman Adonis Expose also confirmed Monday that the agency is considering a long-rumored policy change that would require all public housing residents in New Orleans to have a job or be in a job-training program.

Eight months after Hurricane Katrina, the future of the 10 public housing complexes in New Orleans remains an open question. Times have never been tougher for low-income people, as a shortage of rental housing after Hurricane Katrina has seen rents rise to historic levels.

While HUD has reopened some complexes, such as Iberville, most remain closed and surrounded by fencing. Eager to return, former residents have marched in protest to force the government to open more, but HUD has refused. [Emphasis added]

These are American citizens who want to return to their homes, but the Federal government thinks it gets to decide who's good enough to come home. Where are the rest supposed to live? In government camps and trailer parks, forever? Maybe ethnic cleansing isn't exactly the right term. It's more like class cleansing, though in New Orleans, as in much of America, that turns out to be pretty much the same thing.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:53 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

Wednesday Gumpagraph

Gumpagraphs

© Kent Tenney

Posted by Jonathan at 10:52 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Today's Bush Joke

Humor & Fun

President Bush announced his plan to increase the number of barrels (of oil) produced. You hear his plan? He wants to make smaller barrels. — Jay Leno

Posted by Jonathan at 10:49 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 25, 2006

Political Instability And The Price Of Gas

Energy  Peak Oil  Politics

As gas prices move higher, Republican politicians are sweating. With good reason. The graph below (from Professor Pollkatz, whom we first linked to back in 2004) plots Bush's approval rating in blue and the price of gasoline (inverted — i.e., lower on the graph means higher in price) in red (click to enlarge). Talk about correlation.

And so we're treated to Republican Bush today posed in front of a backdrop more befitting a granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing Green, speaking about investigating Big Oil for price-gouging.

Republicans in both houses of Congress are jumping on the bandwagon. WaPo:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said this week that a windfall-profits tax on oil companies is "worth considering."

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, joined other lawmakers yesterday in condemning high oil prices by taking aim at oil companies. Barton said his committee will hold hearings into the imbalance of supply and demand. He added that "it troubles me" that Exxon Mobil Corp.'s chief executive received a large pay and retirement package "while refinery capacity continues to lag behind demand in this country."

Republicans talking about taxing profits, of all things.

It would be nice if the Dems would use the opportunity to take the high ground via straight talk about the world supply future and the urgent need to take serious steps on fuel efficiency and development of alternatives. But, as usual, their proposals are mostly Republican Lite. (Although Bill Clinton, at least, did recently acknowledge Peak Oil in a speech in London.)

Meanwhile, the inverse correlation between gas prices and political fortunes bodes ill for our political future. So long as Americans are addicted to oil, the US political picture is going to be increasingly unstable. Billmon has a good post on this. Excerpt:

It's a little disconcerting to think that gas prices — not Iraq, not Katrina, not the extra-constitutional power grabs — could decide whether Shrub's presidency recovers or collapses into complete irrelevancy for the next three years. [...]

[The inverse correlation between gas prices and political fortunes] should be enough to make any would-be president (Demopublican or Republicrat) extremely nervous, since it seems high energy prices are likely to be a major fact of life for years to come — and maybe forever. If that turns out to be the case, then an absolutely necessary condition for future presidential success, or even survival, might be making sure the go juice keeps flowing at prices that won't drive the average American SUV owner onto the war path.

But that isn't going to be easy — not in a world in which everybody and their Chinese cousin is scrambling to lock up the available supply, where a number of major oil producing countries are a coup away from becoming failed states (if they're not there already), and that is already producing about as much of the light, sweet cheap stuff as it ever will.

Given the political incentives, it's possible to look a ways down the road — not a long ways — and see a U.S. military policy (formerly known as a foreign policy) that begins and ends with the protection of the oil lifeline. [...]

America's oil lifeline spans the earth...All of it has to be watched and guarded, stabilized and supervised. Even a partial loss of control could turn into a disaster, since in a global market supply disruptions anywhere can send prices soaring everywhere. And yet some of the most serious threats — like the separatist movement in the Niger delta — are outside the U.S. security "umbrella," traditionally defined.

What this implies, of course, is a terrible case of imperial overstretch, one which technology, firepower and Special Forces mojo may not be able to cure, no matter how much money gets thrown at the Pentagon. When the objective is to protect vital economic infrastructures, rather than blow them up, the U.S. military machine clearly lacks many of the right tools — like an adequate number of combat boots with soldiers' feet inside them.

For those who fear above all else the threat of hostile Middle Eastern regimes armed with WMD, this is potentially very bad news, at least in the long run. Unless stopping the (insert nationality here) Hitler can be done in a way that doesn't jack up the price of a gallon of regular, future U.S. administrations may be unwilling, or politically unable, to risk it.

Unfortunately, in the short run this could be even worse news for those of us who fear a wider war in the Middle East more than the future possibility of a nuclear Iran. Having seen what high gas prices have done to his popularity ratings, Bush may feel confirmed in his reported conviction that no future president will have the guts to take down Tehran. And having fallen into Jimmy Carter territory, he may also feel he has nothing left to lose, at least politically, by doing it himself. [Emphasis added]

Billmon goes on to suggest that Bush's failure may lead future administrations to return to a more cautious and prudent posture. I wonder.

At the end of the film 1975 Three Days of the Condor, Robert Redford's character, a CIA analyst, confronts his superior, played by Cliff Robertson. Remember, this was 1975:

Turner (Robert Redford): "Do we have plans to invade the Middle East?"

Higgins (Cliff Robertson): "Are you crazy?"

Turner: "Am I?"

Higgins: "Look, Turner..."

Turner: "Do we have plans?"

Higgins: "No. Absolutely not. We have games. That's all. We play games. What if? How many men? What would it take? Is there a cheaper way to destabilize a régime? That's what we're paid to do."

Turner: "Go on. So Atwood just took the game too seriously. He was really going to do it, wasn't he?”

Higgins: "It was a renegade operation. Atwood knew 54-12 would never authorize it. There was no way, not with the heat on the Company.”

Turner: "What if there hadn't been any heat? Supposing I hadn't stumbled on a plan? Say nobody had?"

Higgins: "Different ball game. The fact is there was nothing wrong with the plan. Oh, the plan was alright. The plan would have worked."

Turner: "Boy, what is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth?"

Higgins: "No. It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In 10 or 15 years - food, Plutonium. And maybe even sooner. Now what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

Turner: "Ask them."

Higgins: "Not now - then. Ask them when they're running out. Ask them when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask them when their engines stop. Ask them when people who've never known hunger start going hungry. Do you want to know something? They won't want us to ask them. They'll just want us to get it for them." [Emphasis added]

The correlation between oil prices and political fortunes will, as prices inevitably climb higher, open the door to opportunistic demagogues and hardliners, here in the US and throughout the world. Reason number 1,001 why we need to conserve — now.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:02 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

Slobbering Honey-Baby

Activism  Humor & Fun

Five students, ages 7-10, wrote speeches they'd like to hear from President Bush, assuming he somehow came to see the error of his ways.

Go here to hear them read by Bush impersonator Jim Meskimen. Great stuff.

[Thanks, Kevin]

Posted by Jonathan at 04:10 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

A Great Way To Spend $50

Activism  Iraq  Media

Documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films, who made Outfoxed, Uncovered, and Wal-Mart, is starting production on a new documentary, Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers.

This is from an email from Brave New Films:

Hello friends and brave new supporters,

Some exciting news at Brave New Films. We're ready to start production on Robert's new documentary: "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers." Over the last few months we've recruited a core team, and with the help of our volunteer field producers, have uncovered some devastating and powerful material that hasn't been seen before. We need your help to make it, more about that in a minute.

We can't tell you anything more specific about the film yet, but I can assure you it will have an enormous impact when it comes out shortly before the elections this November.

War time is about sacrificing for the common good. So many soldiers and families have paid unimaginable sacrifices, and for some to profit OBSCENELY from that sacrifice is one of the worst crimes possible. It's a crime against all of us, not just as Americans, but as human beings.

IRAQ FOR SALE: The War Profiteers will hold these corporations accountable for crimes against humanity. Watch the teaser trailer and a message from Robert here:

http://iraqforsale.org/

To start shooting, we need money. Overall, the film will cost about $750,000. We can expect about $450,000 of it to be offset by DVD sales, selling foreign rights, and an advance from our retail store distributor, but we still need $300,000.

A generous donor just stepped up and will contribute $100,000 if we can match it with $200,000 from someone else.

That someone else is you! 4000 people giving $50 each. We'll put everyone's name in the credits. You can give these donations as gifts in someone's name or in memory of a loved one if you'd like.

http://iraqforsale.org/donate.php

Imagine that. 4000 names scrolling by at the end of the film. Almost as many people as in the Lord of the Rings credits!

More importantly, this is people standing up to corporations. It's a clear message... a beautiful thing and exactly what the film is about. Every newspaper article written will talk about how IRAQ FOR SALE was funded by YOU.

This is 50 bucks well spent. I would love to see this film come out before the elections, and I'd love to know I helped make it possible. So I gave my $50, and I urge you to do the same.

This is extremely important material. So long as people in high places make a killing off of war, they'll continue to see war as a good idea. The best way to stop them is to expose them.

50 bucks. That's not even a tank of gas anymore. And how cool will it be to see your name in the credits (and on their web site). Go chip in.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:53 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Tuesday Gumpagraph

Gumpagraphs

© Kent Tenney

Posted by Jonathan at 10:45 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Today's Bush Joke

Humor & Fun

The Minutemen, the vigilante group that's on the border, they gave Bush an ultimatum. They said, "Either you build a wall along the border, Mr. President, or we will." I say let them try, because if there's one thing that will change your mind about immigration, it's trying to build a 2,000-mile fence without the help of Mexicans. — Bill Maher

Posted by Jonathan at 10:35 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 24, 2006

Highway Robbery

Corporations, Globalization  Media  Politics

Congress is getting ready to hand control of the information superhighway over to the giant telecom carriers like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast. Carriers heretofore have adhered to the principle of net neutrality, which says that all data on the Internet is to be treated equally; carriers don't discriminate based on content. My lowly blog has as much right to a fair share of Internet bandwidth as any giant commercial site.

The big carriers want to do away with net neutrality, however, so they can create a two-tiered Internet. Commercial sites that can pay the freight will get to use the "fast lane." Everybody else will be relegated to the "slow lane." Congress is getting ready to grant their wish via a bill with the Orwellian name of COPE: Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006. Read more about it here, here, and here.

Funny how these huge giveaways to corporate America always go unmentioned in the mainstream media until it's already too late.

Voting is scheduled for Wednesday. Contact your House members and tell them to vote NO. The Internet is not the private property of a handful of corporations, no matter how big their campaign contributions.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:47 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Slip Slidin' Away

Politics

A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll has Bush's approval rating at 32%, a new low.

Only 40% rate Bush as "honest and trustworthy".

If the Congressional elections were held today, 50% would vote Democratic, 40% Republican.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:33 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Monday Gumpagraph

Gumpagraphs

© Kent Tenney

Posted by Jonathan at 11:09 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Today's Bush Joke

Humor & Fun

Vice President Cheney is still getting a lot of flack for throwing that first pitch into the dirt [at the Washington Nationals home opener] — whereas when President Bush threw out the first pitch in Cincinnati the week before, it was a perfect strike. But then, on the other hand, Cheney can read. — Jay Leno

Posted by Jonathan at 11:06 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 23, 2006

Peak Tires

Economy  Energy  Peak Oil

Economists look at peak oil (and peak copper, peak nickel, and peak everything else) and say the market will provide. As commodity prices rise, producers will be able to make a profit extracting resources from places that previously were unprofitable, in effect increasing the supply.

But it's not that simple. The fundamental problem is the sheer scale of world resource use. It takes more than money. There are physical constraints on how quickly some things can be done. There's a lot of oil in Canadian tar sands, for example, but no amount of investment capital is going to make it possible to extract more than a few million barrels a day in the foreseeable future. Likewise, producers of conventional oil (i.e., oil from wells, not from tar sands or shale) may want to drill lots more wells, but all of the world's oil rigs are already in use. Building more will take time. And there are only a finite number of people with the needed expertise to make these things happen. Training more will take even more time.

Part of the problem is that price signals arrive too late. What causes prices to rise is a shortage in current production. Draining the world's reservoirs doesn't get reflected in prices until the situation has become so dire that producers can no longer pump oil fast enough. By then, it's too late. Investment in alternatives has a long lead time, so it should have started long before shortages show up in prices.

All of which is preamble to the following NYT story (via EuroTrib):

The worldwide thirst for stuff from the ground — materials as diverse as copper and coal, gold and oil — has set off a stunning boom in just about every commodity market. But there is one item that lately has dealers in the global mining industry really scrambling: the supersize tire.

Mining companies are complaining about a shortfall in the supply of the giant tires that go on large dump trucks and other heavy equipment. These outsize tires stand as tall as 12 feet tall and can spread 4 feet wide.

They are used prominently everywhere from the Canadian tar sands to open-air coal mines in the United States and China, but lately they have become almost as precious as gold and silver: prices have quadrupled for some of them in the last year to more than $40,000 a tire.

"This has never happened in the 35 years I've been in this business," said Michael Hickman, 63, who, together with his son, owns H & H Industries in Oak Hill, Ohio, one of the nation's largest retreaders of used mining tires.

"Right now the entire mining industry is going berserk, and we're feeding into it," said Mr. Hickman, whose company has tripled its work force to 160 in the last two years. [...]

[M]ining companies and tire manufacturers say the biggest reason is the rapid industrialization of China, India and other developing countries, which is expanding the appetite for basic commodities. [...]

Given the stress the commodities boom has unexpectedly created in an arcane area of the mining supply chain, some experts suggest that the tire shortage may keep prices higher longer than expected by limiting the ability of mining companies to meet the explosive demand for their products. But in the end, they say, there is little to worry about.

"This tire issue is, I believe, more a symptom of the mining industry's strength than its weakness," said Tibor Rozgonyi, head of the mining engineering department at the Colorado School of Mines. "It may be an acute concern at this moment, but the market has a way of taking care of these imbalances." [Emphasis added]

Eventually, the market will take care of the imbalances, it's true, but not necessarily by continuing to provide more of everything, forever. It may do it via ever-rising prices, which will price a lot of people out of the market. Demand destruction, as it's called. Meanwhile, we plow full steam ahead, as if the current way of doing things can continue indefinitely.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:34 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Sunday Gumpagraph

Gumpagraphs

© Kent Tenney

Posted by Jonathan at 12:39 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Today's Bush Joke

Humor & Fun

A UCLA study shows 7% of people still believe in the Easter Bunny. I believe these are the same people who believe President Bush is doing a good job in Iraq. — Jay Leno

Posted by Jonathan at 12:37 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 22, 2006

The Biggest Embassy In The World — By Far

Iraq

A remarkable feature of US public discourse is the extent to which discussion is based on what the government says, not what it does. For example: in all the discussion of Iraq — what the US war aims really are, whether the US intends to stay in Iraq long-term, whether the US ever intends to let Iraq have an independent democracy, instead of a puppet government — people mostly ignore certain glaring facts on the ground. There are the enormous military bases the US is constructing in various locations in Iraq. Even more glaring, because it's located in the center of Baghdad itself, is the new US embassy currently under construction. It's going to be colossal, the largest embassy anywhere in the world. By far. AP (via CounterCurrents):

The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future.

The new U.S. Embassy also seems as cloaked in secrecy as the ministate in Rome.

"We can't talk about it. Security reasons," Roberta Rossi, a spokeswoman at the current embassy, said when asked for information about the project.

A British tabloid even told readers the location was being kept secret — news that would surprise Baghdadis who for months have watched the forest of construction cranes at work across the winding Tigris, at the very center of their city and within easy mortar range of anti-U.S. forces in the capital, though fewer explode there these days.

The embassy complex — 21 buildings on 104 acres, according to a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report — is taking shape on riverside parkland in the fortified "Green Zone," just east of al-Samoud, a former palace of Saddam Hussein's, and across the road from the building where the ex-dictator is now on trial. [...]

The 5,500 Americans and Iraqis working at the [current] embassy, almost half listed as security, are far more numerous than at any other U.S. mission worldwide. They rarely venture out into the "Red Zone," that is, violence-torn Iraq.

This huge American contingent at the center of power has drawn criticism.

"The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country," the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in one of its periodic reports on Iraq.

State Department spokesman Justin Higgins defended the size of the embassy, old and new, saying it's indicative of the work facing the United States here.

"It's somewhat self-evident that there's going to be a fairly sizable commitment to Iraq by the U.S. government in all forms for several [sic] years," he said in Washington.

Higgins noted that large numbers of non-diplomats work at the mission — hundreds of military personnel and dozens of FBI agents, for example, along with representatives of the Agriculture, Commerce and other U.S. federal departments.

...[N]ext year embassy staff will move into six apartment buildings in the new complex, which has been under construction since mid-2005 with a target completion date of June 2007.

Iraq's interim government transferred the land to U.S. ownership in October 2004, under an agreement whose terms were not disclosed.

"Embassy Baghdad" will dwarf new U.S. embassies elsewhere, projects that typically cover 10 acres. The embassy's 104 acres is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the acreage of Washington's National Mall. [...]

The designs aren't publicly available, but the Senate report makes clear it will be a self-sufficient and "hardened" domain, to function in the midst of Baghdad power outages, water shortages and continuing turmoil.

It will have its own water wells, electricity plant and wastewater-treatment facility, "systems to allow 100 percent independence from city utilities," says the report, the most authoritative open source on the embassy plans.

Besides two major diplomatic office buildings, homes for the ambassador and his deputy, and the apartment buildings for staff, the compound will offer a swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court and American Club, all housed in a recreation building.

Security, overseen by U.S. Marines, will be extraordinary: setbacks and perimeter no-go areas that will be especially deep, structures reinforced to 2.5-times the standard, and five high-security entrances, plus an emergency entrance-exit, the Senate report says. [Emphasis added]

Obviously, they don't plan on leaving anytime soon. They think they're building an empire, and the Iraq embassy is to be the command center from which they hope to rule the Middle East. Iraq was just the first stop.

Events on the ground haven't turned out like they thought, though, so it remains to be seen if the US really can manage to hang on in Baghdad. What's ominous, though, is what the embassy says about the administration's mindset. They'll escalate before they retreat, compounding the disaster.

[Thanks, Cedar]

Posted by Jonathan at 08:52 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Saturday Gumpagraph

Gumpagraphs

© Kent Tenney

Posted by Jonathan at 01:52 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Today's Bush Joke

Humor & Fun

President Bush met with the president of China at the White House. The arrival ceremony was interrupted by a protester who started yelling, "Stop the persecution, stop the torture!" President Bush had to ask, "Which one of us are you talking to?" — Jay Leno

Posted by Jonathan at 01:29 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 21, 2006

Rainbow Magic

Who doesn't love a rainbow? (Scroll down)

Posted by Jonathan at 12:59 PM | Comments (3) | Link to this  

Oil Tops $74 $75

Peak Oil

As I write this, oil's at $74.10 a barrel on the NY Mercantile Exchange. First time it's hit $74.

Update: [12:27 PM] — $74.25

Update: [12:54 PM] — $74.80

Update: [ 1:43 PM] — $74.95

Update: [ 1:55 PM] — $75.10

Update: [ 2:15 PM] — $75.21

Posted by Jonathan at 11:30 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Friday Gumpagraph

Gumpagraphs

© Kent Tenney

Posted by Jonathan at 10:29 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Today's Bush Joke

Humor & Fun

President Bush is creating thousands of new jobs. The bad news, they're all in the White House. As you know, staff members have been leaving the White House in droves. Today, press secretary Scott McClellan stepped down. He said he wanted to spend more time lying to his family. — Jay Leno

There is no word yet on who will fill McClellan's shoes, although one rumored candidate is Tony Snow, a correspondent at Fox News. In other words, the White House is considering paying a Fox News reporter to tell the public what they want the public to hear. I hope he's up to the job. — Jon Stewart

[The Bush administration reads] the poll numbers, they know most Americans think their policies are failing, so they've responded by changing the person who tells us those policies. It's quite a bold move...Every house cleaning starts by replacing the doormat. — Daily Show correspondent Ed Helms

Posted by Jonathan at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 20, 2006

Newsweek Does Peak Oil

Peak Oil

A regular reader alerted me to this opinion piece in Newsweek. It's a remarkably frank look at peak oil, without ever using that term. Excerpts:

The U.S. lives in an energy trap. We fell into it gladly, dug it deeper and sit fat and happy, with blinders on. We're fed daily meals of imported oil, from countries we pay in IOUs and think we can push around. [...]

For years to come, we'll be in the hands of some of the most dysfunctional governments in the world....We'll be paying in both treasure and blood, as we fight and parley to keep ever-tighter supplies of world oil flowing our way.

What has changed in the world? We're running out of the capacity to produce surpluses of oil. Demand for crude is expected to rise much faster than new supplies....[M]ost producer nations can't find enough new oil, or drill out more from their reserves, to replace what we're using up. Production from most of the large, older fields is in irreversible decline. [...]

That puts the oil-dependent countries in a serious bind. We're all jockeying for control of oilfields, in a vast game that runs the risk of turning mean. China and Japan are running warships near disputed oil and natural-gas deposits in the East China Sea. China is doing deals in Sudan, Venezuela and Iran (our "bad guys"). Russia looks less friendly as we continue to invest in the oil countries around the Caspian Sea — Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan.

Nobody really knows how much oil there is. State-run companies don't disclose their true reserves. But clearly there's not enough to cover long supply disruptions, and that puts future economic development at increasing risk. "Terrorists have identified oil as the Achilles' heel of the West," says Gal Luft, head of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. The world market is losing maybe 1.5 million barrels a day to political sabotage. In February, the Saudis foiled an attack on one of their major oil installations. Had it succeeded, it could have been an "energy Pearl Harbor," Luft says. [...]

This throws our Iraq wars into a different light. To an extent that most Americans don't yet understand, the U.S. military has become a "global oil-protection force," says Michael Klare, an expert on natural-resource wars and author of the book "Blood and Oil."...Today, we patrol tanker routes not only in the gulf, but in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. Troops and advisers help protect pipelines in chaotic countries such as Colombia and the Republic of Georgia. We're planting military bases near oil supplies in Asia and Africa. Gulf War I was billed as a war to save Saudi oilfields from Saddam Hussein. Gulf War II was elevated to a "war against terror." But it's arguably still about oil...One of the prizes in Iraq was to have been British and American access to its huge and unexploited oil reserves, Klare says. [...]

On paper, we have alternatives, such as liquefied coal, oil sands from Canada and ethanol. But they're not anywhere close to production on a massive scale. For a smooth transition, mega-energy projects need to get started at least 20 years before oil supplies decline, writes Robert Hirsch of the consulting firm SAIC in a study prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy. If we don't get a running start on the problem, he says, "the economic consequences will be dire." We're probably already behind. It takes leadership to address a potential crisis in advance.

Unfortunately, we're investing in war, not in crash projects to develop new energy sources. Maybe there's time to spare. But some events, like true civil war and collapse in Iraq, could change everything in a day. We're running a faith-based energy policy — still addicted to oil. If something goes wrong, it will go wrong big. [Emphasis added]

The good news: awareness is increasing and going mainstream. The bad news: it has yet to find its way into rational, forward-looking policy. But, as Newsweek says, that takes leadership.

[Thanks, Michael]

Posted by Jonathan at 04:22 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Freefallin'