Electioneering

The price of oil is subject to short term drops, which at the risk of editorializing, coincide with the election cycle, but it may just be the drop in demand at the end of the summer travel season. However, there is no denying that the long term trend of the price of oil is upward, and the sky is the limit.

Demand for oil worldwide is increasing, especially with China and India, by far the world's largest populations industrializing. Supply of oil worldwide is decreasing. This is an extremely simple concept. Everyday there is less of what more people want.

That is why pieces like this one are so irresponsible.

"The only place they have to go is down," says Fred Rozell, gasoline analyst at the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS). "We'll be closer to $2 than $3 come Thanksgiving."

Despite how much we like to believe otherwise, there have been no new oil discoveries in the world since the North Sea and Alaska North Slope reserves were discovered and exploitation commenced in the 1970's. In simple terms, Mr. Rozell, down is not the only place they have to go. In fact, down is the only place they cannot go.

We might see a short term decline just prior to the most critical election in our nation's history, but rest assured that should the GOP maintain control of their power structure, the price of oil will head north indefinitely.

It must be nice to have each emir and prince in the Middle East scratching your back, despite threatening their regimes with rhetoric of freedom and democracy, selectively imposed of course.

Oil Energy

St. Detroitsburg

St. Petersburg is as beautiful as any other European city despite its origins as a fabricated window to the West built up from the newly conquered swamps all driven by Peter the Great's genius or insanity. Hundreds of thousands died of disease and industrial accidents during its construction. It's no wonder that, aside from its beauty, its mysticism and mystery rival few other cities in world.

That said, I can think of no greater disservice and no quicker path to ruin than recasting it thusly.

Rumsfeld In SLC

I am impressed with the resolve of Donald Rumsfeld to speak at the American Legion in perhaps the most sheltered, brainwashed city in the United States (I know because I grew up there), and criticize those who criticize the work he is doing.

Rumsfeld criticized the number of newspaper stories on alleged abuses by troops compared to the stories about the first Congressional Medal of Honor winner from the Iraq War.

He called media coverage "inexcusable." Rumsfeld's speech was part of a coordinated White House strategy to aggressively challenge administration critics in the face of increasing public skepticism about U.S. involvement in Iraq The secretary only briefly touched on the war and offered no new insights, rather he repeated a pledge to push forward and urged the Legion to continue backing the troops.

When all else fails, you can always blame it on the messenger. It is interesting that even the ultra conservative press of the Salt Lake Tribune took a couple of swipes and the Secretary of Defense. It must be tough when SLC is the only place he can show his face in public. Don't be fooled though, there are some great people in Salt Lake City.

Senator Lugar Strikes Back!

It is amazing what people will believe when you tell them the same thing in simple terms repeatedly. Examples like "Saddam has nukuhler weapons, Saddam is an evildoer, September the 11th, changed everything" come to mind. Whether or not they have any resemblance to reality is usually of little consequence.

Of course, things that are more complex than "Iraq and September the 11th," are more difficult for people to absorb on a wide scale especially when media outlets do not have enough time to explore them in detail because it would usurp excessive screen time of their sponsors.

Maybe even with time and sufficient refinement, the message will come through the filters that many of the issues (outside of Jesus issues) we face as a country can be traced back to energy and our unhealthy obsession with oil. Most people would not name climate change as a concern, but most would call terrorism, Iraq, high gasoline prices, rising consumer prices, an unstable economy right up there with health insurance. Eventually, maybe people will put the two together.

Senator Lugar spoke about this recently:

Our failure to act will be all the more unconscionable given that success would bring not only relief from the geopolitical threats of energy-rich regimes, but also restorative economic benefits to our farmers, rural areas, automobile manufacturers, high technology industries, and many others," concludes Lugar.

We must be very clear that this is a political problem. We now have the financial resources, the industrial might, and the technological prowess to shift our economy away from oil dependence. What we are lacking is coordination and political will. We have made choices, as a society, which have given oil a near monopoly on American transportation. Now we must make a different choice in the interest of American national security and our economic future.

Senator Lugar's recent speech on the topic can be found here in its entirety.

China's Energy

In our continuing coverage of Chinese energy issues, perhaps one of the unintended, but beneficial side effects of squeezing China is that they will be forced to develop technology and alternative energy sources in order to grow. Hopefully, they will be nicer to us than we were to them once we are forced to crawl back to them after our tanks our empty.

When in the Course of Human Events...

In what has long been one of the greater ironies of our time, we are told to fear what has a small likelihood of doing us any damage, (i.e. terrorism, the newly freed John Mark Karr, Russians, Libyans, North Koreans), but we are told to ignore (i.e. peak oil and climate change) what will affect every single person in the world in some way.

There is little reason to discuss whether oil production will begin to decline, just as there is little reason to discuss the merits of climate change, because if the evidence is even half as substantial as the experts say it is, why would we ever want to take any chances? No longer can we say "it will not happen in our lifetimes," and even if we could, why would we ever leave such a horrible legacy to our successors?

The glaciers are melting, the oceans are warmer, as are the temperatures in almost every city in the northern hemisphere. 2006 will break 2005's record as the warmest on record. Also, gasoline production is declining and the prices at the pump are increasing. The era of cheap oil has ended and we are now in a transitional period that may force us to solve many of the problems that the oil economy has brought (Middle Eastern issues and climate change), or the transition may lead to a long period of unprecedented suffering on an unimaginable scale.

You can see the signs in the papers and other media outlets. People are concerned because they finally are beginning to understand that terrorism and oil are linked. People are beginning to connect that making several needless car trips a day in the USA reinforces the power structures of the current administration and of the brutal Middle Eastern states like Iran, and Saudi Arabia (while our allies, the ruling class perpetrates massive human rights violations on its own populations). Each time any of us buy gasoline that comes from the Middle East, we are not only contributing to the deterioration of the earth's ability to sustain life, but also empowering and legitimizing those who sell it to us. If you dislike the policies of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, I hope you are not commuting 20 miles to work each day in an SUV. Each purchase is your own small, but significant, tacit approval of their actions.

When you begin to consider things in this light, current foreign policy in the Middle East begins to make a lot of sense. The oil wells are drying up and even if demand remains constant (China's gigantic economic strides guarantee that it will not) it will disappear during some of our lifetimes, but unequivocally during our children's lifetimes. Therefore, every assertion of power that the administration has made over the last five years has been nothing more than an attempt to take control over the existing oil reserves. That is why Iraq was invaded (even George Bush admitted that had he known there were no WMD's, he still would have invaded, and it had nothing to do with removing a brutal dictator, see any other oil producing country in the Middle East, because the yarn is the same), a move toward Iran is almost unavoidable unless America's way of life (which Dick Cheney and George Bush have called non-negotiable for obvious reasons), is modified, and in many cases dramatically transformed. The policy in the Middle East since Dick Cheney and PNAC began formulating it, has been to control the existing oil reserves. This is not entirely because, as many critics superficially claim, to enrich himself and colleagues by awarding contracts to KBR and Halliburton. It is because our position as single superpower, our economy, and our very survival depend almost exclusively on oil. Realistically, there is very little we can do without oil. I do not mean just drive to work; I mean heat our buildings, run our (or China's) factories and, and even grow our food. China, except for its massive coal reserves, also depends on oil to grow, and if its access to it were as plentiful as ours, they would pose much more of a threat. Ultimately, this is why Iran cannot be allowed to trade with China, which is why we must prevent it from happening. That is why Hugo Chavez is the new bad guy in our own sphere of influence. No one likes to admit that its country behaves this selfishly, and people are even less likely to admit they their habits contribute to this behavior, but that is exactly what we tacitly support whenever we pump gas into the bottomless bowels of our automobiles.

However, an interesting paradigm is taking shape all over the world. Some cities' mayors, led by Seattle's Mayor Greg Nickels began drumming up support for the Kyoto Protocol at the municipal level. Many cities have signed on. Lately, even businesses have realized that the current mode of operation is not only unsustainable, but destructive. People are beginning to stand up because their governments, whose members are usually the wealthy and powerful in their own countries, are not taking sufficient, if any steps at all to mitigate disaster. You can see it in every election with the margins of victory between the entrenched wealthy elites and the popular candidates growing so narrow as to evade certification. Indeed it may be too late, but at least people are beginning to try. Perhaps the only factor that can unite the people and their cultures of our world is the realization that continued inaction and apathy will result in our mutual annihilation.

Maybe fatalism is not the best medicine, as we know from Condoleezza Rice, in every crisis, there is opportunity. I hope she is more correct about this than she has been about other policies.

Conflicting Interests

I read this article last night about the new wave of attacks alleging conflicts of interest, on the judge who rebuked the NSA spying program. Judge Taylor ruled the program illegal and violative of the First and Fourth Amendments.

However, Glenn Greenwald covered the points and many more better than I could ever hope to. He has also written a book.

Who Will Jesus Bomb next?

Once in a blue moon, you see in print a very clear articulation describing the process through the U.S. formulates its policy.

This article was in the Seattle PI this morning.

Read it!

After you read, go visit this website.

Dear Ms. Baum….

Caroline Baum's article, syndicated in a newspaper near you, explains why Wal-Mart is the bestest retailer in the world and makes for an interesting read if not for its crystal clear analysis, for its witty wit:

The bottom line is that Wal-Mart isn't holding a gun to anyone's head, forcing him or her to work under onerous terms. Employment at Wal-Mart is voluntary. In January, 25,000 people applied for 325 available jobs at a store opening in the Chicago area, according to the company. Not everyone thinks it's such a bad place to work.

This paragraph comes to buttress her assertion that Wal-Mart gets a bad rap by Democrats, especially one of their likely yet-to-be-failed future 2008 Presidential candidates, Joe Biden.

She continues:

When Wal-Mart opens superstores in rural America, it brings jobs to the community. It provides goods as cheaply as possible to Americans who wouldn't otherwise have access to such a wide array of merchandise at rock-bottom prices. It even offers health-care plans for as little as $11 a month in some areas.

Apparently, Ms Baum would have us believe that we should be excited about a Wal-Mart moving into town because after relying on number provided by a large, independent, helper of ordinary people, Global Insight, she found that "Wal-Mart does not appear to be paying below market wages"

How reassuring! When I am sure of something and I want everyone to believe it, I say "this appears to be true."

Of those 25,000 people who applied for jobs at Wal-mart, how many of them really want to work there? I think it is incredibly irresponsible to assume that putting in an application at a minimum wage paying retailer on the edge of town means that one wants the job. People apply for work at Wal-mart perhaps because there are no other options--in fact that might be because Wal-mart chased out all the other retailers in the area.

This is certainly not true in every single Wal-marted community, but the facts have been well documented. For some enlightening references on the real effects on local communities when a Wal-mart moves into town, you need only check the references of Wal-mart's Wikipedia entry. If you are still not convinced, run some Google news searches to see what the newspapers are publishing about it.

I am not sure why Ms. Baum chose now to begin her crusade against those who think Wal-mart has a negative effect on local economies. I suspect that it may be to take a few swipes at Mr. Biden's looming presidential bid, (her hostility toward the Democratic party is not exactly thinly veiled), but I think it probably has far more to do with the fact that Wal-mart had a less than spectacular showing recently, and their PR people need to make sure its voice still comes in loud and clear.

In the end, I am willing to concede that health care is not Wal-mart's responsibility; I am even willing to agree that Wal-Mart takes a smaller chunk out the pocketbooks of consumers. My problem with Wal-mart is that they flourish by doing things that would land most real (not legal) people in jail. Sure, the prices are lower, but at cost?

War on Traffic

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 43,443 were killed last year driving down the freeway. This is the highest number since 1990. I imagine this will get little play over the news outlets. I imagine it will get even less attention from George Bush's speechwriters.

That is an infinitely higher number than the number of Americans who died in terrorist attacks last year. It is even much higher than the number of soldiers who died in Iraq last year fighting in the central front in the War on Terror.

The number of traffic fatalities is indeed very large, but the number of those who died of cancer in 2004 dwarfs that figure. The World Health Organization has the sobering details.

I am not waiting for Dick Cheney to take a hard line against the cancer epidemic. I am not expecting Mr. Cheney to declare war against traffic accidents or cancer. Part of the reason is that would mean he would likely have to order Shock and Awe against the offices of Monsanto which might put one of its subsidiaries', former CEO's in an awkward position.

However, the real reason is probably that fear of cancer and traffic cannot be exchanged for votes from the easily terrified. Terrorism wins elections and for the unscrupulous politicians, terrorism wins a lot of elections. There is just less than three months until the next election. Pay attention to who sells terror, and don't buy it.

"The Voice that Goes to 11"

MSNBC picked up FT's story on UK Defense firms donating to the compaigns of U.S. lawmakers.

Anyone need a refresher on how U.S. policy is formulated?

The two committees dispersed a combined $439,499 to individual Republican candidates – compared to $232,500 to Democrats – outspending some of the largest US companies, including ExxonMobil, the oil giant, Microsoft, the software maker, and Citigroup, the banking group.

It is easy to get hopeless when you realize that most people are unable donate that kind of money to political action committees. However, a corporation though deemed a person, albeit one that is punished innocuously for breaking the law, cannot vote. They can give more money than you or me, but we can beat them at the ballot box every single time.

Hmm, that may not go for Diebold.

The Culture of Ants and Bees part II

David Horsey, of the Seattle PI, has a cartoon about the working hours of Americans. Truly, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Stammerer in Chief

It must be so awful to feel so right about something, but be so wrong about it.

I feel horrible for GWB when I watch those press conferences. I imagine on some level he is ashamed at his inability to get the words out, but on another he is likely very resentful of those who can express themselves without looking like they are having their teeth pulled.

It is unfortunate to hear that we will not be leaving Iraq during his presidency, but I think that was something they planned. There is a lot of money in defense, it has fueled our economy since WWII, and the GOP certainly does not have any plans to change that as they and the defense industry (or war department) operate in a symbiotic ecosystem.

In any case, it should be some indication of the state of our nation when someone like GWB has done the things he does, in the manner that he has, and still remains the decider.

Cherkizovskaya Market

Another bomb went off in the a Moscovite Market. This one appears to be resulting from organized crime, not terrorism. It will be interesting to watch how VVP takes it. Will he use it to clamp down on civil rights, as some of his Western pals might?

I have plenty of memories from this area as well. Very depressing....

Broadway Market Video

On the corner on Broadway and Republican in our Capitol Hill neighborhood, Broadway's best video rental store has managed to weather the economic storms. The Gap, Fred Meyer, QFC (Kroger), Safeway and other multiregional publicly traded retailers, and suburban mainstays, left when their leases ended leaving the stretch of Broadway nothing but empty shells awaiting demolition and resurrection as multi-use condominium complex's Even though no one who made Capitol Hill great will be able to afford one, it is at least nice to know that the people who live in these ultra-overpriced boxes will become customers to a video shop that will appreciate them.

The same people have worked there for years. They walk to work each morning. I see them in the Capitol Hill coffee shops and bars. They allow my dog to wander around the store with me while I am looking for a video. Instead of bloating the selection with the most expensively produced new blockbuster, the shop's collections feature plenty of independent and quality films, and a documentary section that you would never find at a chain. And the store personnel know just about everything about every film on the shelf. Of course, when you want to watch the latest Witherspoon release or begin to feel that Bruckheimer has been absent from your life for too long, they are ready shed the layer of dust that usually collects on the case of that and similar tripe.

I am not sure how the owner is able to compete with Netflix and Blockbuster, but he does. I am certain there are many others in the area who are just as grateful for that as I am. The policy in the United States has been to squeeze the small businesses while subsidizing the large corporations with clear access to the power. While our elected officials tell us that their policies relieve small businesses of the economic crunch, I have difficultly accepting that.

If the administration really wanted to help small businesses, it would implement a national health program where employers with two or three employees can attract people who want to work for them. This would encourage part time employment that such businesses often need and maybe even allow people to work two or three jobs not because of the health insurance but because they like the job.

If the administration really wanted to help small businesses, they would raise corporate taxes for publicly traded corporations instead of reducing them. It would stop taking campaign donations from them and introducing bills favoring to these organizations, like the recent Internet Non-Neutrality nonsense.

If the administration really wanted to help small businesses, it would cease rewarding companies who can afford to spend billions in advertising with tax deductions. I have never seen Broadway Market Video's commercial on Fox News or even during the Mariners' game broadcast.

If the administration really wanted to help small businesses, it would allow people to borrow start-up funds through the Small Business Administration to promote their own innovations instead of limiting the dispursal of those funds to those who open Subway franchises.

If the administration really wanted to help small businesses, it would prohibit lobbying in Washington D.C. and every state capitol in the nation.

Why doesn't the administration at least give lip service to such initiatives? It may be because people are not agitating for them, on a sufficiently wide scale, but I cannot believe that. The real reason is Broadway Market Video, and most other small businesses cannot afford to contribute to campaign coffers, and politicians are not going to change a system that elected them.

In any event, at least some business owners can still run a business by putting a better product to market and making the transacting of business just as enjoyable as the product itself.

The Culture of Ants and Bees

Americans are taking fewer vacation days per year, which means they are working more hours than previously studied periods. Part of the problem is that employers give fewer benefits to their employees in the ever continuing effort not to spread the wealth. Publicly traded corporations, and those organization that wish to become publicly traded are forced to cut expenses, and when they cannot eliminate the jobs, outsource them to prison inmates, or send them overseas, they simply squeeze more out of them.

Workers and professionals, those who are lucky enough to have jobs, never get a break. This speaks volumes about our values. We do not value people and we have allowed our culture and many others around the world, to create institutions that benefit very few people.

People are losing what little freedom they had in their lives. Employers, and by that I mean any employer that wants to be competitive in the global marketplace cannot treat people as people, but as assets and commodities. For all the talk about a culture of life, our actions speak much louder. It is easy to sign a law to save one person, or veto a stem cell funding bill that has wide popular support, to carry on the illusion. In reality, we do not even have the decency to give people a paid vacation for even a paltry two week period. This is half what many European countries give.

However, perhaps it falls on the employees themselves to demand it. It is ironic that people who work all they in order to acquire things that are superficial and of little long term value. And we think ants and bees are communists! In many ways their motivations are much more admirable. Such an insatiable drive to work may have some value if we actually worked for a goal that advanced the universal good. Increasing profits for Boeing and Microsoft tends not to serve the universal good as much as it lines the pockets of the already ultra wealthy. It is a vicious cycle, and it will continue until people are able to recognize it as such. Only then, will we begin to do something about it.

The Dark Side

Joe Lieberman and Rupert Murdock look like the emporer without his cloak.

Financial Times with the real reasons

As usual, the financial media outlets provide most of the answers to the honest questions people have about U.S. policy. The Financial Times has a real gem here.

The article contains a response of Russian officials to U.S. sanctions against two companies who allegedly dealt weapons to Iran. This snippet is sufficient:

"The US decision could further worsen relations with Russia, which have cooled as the Bush administration has stepped up its rhetoric over the Putin administration’s democratic record."

It is difficult not to notice the rhetoric from the Bush Administration toward the Russian Federation. Why VP Cheney would travel to Moscow and accuse Putin of doing exactly what he himself was doing in the United States? After the situation in Iran started heating up, you can easily put the two together. Iran buys weapons from Russia through its state export company, just like everyone else does who cannot buy them from the United States, and U.S. policy is regime change in Iran. Therefore, until Russia and Iran begins to take orders from the U.S., they will face the prospect of ever increasing squeeze tactics. The last paragraph at least gives some attention to the obvious:

"Michael McFaul, a Russia specialist at Stanford University, said: “The fact that they are doing this now is probably in response to the problems in the Middle East. The timing is not coincidental.”

In any case, this is a good chance to reiterate that most answers can be found in the media reports if you look for them.

Results of Sanctions

Sanctions tend to fail as a diplomatic tool for the same reason aerial bombing usually fails. As Israel is again discovering in Lebanon, the infliction of indiscriminate suffering tends to turn a populace against the proximate cause of its devastation, not the underlying causes.

The entire article is here.

Blue Angels GO HOME

Als das Kind, Kind war...

And I suppose I loved the Blue Angels. This weekend, the city is enjoying Seafair which for some reason brings the Blue Angels to town. Aside from scaring the hell out of my dog, they trick little kids into thinking an air force enlistment will lead to flying jets. They serve no purpose except PR and we pay for it.

Seafair is a great weekend, and someday, the organizers will realize that it will be even better without a bunch of jets angering up the blood by flying in formation.

Worth of Souls

One of the lessons that you learn as a Mormon is the story of Nephi and Laben, which is featured relatively soon in the first section of the Book of Mormon. In short, Laben had something Nephi needed. In order to get that, Nephi infiltrated Laben’s palace, stole a drunken Laben’s sword, and killed Laben with it. Nephi did this because God told him to do so because it is better for one man to die than an entire nation to dwindle in disbelief.

I am many years removed from Mormonism and the details of how a scholar would interpret this no longer concern me. However, I think it illustrates how many people feel about those they deem unworthy or superfluous. As discussed so well here, that may or may not have something to do with how our government feels people generally. I am not talking about rich people or poor people, but simply the process of devaluing life (except zygotes), to cannon fodder. If we want to get anywhere, we need to start with basic human rights for everyone. As long as accept rationalization for unequal treatment, we will fail at every other effort.

Green

This article is worth a read. To get you started:

That's one of the key results of the white paper Assessing the Value of sustainable, presented at a sustainability forum in Melbourne by Jones Lang LaSalle national director of sustainability and engineering services, Chris Wallbank.

"Commercial outcomes are beginning to drive the 'greening' of Australian office property as building owners seek to drive higher levels of efficiency from their property portfolios," he said.

Unfortunately, the current climate crisis has in large part been caused by our sacred notions corporate governance (i.e. that owners investment supersedes any other consideration). It is refreshing to note that the solution to this problem may actually lie in the same paradigm. I am not yet convinced, but if people can maximize the investment of the owners by buidling green, then there may yet be some hope. Of course, it will take a lot more than green buidling practices, but at least it may contribute to the solution instead of the problem.

If you doubt that this is only possible in foreign countries, have a look at this, from the reddest state of our fair nation.