Thursday, May 22, 2008

Fed Up?

Has al Sistani lost his patience?

Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.

....So far, al-Sistani's fatwas have been limited to a handful of people. They also were issued verbally and in private — rather than a blanket proclamation to the general Shiite population — according to three prominent Shiite officials in regular contact with al-Sistani....Between 10 and 15 people are believed to have received the new fatwas in recent months, the Shiite officials told the AP.

....It is impossible to determine whether those who received the edicts acted on them. Most attacks — except some by al-Qaida in Iraq — are carried out without claims of responsibility.

Read More...

Payback

ACTIVISTS JUDGES, ACTIVISTS JUDGES!!!!

Read More...

Transparency

Yeah right.

The McCain campaign has announced that they will release grandpa's medical records tomorrow. That's on a Friday of a holiday weekend. They're claiming that he's fit as a fiddle. My question is that if he's so fit, why the games with the timing of the release? They are also limiting the actually viewing of records to a few news organizations. Why?

Read More...

Think Again

Think the situation in Iraq is calming down? If you listen to the American media that parrots the Preznit, you might.

But think again.

Read More...

No Wonder Congress Gets Low Marks

After years of kissing Bush's butt, Congress finally gets up the stones to override a veto. Yep. They overrode the veto of the farm bill.

But guess what. Due to a "glitch", the bill sent to Bush for veto was improperly drafted. Thus, the bill and the entire process must be redone.

My sausage making processes are cleaner than this.

Added: Looks like they've also passed the GI Bill with a veto proof vote. Many intrepid Senators changed their votes from no to yes once they saw that there were 60 votes to pass. Do you think that Senate Republicans that are up for election are nervous?

Read More...

A Picture Tells The Story

It's a simple picture that really answers the question of why oil prices are skyrocketing (click to enlarge):


Gee, who could've predicted it?

Added: OPEC is coming out today and saying there's nothing they can do about supply. Translated: We're topped out in production. OPEC claims Saudi Arabia has some more capacity but is enjoying the cash flow too much. As I've said before, I don't think Saudi Arabia can do any more either but they don't want the world to know it.

The American public has been trained to simply weather these price storms, enjoy a pullback, then adjust to the new level of gasoline prices. What happens if prices don't level and just continually rise? If what OPEC and peak oilers are saying is true, it's not until demand falls substantially that prices will stabilize. And with a couple billion Indians and Chinese now demanding petroleum, American consumption may not be able to affect prices the way it once did. Maybe Americans will finally have to think about alternative energy and alternative transportation? But hey. What's the hurry?

Read More...

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

So It's War For NBC?

This crap is incredible:

There is more to the White House's unprecedented attack on NBC News yesterday than meets the eye.

The blistering letter to NBC from White House Counselor Ed Gillespie ostensibly focuses on the way President Bush's interview with NBC chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel was edited for presentation on Sunday's Nightly News.

But NBC's handling of the interview was not atypical for a tightly-edited broadcast and did not violate any journalistic norms. The White House may believe that news outlets are obliged to reproduce all of Bush's non-answers in their rambling entirety, but that's not the way the news business works.

Here's a link to the interview in question.

As Froomkin later points out in the above article, the Preznit seemed to be getting more and more pissed as the interview went on. It wasn't the editing that was a problem, it was the fact that he was confronted with pointed and challenging questions. The village idiot is so used to wet kiss questions that he usually gets he got miffed when facing a, you know, real journalist.

It looks to me like the White House is joining in on the Faux war against NBC. These are classic Republican pushback tactics to try and put the media back in the box anytime they do their jobs. Let's hope NBC/MSNBC keeps their balls and do the job they are charged with doing.

Read More...

Good Idea

I think this is a great idea:

In the WP's op-ed page, James Andrew Miller writes that a good way to "foster party unity" among the Democrats after a bitterly long nomination fight could be for Obama to promise Clinton that he will appoint her to the Supreme Court if a justice decides to retire during his presidency. The contenders pretty much agree on every major issue, so it's likely that Obama would be pleased with Clinton's votes in the court. The move would also motivate her supporters to back Obama since she could play a much more consequential role in the country's future than if she were to be his vice president. "Clinton's gumption and determination might make her one of the most powerful forces ever on the court, particularly when it comes to swaying other justices when the court is closely divided."
Except I wouldn't make it public.

I'm of the opinion that when push comes to shove, Clinton supporters will not vote for McCain. In fact, without an October surprise, I'm not sure anyone will vote for McBush other than that core 30% of nutbars that would vote for my schnauzer if he was a Republican. But promising Hillary a SCOTUS position would be a very dignified way to getting her out of the race, get her full support for the campaign and put her in a governmental role in which she could really shine.

Read More...

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

So Sorry

Poor old Ted. A liberal icon on the ropes.

Read More...

Iran Surprise

Some of you may know that I have a permanent tinfoil hat when it comes to Bush attacking Iran. But then stuff like this keeps bubbling up:

The official claimed that a senior member of the president's entourage, which concluded a trip to Israel last week, said during a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action [against Iran] was called for.

However, the official continued, "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic, for the time being.

The report stated that according to assessments in Israel, recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah de facto established control of the country, was advancing an American attack.
Of course the White House adamantly denies that attacks are "imminent". Of course you and I know they could launch attacks next week or around oh, say, October and still be truthful in the "imminent" proclamation.

At a minimum the White House wants to keep the saber rattling by leaking such stories. At worst, someone inside the administration leaked to try and prevent these idiots from bombing Iran.

Read More...

Shape Up

Want your 6 year old daughter to grow up to be the modern woman? Buy her a pole dancing kit! And when she gets the hang of it, makes sure she dresses appropriately and looks just right!

Read More...

Oil Is Cheap

You think oil is expensive now, just wait:

Mexico provides about 14% of the oil the US imports. On any given day that makes it either the #2 or #3 leading source for US oil imports after Canada and Saudi Arabia. Given that the US currently imports close to 70% of its oil needs, the Mexican oil is critical.

But here's the thing. Using straightforward ELM calculations, Jeffrey Brown is confident that Mexico will ship its last barrel of oil to the United States -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- about 6 years from now, in 2014. In a recent interview with Brown, I asked about this forecast.
And this there this evaluation of the global supply:
"Global production peaked in 2005, and we're now into the third year of decline. And the critical point to keep in mind is, our model and case histories show that the decline rate accelerates, year by year. Using the Lower 48 in the United States as an example, you can see the annual declines going 2%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 10%, 15%, 20, on and on. So it's an accelerating decline rate."

Underscoring Brown's concerns:

On April 15, 2008 the Russians, the world's second largest oil exporter, announced that their oil production appeared to have peaked, with production in the first quarter of this year declining for the first time in a decade. If they have indeed peaked then, based on the ELM, the world could lose Russia's current ~7 million barrels a day in exports within 6 to 9 years.

Echoing the baseline premise of the ELM, Herman Franssen, president of International Energy Associates, projects that Iran, the world's fifth largest exporter, may consume an amount equal to their exports by 2015. A prominent oil analyst, the late Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, estimated that Iran is either at or near peak.

Most concerning, this April Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah announced they were not going to raise oil production above 12.5 million barrels a day. Commenting on the news, Tom Petrie, vice president of Merrill Lynch, said

"King Abdullah's quote speaks to the fast-emerging reality of what I call 'practical peak oil.' The Saudis and other exporters are placing a new emphasis on elongating the petroleum exploitation and depletion cycle. This stems from a growing awareness of the challenges of conventional resource maturity, as well as rising resource nationalism. This is likely to result in an earlier occurrence of global peak oil output than many consumers yet recognize."
Summing it up, Brown told me that "The reality is that this thing is coming so much faster and so much harder than even most pessimists were expecting."
These are from John Mauldin's newsletter in a piece written by the oil analyst David Galland. Galland's take on Saudi Arabia is the most optimistic. I personally think that the Saudi's are hiding the fact that they are at, or very near, peak oil themselves. Then, add this to the equation:

"If you look at the situation in US presidential terms, looking at fossil fuels plus nuclear, the world burned through the equivalent of 10% of all oil ever consumed in Bush's first 4-year term. And, in our model, we're going to burn 10% of all remaining conventional crude in the second 4 years of Bush's term.

Whoa! That's some incredible increase in consumption!

You may have read such analysis before. But you will not often read it coming from a highly mainstream, very conservative market analysts.

If you like $4.00/gal oil, you're going to absolutely love $10/gal oil.

Read More...

Monday, May 19, 2008

Peel, Stick, Click

.... and walk away ... energy independent:

Read More...

I'm Back

Well it's been a helluva couple of weeks. I was diagnosed with a bunch of allergies a few months ago. As a result I've had to change several medications, all of which contained an allergen for me: corn. I made the change and then began to develop hives .... all over the place. I've been a mess every since (going on about 3 weeks now) and am going through a process to find the culprit/s. Needless to say that when you exist in a chronic, moderate stage of anapylaxis , the energy level to blog falls.

In the news, things have been kinda of quiet. Seems as if we're preparing for summer which can be much more quiet. Bush is dead meat for all intents and purposes, the Dem primary is de facto over still, the war is status quo. However, two things did stand out this morning:

First this:

USA Today leads with an analysis that says the federal government's "long-term financial obligations" increased by $2.5 trillion last year. In order to cover the benefits of everyone who is eligible for government programs, including Medicare and Social Security, "taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion," a figure that translates into almost $500,000 per household. The number is much higher than the $162 billion the government reported as last year's deficit because it doesn't follow accounting standards that are the norm in the corporate world and fails to count future financial obligations.
Do you notice a little problem in this reporting? That humongeous number of $57 trillion is over what period of time? And how much tax revenue will come in over an equivalent time? This is a common scare tactic .... you look at the obligation for the next 50 years, add up the amount and then scare the beejesus out of everyone. It's like deciding to have a child after looking at a lifelong cost of several million bucks. As has been said many many times before, Social Security income vs. expenses is not a big problem. Medicare is much more of a problem but can be resolved.

The other story that caught my attention was this:
The WP's Howard Kurtz fronts a look at Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly's "extraordinary televised assault on the chief executive of General Electric," and says it has escalated after high-level executives from Fox failed to persuade the heads of NBC, a GE subsidiary, to tone down the attacks of MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. Apparently the chairman of Fox News, Roger Ailes, warned the heads of NBC and General Electric that if Olbermann continued to attack Fox, O'Reilly, combined with the New York Post, would proceed to launch a campaign against NBC. In recent weeks, O'Reilly has stepped up his attacks against the head of GE and criticized the company for its presence in Iran. ("If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt," the head of GE, O'Reilly recently said.) Fox vehemently denies there ever was talk about a "quid pro quo" deal, but it seems clear that what started out as an entertaining feud between two cable news hosts has hurt the sensibilities of some of the media world's most powerful people.
What corporate media indeed.

Good for NBC to stay away from the low-life Faux's business-as-usual mettling.

Read More...

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Oooops


Read More...

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Slight Hiatus

I've been entertaining a lot, having some crummy health issues and generally been overwhelmed. Regular blogging to return soon.

Read More...

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Another Way Of Thinking

Few people actually think of this, but the cost of driving your own automobile is prohibitive:

LOS ANGELES, CA--(Marketwire - April 4, 2008) - The Automobile Club of Southern California's 2008 edition of "Your Driving Costs" shows the cost of driving a passenger vehicle in the United States has increased 1.9 cents per mile in the last year and now averages 54.1 cents per mile.

"While the cost of some driving expenses declined since the start of 2007, higher gasoline prices have more than offset these savings and pushed the overall cost of vehicle ownership and operation higher this year," said the Auto Club's Automotive Research Center Manager Steve Mazor. In 2008, AAA estimates it will cost $8,121 to own and operate a new passenger car driven 15,000 miles per year. This compares to $7,823 per year in 2007; or 52.2 cents per mile.

Read More...

Vice President Clinton

Yep, it's being floated more and more. It appears that Hillary would be open to the idea.

Would Obama? Would you if you were Obama?

Looks like the first major political test of Obama will be what to do about Hillary.

Read More...

The Quagmire

Thomas Powers has written a fine piece on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He gives a fine overview of the wars, how we got into them, how we screwed them up and how the U.S. has shifted from international diplomacy to military intervention.

I found this to be a frightening assessment on Afghanistan:

The CIA officer Anthony Arnold, who was stationed in Kabul before the Russian invasion, thinks the penalty of failure [for the Russians after they invaded Afghanistan] went beyond immediate losses and humiliation to include the actual collapse of the Soviet state itself. They were weaker than they knew, Arnold thinks, but the Russians did not give in easily: they killed more than a million Afghans, bombed villages to rubble, machine-gunned herds of sheep from the air, and drove as many as a fifth of all Afghans out of the country, across the border into the safe haven of Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Nothing worked and the war ended when the last Russian troops and trucks drove back across the Friendship Bridge into Tajikistan in 1989. It is true that the mujahideen got plenty of material help from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, but it was the Afghans who fought the Russians to exhausted frustration, and have gone right on fighting among themselves ever since.
This is the nut the U.S. is up against in Afghanistan.

The real point of Powers review is that we're in a quagmire that seems to dictate one of two solutions, without much in between:
We are committed in Afghanistan. We are not ready to leave Iraq. In both countries our friends are in trouble. The pride of American arms is at stake. The world is watching. To me the logic of events seems inescapable. Unless something quite unexpected happens, four years from now the presidential candidates will be arguing about two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, one going into its ninth year, the other into its eleventh. The choice will be the one Americans hate most—get out or fight on.
Ugly huh? I think he's right. The next President will be faced with cleaning up Bush's mess, and enduring consequences put into motion by Bush. Like everything else in George Bush's life, someone else will have to be the adult and clean up after the brat. If it's President McCain, I think the outcome is precisely as Powers describes. The remaining question is will President Obama have the guts to get out?

Read More...

Iraq

You may (or given our media, may not) have heard that there has been a major battle going on inside Baghdad. U.S. troops ... and oh yeah, Iraq military ... have "surrounded" Sadr City and have been attacking regularly inflicting a whole lot of casualties among the 2+ million residents.

It appears the Iraqi government and al Sadr have reached a new "agreement" for a ceasefire. Juan Cole summarizes:

The al-Maliki government and the Sadrists pulled back from the brink in Sadr City on Saturday. PM Nuri al-Maliki had demanded that the Mahdi Army militia that serves as the Sadrist paramilitary give up its arms and dissolve itself. The compromise simply states that the Iraqi security forces would be allowed in to Sadr City to search for suspected medium and heavy weapons. The implication is that the Mahdi Army may continue to exist and may keep its light weapons (e.g. AK-47s), though it has to pledge not to walk with them in public.

The siege of Sadr City is to be lifted and the major roads in and out of it are to be unblocked, according to the agreement.
Ok. I'm sure the Mahdi militiamen will all hand over their large weapons. Right.

But this is the key graf in Cole's description:
Reading news about Iraq is like watching Bill Murray's 'Groundhog Day' in which you have to live through the same day over and over again. So the US and Iraqi governments have announced a new campaign against Sunni radicals in Ninevah province, especially Mosul. Take a look at this article, published late last January: "Thousands of Iraqi army soldiers reached the northern city of Mosul on Sunday in preparation for what the government said would be a major offensive there against Al-Qaeda in Iraq, along with other Sunni militants."

You have a sinking feeling that al-Maliki is recycling old announcements in a futile attempt to distract the public from his climb-down in Sadr City. Al-Maliki left for Mosul Saturday along with a few cabinet members and close advisers. Curfews have been announced in some Mosul neighborhoods.
Or rather as I like to say, lather, rinse, repeat. And the war goes on and on and on.

Read More...