ROLANDOVICH

2008-06-09T11:03:00.000-07:00

Exactly!

2008-06-09T10:58:00.001-07:00

Don't Trust Nobody

2007-03-13T14:17:00.000-07:00

Harry Browne, in his book Fail Safe Investing, advises us as follows:

"We live in an uncertain world. Whenever you make a decision... You may make the best choice you can, but you know you can't control the actions of other people"

In this investment book, Browne lays out good arguments for his (25/25/25/25) plan of investing (see previous posts). Browne was an advisor to the Permanent Portfolio, a mutual fund that was established to further the (25/25/25/25) investment plan. Although Browne in one instance recommends that we trust no one, he then also advises us that his Permanent Portfolio would be a good investment option.

How ironic then that the Permanent Portfolio has been besieged by lawsuits and fraud allegations. The SEC investigated Terry Coxon, the former general partner of the Permanent Portfolio. Coxon absconded with between 1M and 3M of the fund's money. The litigation continued for many years, finally reaching an end in Coxon v. SEC, 137 Fed.Appx 975 (9th Cir 6/29/2005), when Coxon was finally ordered to repay $850,000.00 back to the Permanent Portfolio.

In other litigation filed in King County Superior Court (Layman v. The Permanent Portfolio Family of Funds, Inc.), the fund was accused of reneging on Warrants preferentially given to an insider. The fund settled this dispute and: "As a result of the Settlement, total net assets of the Fund's Permanent Portfolio were reduced by approximately $505,000.00" See Note 8 to Financial Statements 7/31/2006.

The lesson: as Browne originally said, don't trust anyone. Once you give you money to a fund manager, much is out of your control. How do you know there isn't fraud or mishandling of your funds? If you don't sit on your investment you need to rely on other humans who may be beset with that very dangerous of human emotions: Greed.

For those of us who have a hard time giving up control, there aren't many investment options left:

Real Estate (with minimal or no debt) - either in the U.S. or outside thereof for diversification purposes,
Precious Metals (under your own possession or control),
Treasury Notes and Bonds purchased directly from the Federal Government without a middleman (treasurydirect.gov),
Direct ownership of foreign currencies or ownership of foreign government debt obligations,
Promissory Notes and Mortgages (with the investor as the lender).

Investments that still rely on third parties, but are probably relatively safe:

CD's that are FDIC insured, and
Index Mutual Funds which will only track the general market and charge a minimal advisor fee of less than .2%.

Not much else out there.

The Intelligent Investor

2007-02-28T10:24:00.000-08:00

I don't believe anyone can dispute that Benjamin Graham was one of the most successful and knowledgeable investors of his time. Although Graham died in 1976, many, if not all, of his books are still in publication. His book, "The Intelligent Investor" was recently revised and re-issued in 2006. This edition includes the original text as written by Graham, and then each chapter includes a "comments" section to attempt and compare the original text to the current investment world.

Warren Buffet endorses this books as: "By far the best book on investing ever written". Rolandovich seconds that endorsement.

Of particular interest is Graham's philosophy that most investors should split their portfolios 50-50 between stocks and bonds.

"We are thus led to put forward for most of our readers what may appear to be an oversimplified 50-50 formula. Under this plan the guiding rule is to maintain as nearly as practicable an equal division between bond and stock holdings." (pg. 90).

In today's investment climate and constant marketing to investors by the brokerage houses, Graham's approach may appear overly conservative. But is it? Perhaps Graham's philosophy is worth heading.

Graham makes the ever important distinction between "investing" and "speculating".

He defines investing as:

"An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return." (pg. 35).

This sentence is further broken down as follows:

"thorough analysis" means "the study of the facts in the light of established standards of safety and value".

"safety of principal" signifies "protection against loss under all normal or reasonably likely conditions or variations"

and "adequate" return refers to "any rate or amount of return, however low, which the investor is willing to accept, provided he acts with reasonable intelligence."

Let us all strive to become investors and not gamblers or speculators with our money.

ThriftBooks

2007-02-28T10:06:00.000-08:00

Investment theories come and go. It's amazing how many books have been written on investments that are now discarded. Further, it's fascinating to see what current "hot" authors in the investment field wrote about ten or twenty years ago.

A great resource of cheap books that no-one wants any more is ThriftBooks.

We recently purchased numerous books by Harry Browne and Doug Casey. Each book was only 1 cent with $2.49 shipping and handling. We received such quality publications as "The Economic Time Bomb: How You can Profit from the Emerging Crisis" written in the early 1980's by Harry Browne.

We have all lived through cycles of bubbles and mass investment hysteria. During each period there are bestseller books glorifying the current investment trend. For example, do you remember the book Dow 36000?
After the relevant bubble or crisis passes, these books eventually end up at ThriftBooks where you can pick them up for a song. The purpose of purchasing such books, of course, is to study what the popular media during a given time-period predicts as the "next hot thing", and then to compare their predictions with reality.

As you may imagine, the "experts" generally had no idea what they were talking about.

What If?

2007-02-25T12:05:00.000-08:00

At the risk of contradicting my previous statement about the value of articles about the Civil War, I read this fascinating piece on General George Henry Thomas this morning.

I suppose a simplistic summary of this article lies in General Thomas's unfair characterization only as the Rock of Chickamauga even though he was actually a much more important figure. Perhaps he was distrusted due to his Southern origins, or as the author opines, he lacked only a Congressional sponsor like Sherman and Grant had.

Thomas, as a young man, taught his slaves to read, his HQ in the war was the picture of effeciency and discipline. He bested Stonewall Jackson in an early skirmish, and of course, saved the Union army from disaster at Chattanooga. The author points out:

Thomas "comes down in history...as the great defensive fighter, the man who could never be driven away but who was not much on the offensive. That may be a correct appraisal," wrote Catton, an admirer and biographer of Grant. "Yet it may also be worth making note that just twice in all the war was a major Confederate army driven away from a prepared position in complete rout—at Chattanooga and at Nashville. Each time the blow that finally routed it was launched by Thomas."

As I finished the rather depressing demise of General Thomas, the inevitable question arose: what if Thomas had his sponsor and even earlier assumed the rank Grant eventually took. Would the disaster at Cold Harbor occured? Is it possible that 100,000 lives would have been saved? What if Thomas would have been elected president instead of Grant, bringing his organizations abilities, and sympathies for all southerners, (after all, he was one) not just those who were white. Reconstruction might have succedded, the civil rights movement might have occured 100 years earlier. What if Thomas had joined Robert E. Lee? Would we ever remember James Longstreet? Would this country be called the CFA now? The possibilities are fascinating and tragic to consider, but ultimately, it is a futile exercise.

I suppose it comes down to the fact that the best people do not always win. The same can be said for the best ideas. Every day the most effecient systems, the best products, the most profitable ideas are cast aside, down into the dustbin of history. Those that prevail often have little to do with merit. It seems like these days, most of them have must more to do with proximatey to power. This author might agree with that assertion, at least for generals in the Civil War. I don't think anyone who ever worked for a boss who always followed his favorite employee's advice would disagree either.

Interesting thoughts on the world

2007-02-25T08:57:00.000-08:00

It never ceases to amaze me that thoughtful analysis is not found in the places where conventional wisdom would dictate.

It goes back to the adage that in today's print media, we are the product and the organizations that advertise therein are the customers. You can still compartmentalize things to find good reading (aside from the instances where it does not matter much like articles about the Civil War, which are often nonetheless very interesting).

The blogosphere (as much as I dislike its mostly derisive connotation) is the great exception and still in its infancy. You can probably find out more about the state of the economy by talking to a someone on the street than by reading an article about it in Business Week. However, it is important to understand what you are supposed to believe. It is much easier to learn the truth that way.

Wade B. Cook - cooking the books cooked his goose

2007-02-24T10:07:00.000-08:00

Real Estate Investment Guru Wade Cook was recently found guilty by jury trial in the Federal Court for the Western District of Washington. Look's like Cook's cooking of the books got him thrown in the slammer. Check out this great bookcover from one of Cook's books from the 1980's. Rolandovich found it in a used book store, and just couldn't help buying it:

John T. Reed - a different sort of Real Estate guru

2007-02-24T10:03:00.000-08:00

For the last 2 years I have been an avid reader of John T. Reed's investment newsletter. Reed produces a wonderfully insightful real estate newsletter that provides some great tips on how to avoid being an "appreciation-lord" and instead investing in real estate for double-digit cap rates or using one's expertise to increase the value of real estate by 20%.
Reed is well known for his vehement attacks on "Real Estate Gurus". All those 0-Down people and the like. Check out his "review" of Real Estate Gurus here:

http://www.johntreed.com/Reedgururating.html

To get more of a flavor of Reed's adivce, check out some of his free articles on subjects such as "lease-options" and the truste of "due-on-sale clauses":

http://www.johntreed.com/rateseminars.html

If anyone wants a sample issue of Reed's newsletter, feel free to email Rolandovich.

The Permanent Portfolio

2007-02-23T14:31:00.000-08:00

Harry Browne, the former Libertarian candidate for President and Investment Advisor is well known for his "Permanent Portfolio" theory.

According to Browne, one's assets should be invested:

25% in long term Treasury Bonds;
25% in short term Treasury Notes or Money Market accounts;
25% in a stock market Index Fund, such as the Vanguard S&P500 Fund. Said index fund should have the lowest possible cost to the investor;
25% in physical Gold - preferrably under your control and/or partially located in the safety deposit box of a foreign country.

In the 1970's Browne predicted the end of the U.S. Dollar and the rise of gold. Although he was partially correct in his prediction, he changed his investment philosophy in later years. Browne became convinced that it was impossible for anyone to predict the market or future events. As such, the Permanent Portfolio was designed to be simple and accomodate almost any possible future economy.

The returns over the years have been quite good: Perm Portfolio Returns

Seattle Viaduct

2007-02-22T15:40:00.000-08:00

Lawgavulon is a small office consisting of a Rabid Liberal, a Rabid Republican and a wishy-washy Libertarian. Surprises never cease as we all agree that the Seattle Viaduct should be torn down and not replaced with anything other than a surface boulevard.

The question of whether the Seattle Viaduct will be replaced or built as a tunnel is heading to the Seattle voters in March 07.

Rolandovich urges you to vote NO in the upcoming Viaduct special election.

As loosely quoted from Suburban Nation (by: Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck): "You don't solve transportation problems by building roads any more than you lose weight by loosening your belt."

Olive 8 Status?

2007-02-11T14:00:00.000-08:00

On or about January 31, 2007 the Seattle Times reported that "The developer of Seattle's tallest residential tower and its general contractor are parting ways".

The article is in reference to the 39-store hotel and condominium project on Olive Way and 8th Ave (the "Olive-8").

The contractor, Skanska USA, will continue construction through mid-March 07. Supposedly at that time another contractor will complete construction - although the developer has not released information on who this contractor will be.

Curious minds want to know, will the Olive-8 actually finish construction or will we be left with a huge construction pit for years to come?

If the Olive-8 developer cannot find a replacement contractor for Olive-8, then Rolandovich predicts the beginning of the end for Seattle's Condo Market.

A poster on UrbanLiving explained that the parting of ways between the developer and contractor had been planned for months and that the press release was a mere marketing ploy.

Why would any developer want to advertise that they can't keep their construction contract together? If I had pre-leased a condo in the Olive-8, then I would be worried about what is actually going on... and hopefully the "reservation fee" was paid to escrow and not directly to the developer (as has actually happened with past projects in Seattle).

Iran

2007-02-08T10:38:00.000-08:00

The justifications of our foreign policy in the Middle East have been clearly documented and freely available from many sources. To say that we are in Iraq because if oil, or that we will not leave because of oil is a simplification, but nonetheless, it is true.

However, the saber-rattling over Iran requires some brief examination. The United States is currently attempting to keep the Middle East's resources (oil) out of the control of the Asian powerhouses of China and India.

Russia has been providing or selling technology to Iran to the objection of the United States.

China and India just want to keep growing exponentially (greed works in the ancient cultures too).

Russia, China, and India all want Iran on their side. Iran is much more likely to oblige them considering the recent accusations that have flown from the West. Moscow has recently been making noise about a gas and oil exchange to tip the scales further away from western exchanges.

It seems that the last six years in Iraq have resulted in little more than fewer options for bush to position himself (and us) in an exceedingly hostile world. Iraq? We cannot leave because the Shia will take over and align themselves with Iran with or without the Kurds. That leaves the oil producing Middle East making China and India the new U.S. The U.S. is relegated to UK status.

That's the best case scenario, if the rest of the world continues to switch out their dollars for Euros or whatever else, and the superficially inflated wealth of millions of flipped houses becomes worthless, well then you might even have the old new Russia.

LLCs and Small Investment Properties

2007-02-08T09:57:00.000-08:00

In a comment posted on seattlebubble it was asked why someone would quitclaim a home into a Limited Liability Company.

This is truly a pet peeve for us at Lawgavulon. Almost every other week Rolandovich gets a call which invariable has the following tale: "Hi, I'm a small investor in real estate. I want to shield my personal assets from liability and therefor transfer my home/duplex/tri-plex into an LLC. My real estate agent said it really wasn't a big deal, can you quitclaim my home/duplex/tri-plex to my LLC? What, ohh, you want to know whether my loan is in the name of the LLC. Well actually it's not. You see my real estate agent told me that it would be cheaper to obtain an owner-occupied FNMA loan. As a result we couldn't close in the name of the LLC, but I saved a lot of money. My loan officer even helped me set up the LLC and said I should quitclaim the property after closing. Why, is there a problem?"

Here are the problems:
(1) DUE ON SALE CLAUSE. Practically every single loan has a "due-on sale" clause in it. These clauses state that if the current property owner sells the property without seeking lender approval, then the lender may call the loan due. Thus, a transfer of your home/duplex/tri-plex into an LLC will violate the due-on sale clause and the lender could foreclose on you on any time.

"But Rolandovich, it's not illegal to transfer my home without lender approval."

Yes, that's true. It's not illegal. You are merely breaching your contract that you have with your lender. So feel safe, you won't go to jail, you might just lose your investment property.

"But Rolandovich, everyone tells me that banks have no way of knowing that I've transferred the investment property."

Yes and No. It's true Lenders generally have no knowledge of what is recorded subsequent to their loan. They generally do not check the recorder's office after the loan is collateralized and the lender has earned their points. But one should be careful. Back in the last 1970's when interest rates were rising and lenders had nothing to do they decided to "audit" their loan files. Invariably they found many properties that had been transferred without their approval. This allowed the loan officers to "call due" the loan and force the borrower into a much higher interest rate loan. (i.e. you are in default. So we will foreclose and you the investor will have to refinance). During the late 1970's interest rates had shot up to 15-18%. Thus the incentive was high for lenders to get people out of those loans that didn't earn much money for them.

Lenders receive a copy of your homeowner's insurance policy. If you want to keep any kind of insurance on the property then the "named insured" would have to be changed to the LLC and as such the lender will find out that the property was transferred when they receive their certificate of insurance coverage. This could be the trigger forcing the investor to refinance. Or I suppose we can all hope that lenders receive so much paperwork that they just won't read or review the insurance certificates sent to them.

"But Rolandovich, I was told that the Gairn-St. Germain Act allows me to transfer my property into an LLC without lender approval."

No. That is false. The Gairn-St. Germain act is a federal law that allows borrowers to transfer their homes into a Revocable Living Trust of which they are the trustee without the loan being called due. This federal law does not apply to LLCs or other corporate forms and a living trust is an estate planning tool, it doesn't actually protect any of your assets from creditors.

(2) HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE. As briefly mentioned above, your homeowners insurance will have a "named insured" and that will be the property owner. Once you transfer your property into an LLC, you need to either change the insurance policy to cover the LLC or you will be paying insurance that does not actually cover you. For example, if you transferred your investment property into an LLC and did not change the "named insured" and then the property burned down - well I can almost guarantee you that the insurance company will not pay that claim as they never insured your LLC - only you and you no longer own the property.

So as an alternative you can transfer the investment property into an LLC and change your homeowner's insurance - but then you run into potential problems with your lender, as explained above.

As a result some people transfer their properties into an LLC without lender approval and continue paying homeowner's insurance which won't actually cover them if a claim is filed. I'm sorry, but isn't that just ludicrous?

(3) TITLE INSURANCE. At closing you will have received Title Insurance insuring you against loss from title defects. That insurance will also be issued in your personal name. If you transfer the property into an LLC without obtaining a "rider" on your Title Insurance policy to insure the LLC, then once again you will be without insurance if there is a title claim.

This problem can be remedied relatively easily. A Title Insurance rider to cover your LLC should only cost $75.00 or so and the good news is that such a rider is not sent to your lender and so you won't inform your lender of what you have done by this move.

(4) DO YOU REALLY HAVE LIABILITY PROTECTION? The whole purpose of transferring the investment property into an LLC was to create a liability shield. However, if you transfer property into an LLC but the loan on the property is in your personal name, are your personal assets actually protected? In most states a plaintiff who sues you will check to make sure that you have met all corporate formalities. The easiest way to "pierce the corporate veil" is to show that someone has not kept their personal finances separate from their business finances. If your loan is still in your personal name but the LLC own the property, I posit that your liability protection is more illusionary than anything. It's a corporate veil waiting to be pierced.

So the lesson is to either (1) Form an LLC prior to closing on an investment property + get the lender on board with the concept. Do not obtain an owner occupied FNMA loan, but rather an investment grade loan that will close in the name of the LLC. You will be above board. There will be liability protection and far less risk; (2) Don't close in the name of an LLC. Just buy the property in your own name and carry a good insurance policy. Don't bother transferring into an LLC. It's just not worth it.

The above is not to be construed as legal advice. Do no rely on it. Seek the advice of an attorney before closing a real estate transaction. Relying on the advice of your attorney will keep you out of hot water much better than relying on the advice of your real estate agent or loan officer whose only true goal is to close the deal and thereby earn a commission. The attorney, who is generally paid by the hour, will only have your best interests in mind.

There's nothing worse than a dead blog...

2007-02-06T15:42:00.000-08:00

Another Soviet Farewell

2006-09-26T09:36:00.000-07:00

Though I never saw the Soviet Union when it was actually the Soviet Union, I had my turn to view its rotting carcass in the mid-90's. As the economic picture in Moscow continues to brighten, more and more of the old believer's relics are falling victim to the wrecking ball. In many ways, I should not be sad, but rather should rejoice in the return of Russia to the Soviet Capitol. However, I still get a touch of nostalgia when I read articles like this one from the Moscow Times.

Most of what makes the personality of a city is the view it gives you to its past, in my opinion. Moscow become a city officially in 1147 so its history is long and depressing; perhaps no period more so than during the Soviet Union. All the same, part of me wishes I could see it during that time without all the western brands screaming at you down Tverskaya or the Casinos down New Arbat. I suppose a happy medium is sufficient and I doubt anyone will miss this corner of the Soviet Union.

The Brothers President

2006-09-22T17:02:00.000-07:00

The Clinton and Bush supporters each have their own version of who is most responsible for allowing Osama Bin Laden remain at large. According to those who support Bush, Clinton did not take advantage of a chance he had to take him out. The Clinton supporters allege that that Bush let him go in Tora Bora in order to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. I have my own ideas.

I believe that Osama Bin Laden's capture would impede the Bush Administration's policies. If OBL were captured, the people would immediately begin clamoring for a declaration of victory in the war on terror which would immediately make the prospect of invading Middle East countries less palatable for the American people. OBL has much more value at large than in captivity. If he is captured, the allegations of a coming terrorist attack would carry less weight and people might begin to turn attention to issues that are more important to ordinary people than terrorism. I can hardly imagine a less favorable climate for the Bush administration.

For an oil man, like Bush or Cheney, the last six years have been an unending dream. They have been able to dispense with every hint of fiscal responsibility since the war on terror began. What's more, this money has not gone to the traditional sources of government spending but to an already bloated military on arms that are not designed to fight terrorists. Even better for them, if anyone asks any questions they get to accuse them of treason or anti-Americanism. No other administration has had that power since the possibly the second Roosevelt Administration.

All of this could stop if OBL were captured. These benefits vastly outweigh any short-lived support the administration might experience as a result of his capture. It would take a couple of months before that would wear off and then we would all be left with the same administration looking other places to rouse up fear. The cold war lasted a half a century--and to whose benefit? The people were never any safer, in fact they could not have been less safe. There were proxy wars conducted in places like Korea and Vietnam that we were told were necessary to keep us safe, and during these wars there were elements in the military hounding for expansion of hostilities. In fact, in both wars these elements urged the use of nuclear weapons.

Between these two wars, there were constants attempts make war, against Cuba for example. The reason was always that there was a threat that had to be dealt with. Had any previous administration had the opportunity to play on the fear that 9/11 brought, there is no question they would have--I cannot imagine that even Carter would have been able to respond any differently than Bush did after 9/11.

I believe the reason is simply that the defense industry represents the most powerful element in the U.S. government. As you know, the defense industry is a collection of corporations that produce weapons of war that they sell to governments--mainly the U.S. and Israel, but generally any country with which the United States has friendly relations. These corporations are often, but not always, publicly traded making them subject to the market just as any other company would be. Because their business model benefits from war, they naturally seek opportunities to prosecute war wherever possible.

The think tanks are the other critical link which has taken over the role of policy formulation in the absence of governmental organs that did so in the past. The think tanks are often funded by the corporations which in turn benefit from the policy the think tanks produce.

I suppose it is possible to look at this as some kind of conspiracy. The Carlyle Group receives plenty of criticism for alleged designs on world domination. I think that is a simplistic analysis. Every single corporation in existence has designs on world domination because their single concern is for profit maximization, without concern for anything else. What other conclusion can possibly be drawn? Profit maximization by definition has no limits.

U.S. Corporate Governance, Part VI: Footprints

2006-09-19T17:03:00.000-07:00

My last couple of posts were about some of the worst case scenarios that I envision resulting from excessive intermingling between the political and business entities of our state and federal governments. That is simply a tension that will always exists and probably always has to some degree. (In ages past, people tended to look at the monarch as their advocates against lesser lords, landed gentry, and wealthy merchants.) Today, people look at the government as one of the few means to reduce the oppression that "apolitical" businesses might cause.

The more those two power structures merge, the fewer options for people to enforce any rights they may have. Of course, it is not inevitable that corporations will take over the country and enforce their desires with private armies. However, it is difficult to argue that it is impossible when you read stories like this one. I am with most Americans when I say that terrorism is something that concerns me. I don't worry about it more than cancer, auto accidents, climate change, and many other things because the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is about as great as being struck by lightening. It is certainly something to worry about, but it is not even close to even the hypothetical threat that the Soviet Union posed. The difference is it is easier play on terrorism because there is no warning and the perpetrators are not usually white people with innocuous religious beliefs.

On the other hand it is fairly obvious that the beneficiaries of the war on terror are the largest corporations and that makes me very suspicious. While it may be that people are safer as a result of the war on terror, there is very little indication that such security is anything but coincidence. The only group that ever set out to study this with the sanction of the U.S. Government was the 9/11 Commission whose recommendations have not satisfactorily been implemented.

There is a business model in place that depends on the circulation of oil throughout the Western World. That business model is promulgated and implemented by the modern business corporation. You and I are its end-users. While we can certainly blame the corporations for some of this; ultimately, the consumers have the responsibility of not playing along. It's simple enough, but we have few options when the corporations want us to play along, and our public officials are complicit. That allegedly leads to results that were documented in this film. The MBA president is much more than complicit. His VP is one of the architects of this model, and of course, one of its greatest beneficiaries.

I think it necessary to point out, again, that the people involved in any one of these organizations, even Dick Cheney himself are not bad people, or evil. People make bad decisions in desperate circumstances. However, our system of corporate governance actually pushes people to make those poor decisions, or as I hesitate to reiterate again, put profit ahead of all other considerations.

U.S. Corporate Governance, Part V: The Invisible Individual's Political Connections

2006-09-18T17:23:00.000-07:00

We left off with one of the possible result of our current governance of corporations. Of course, it is not inevitable but it is difficult for me to imagine results that are too far off. Another reason for this, aside from the profit maximization obligation, is the intermingling of our political organizations with our business entities.

This intermingling takes the following forms, as well as others:

1.) Leaders from the business sector become elected officials. This is not inherently a bad thing. Leaders exhibit certain useful qualities whether in the business field or public office. However, these business leaders operate under conditions which are not acceptable as public officials. Further, they often serve in one capacity to benefit their private undertakings. Dr. Bill Frist, George Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and many many others are prominent examples.

2.) Corporations have the means to contribute to the campaign coffers far beyond those of individuals. There is no reason to give examples of this here. While there are certain constraints on this process that are beyond the scope of this post, the fact is corporations have a voice much louder any person can ever hope to have.

3.) The lobbying system allows for the proliferation of corporate friendly causes to receive much more attention on Capitol Hill than any people friendly cause can have. In fact, most of the time this phenomenon serves discredit the people friendly causes through various forms of smearing.

4.) U.S. policy formulation anymore takes place in think tanks and similar organizations that receive grants and forms of patronage from corporations with the goal of creating influence in the political structures. If they cannot buy their politicians in the campaigns, often it pays to get involved during at the policy level. It's an efficient method of outsourcing that conveniently cuts regular people out.

Corporations must turn a profit. One of the overt ways this is done is by cultivating close ties to the structures political power in every state capitol as well as in Washington D.C. The revolving doors of leadership in addition to the process of buying causes leads the nation to pursue causes that are extremely beneficial for the corporations, and therefore, their owners, but extremely offensive to everyone else.

I discussed the telecoms in the last post. As an example here, I would like to use Blackwater USA. As you can read, Blackwater is a private security firm whose value grew exponentially after 9/11. One of the functions of the group is providing a private military force. It receives government contracts to operate in Iraq and wherever else there are wealthy people to pay for them. Its largest client is the U.S. Government which pays Blackwater hundreds of millions of dollars every year. That means you and I pay hundreds of millions of dollars every year for this private military force to exist, in addition to our regular military.

Blackwater USA benefited from 9/11 in ways that ordinary people cannot imagine. Think about this for a moment. There is a private army that answers only to its shareholders. That obligation to its shareholders demands that it attempt to influence foreign policy if that is the area in which the corporation operates. A private army is useless without trouble spots. A powerful corporation's CEO is liable to its shareholders if it does not maximize the corporation's profits even if those profits depend on the existence troubled spots. A tiny corporation will just go out of business. However, a powerful corporation, with billions in market capitalization, and access to the White House is going to find trouble spots whether or not they actually exist.

In another bleak scenario, the current system of corporation governance ensures that such private military groups will be deployed against its own population to stamp out dissent, crush protests, take organizers prisoner, and execute people who try to exercise their constitutional rights. This brings to mind the clones in Star Wars Episodes II & III. At the right time the person who has such a force at his/her disposal will wipe out all dissent. Truly the founders of the Gestapo, and SS could, which did the same thing last century, would be jealous. We will see this in our country before too long if we do not revise the governance of our corporations. I would doubt this could be a possibility under other administrations, but the Bush administration has shown little regard for law, extreme hostility for dissent, and a shamefully poor record for humane policies. (By that I mean, under his administration, the U.S. practiced torture, disregarded international and domestic law, and followed many of the other abuses of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.)

No one is a bad person because he/she works for a corporation or founds a corporation. However, under our current system of governance, no one can stop a corporation from repeating some of the most terrible events of human history.

How could this happen? Wouldn't national outrage percolate after people see this stuff on the news? Next time I will discuss the news outlets.

U.S. Corporate Governance, Part IV: The Worst of the Invisible Individual

2006-09-18T12:27:00.000-07:00

To summarize the last three posts:

1.) A corporation is a legal person with Constitutional due process protections.
2.) The actual owners of the corporation are generally not liable outside a few exceptions that are rarely applicable.
3.) A corporation is legally obligated to attempt to influence the law to better suit its revenue-generating models.
4.) The resulting law does not also benefit real people, or the vast majority of the population--this includes the people who cause it. (Remember, their fiduciary duty puts their own interests behind the interests of the corporation.)

Again, many do not see the connection between these motivations and our every day lives. Let me illustrate one possibility:

I believe one of the more frightening examples of a terrible confluence of these factors involves the NSA spying program, which seems to indiscriminately record, or troll for data (without warrants). This was carried out with the help of the large telecom corporations. Please excuse my lack of links on the subject. The legal implications of the NSA program are well documented on Unclaimed Territory. While privacy is not the issue on the forefront here, it is the one that will be most easily swept away once the provisions of FISA have been gutted and that may occur later this year provided the GOP keeps control of the Congress. Even so, as I mentioned previously, a corporation has a strong incentive to act unlawfully. The corporation cannot be sentenced to jail and any regulatory fines can be justified as a cost of doing business should a judge and often, the Supreme Court, disagree with its conclusions.

I think it is obvious that the technology exists, and it appears that the once these legal hurdles have been cleared, the entities branded as friendly and responsible citizens will be poised to dramatically change the nature of our society. Remember, a corporation is not a person. It cannot stop at the edge of the cliff and think about looking down. If there is anyway to make money by jumping, it will go over the edge without ever slowing down. In fact, the directors are legally obligated to make sure it jumps at full speed.

First it's swiping your card with Paypass. A receipt comes to you in the mail letting you know what they charged. The convenience is the most ultra of all comforts. No worry about ID theft. No thought of losing your credit card and showing up at the bar the next day to pick up your lost Visa.

The level of security in government buildings will be the first to install these advancements. The cost of ensuring the safety of our elected officials and our independent judiciary is easy to justify. However, the largest corporations will soon follow suit under the same justification, which is much more tenuous. Soon enough, you will be scanned and electronically searched when you walk into the grocery store. You will be told that the social value of protecting the local supermarket is higher than any inconvenience you experience. If you don't like it, you will be told to stay out of the store.

The convenience is mind-blowing, but comes with a sinister cost. Everything you own is also scanned: everything in your pocket, your clothes, description, possessions, and everything else is documented. Your position is mapped and recorded; every action that makes up your life can be known. Crime will virtually disappear. Political dissent will dry up before anyone notices. Free elections will become unnecessary because we will be able serve the state through other means. The only remaining corporation and the government will finally merge in an effort to protect us, keep us secure, rid the world of evil-doers. You can imagine the efficiencies that will be created.

It's not a revolution or a takeover--rarely do tyrannical regimes usurp power transparently with the tacit approval of the people. It's a process, all leading toward a terrible finale. Complete security will arrive at the cost of complete tyranny, complete control, complete uniformity, and a completely mediocre, banal, and uneventful world. It will be a gradual process and if you don't believe it can happen in the U.S., you are not paying attention. It is happening right now. And about 50% of us welcome this result blissfully.

U.S. Corporate Governance, Part III: The Mind of the Invisible Individual

2006-09-17T17:05:00.000-07:00

After the Civil War, and the ratification of the 14th Amendment which prohibits any state from depriving life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Of course, the railroad companies at this time (1860-1880's) became larger than any company had ever dreamed--perhaps for good reason, as they provided transportation in a vast country. However, with this capital, they became more able to avail themselves of legal protections that were intended to protect newly freed slaves.

In a slight detour, I would like to editorialize on the nature of our legal system because it is entirely appropriate. Each citizen in the United States is free to have his day in court, or file a lawsuit to enforce their rights. However, this freedom is limited, and too often, completely diminished because most people cannot afford to pay lawyers to enforce those rights before a judge. Of course, corporations can afford those rights, and large railroad companies can script their own.

In 1886, the Supreme Court determined that corporation is a person under the U.S. Constitution, and that they are entitled to due process. This happened only because there were, and still are, enough corporations with enough money, to create legal fictions that while not completely without merits, probably do not belong in the Constitution. Corporations certainly have value and may have tremendous value, but at no time did a group of elected officials in our country determine that a corporation should be a person. Over the last 140 years, however, our elected officials have ratified that result by their inattention to this detail.

Our nation suffered through the worst conflict of our history and the lasting results were the eradication of the sanctioned institute of slavery, but the rise of invisible individual. For all intents and purposes, the modern corporation is now a person under the law with all the benefits but none of the obligations. Because a corporation isn't really a person it cannot reason, it was never intended to consider any other obligation but profit maximization, it exists in perpetuity, and can even kill other people. However, that corporation will never be sent to jail, or even executed. The most that can happen is it can shut itself down, but the people who were responsible for the actions of the corporation are certainly not prosecuted as murders or most of the time even criminals.

It is certainly a paradox. Why do we care?

U.S. Corporate Governance, Part II: Inside the Invisible Individual

2006-09-17T17:00:00.000-07:00

I left the last post by writing that the corporation's duty is to maximize profit.It is unfair to term it thusly because it makes the corporation sound like a heartless generator of nothing but money.Of course, people work in and ultimately control the corporation and as we know that people are not heartless machines, a paradox seems evident. However, it is completely accurate to say that the one responsibility of a corporation is to maximize profit.The board is responsible as a steward over the investment of the shareholders to maximize their investment.The directors of a corporation owe a fiduciary duty, not to any other person, but to the corporation itself. We already know that technically means to the shareholders so in some sense, that is to other people, but the ultimate responsibility they owe is to the company. All other interests or considerations for anyone acting as a fiduciary are secondary to the duty that director owes to the company itself.

Let me illustrate with a common if not incendiary example. Imagine a chemical corporation in the operation of its business model produces by products that it must dispose. It has two options: 1.) ship it to a chemical waste dump 400 miles away, or 2.) dump it into the local river. The first option is expensive; the second, cheap. We know that the duty of the board is to make the most money possible. So the decision is not a difficult one considering that none of the directors will be liable for any wrongdoing. There are exceptions for this which are so narrow that they are rarely applicable, and of course, the business judgment rule almost always gives the officers and directors "get out of jail free" status.

At most the corporation will have to pay some sort of fine for the violation, if they are caught at all. Therein lies the truly frightening aspect: if the directors and officers determine it is less expensive simply to dump into the river and pay the fine than it would be to ship the by-products to the disposal site, there really isn't much of a decision to make. If that chemical eventually kills someone, it isn't murder. It's the cost of doing business and it is a completely acceptable, if not encouraged tactic under U.S. Corporate Governance.

U.S. Corporate Governance, Part I: An Invisible Individual

2006-09-17T16:39:00.000-07:00

It is difficult to miss that we are in perhaps the most contentious election season in our lifetimes. I think it is important to look at the larger picture of the U.S. political scene before getting too excited about the prospect of Democratic gains in November. Of course, I look forward to the day when many of the GOP congressmen turn in their public official status for pricey jobs as think tank consultants, pundits, lobbyists, or corporate directors, but I have to be realistic. Any Democrat, and most conservatives, would be far superior to the current class of rubber stampers (to follow GWB's wordmaking). However, the nature of political discourse in this country is limited to a very small portion of what is actually legitimate debate.

The reason for this, I believe, lies in the legal structure of our corporate governance. It will take some time to explain, but I refer to this concept often in many other posts and I want to make sure that at some point, I explain exactly and clearly what I mean.

The corporation is a group of people, but is a separate entity from those people. In our legal system, we have afforded that entity the legal status of a person (more on that to come).

Back to the people who make up the corporation, there are several classifications of people in the corporation. The most important distinction to make is between 1.) the people who own the corporation (who can be called members, investors, owners, shareholders) and 2.) the employees of the corporations. Either of these groups can be members of the other, but that is not necessary. Often an employee, or a board member (which we will come to soon) will own shares and be a member of both groups. In large corporations until recently employees often participated in ownership through stock option programs. It is not mandatory for an employee to own shares in a corporation.

Now that we have some idea of the people in the corporation, let's spend a minute on which of those people control the corporation. Under all of the corporate governance statutes in the U.S. ,the board of directors is responsible for the conduct of the corporation's business. However, the corporation's board of directors usually delegates the day-to-day responsibility to the officers and employees (who may or may not also be its owners, remember). The chair(man or woman) of the board is the person who runs the meetings of the board of directors and usually has somewhat elevated status thought not necessarily any more authority than any other director.

The title of President or Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is bestowed upon the person who manages the day-to-day responsibility, hired by the board. The CEO is responsible for hiring the staff and implementing the policies that the board sets.

Finally, a few words are due about the owners or shareholders. While they technically own the corporation, they have very little say in the operation of it. In theory, they have certain checks on the operation of the corporation such as they can vote for directors, initiate derivative lawsuits, or sign letters to the board demanding a CEO be fired, but their real power is essentially limited to selling off their shares if they disagree. Obviously, if enough people do this, the share price drops and the board is forced to change course (which usually means laying off 5,000-10,000 employees). However, a single shareholder, while technically a partial owner, has virtually no power.

There are publicly traded corporations whose shares are available on exchanges and closely held corporations which cannot be bought and sold on the open market. A corporation is formed with its founders or promoters incorporate, meaning they create a separate entity through which they can continue to do business, but for which they cannot be held liable. There are many reasons people form corporations but most of them have to do with protecting their investment which ultimately means maximizing their profit. Therefore, the corporation is an ideal way to do this although some tax implications may make a Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability Partnership more appropriate. Often an insurance carrier will only agree to ensure a business if it is a separate entity like an LLP, LLC, or a corporation.

Another word or two is necessary about the theory and practice of a corporation.These organizations are often very large with millions of dollars of capital and thousands of employees, but in the end, they always start with few member, promoters, or employees. Therefore, most of them reach the highest peak of the corporate world--to become a publicly traded, through the personality cult of its founders. They are often visionaries for good or for evil.See Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, or HP. You can safely include Enron in this group as well. These individuals are required to adhere to strict regulations from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Often these regulations do not fit well into the management structure that existed before the corporation become publicly traded.

When laws make powerful people feel oppressed, they agitate for change. Of course, that is not the only reason these people influence laws. They also do it in order to create environments in which their investment will flourish--to maximize their profit. The subject of Part II will discuss the legal responsibilities of the shareholders, officers and directors of the corporation.

Another Example of U.S. Foreign Policy: Nicaragua

2006-09-15T12:25:00.000-07:00

As I have tried to make very clear each of those posts below about the Middle East, there is no correlation between the given reasons behind U.S. Foreign policy and reality. Put another way, we do not leave democratic countries alone because they are democratic. Alternatively, the U.S. is quite happy to prop up a ruthlessly brutal, tyrannical dictator if there is a financial benefit to doing so.

Today, the Financial Times gave me a freebie, with an interview with the U.S. Ambassador to Nicaragua. In this interview, our ambassador threatened the people of another nation, pulling no punches:

The US ambassador to Nicaragua has issued a vigorous warning to this small Central American country's electors against supporting Daniel Ortega, the veteran leftwing Sandinista leader and the frontrunner in November's presidential election.

It gets even better making me think he has spent too much time watching any given U.S. news outlet:

It's one thing to be truly democratic. It's another thing to do what the Sandinistas really have done, which is to distort and manipulate democracy for partisan and personal benefit,

I cannot think of a better description of our current administration. The man is clearly perceptive.

In any case, this serves as yet another example of how little the U.S. is concerned with democratic institutions. If democracy is the right of people to participate in their own government by choosing their electors, it should not make any difference who they elect. Therefore, the stated policy should become, "the U.S. wants to foster democratic institutions as long as they are U.S. friendly. Any democracy unfriendly to the U.S. should be discouraged.

George Bush's speechwriters do not understand that democratic countries are not always going to be friendly to the U.S. If we want democratic nations to be friendly to the U.S. the world over, we need to cultivate institutions for people, not businesses. That is the leap we have never been willing to make.

It's the Oil, Stupid: Conclusions of U.S. policy in the in the Middle East

2006-09-15T12:17:00.000-07:00

There are several conclusions that can be drawn here. First of all, I think a few disclaimers are necessary. If you did not notice, I generalized and relied on less that solid sources in my analysis. That is appropriate here because the details of each country are not nearly as important for my analysis than the larger picture of U.S behavior over the last 20 years. I am no expert, you probably noticed, in Middle East affairs but you do not need to be to draw the conclusions that I have drawn. The U.S's actions are very simple to explain in the context that I have explained and am about to conclude.

First, 9/11 had very little effect on U.S. policy. The policy toward Iraq was regime change before Bush took office. Dick Cheney asked William Cohen, Bill Clinton's secretary of Defense, to brief Bush on Iraq before they were inaugurated. Contingency plans for military action were solidified before 9/11. The practical effect of the terrorist attacks was merely to speed the implementation of military action. The invasion of Afghanistan would not likely have taken place without the events of 9/11. However, their long term ramifications are now quickly fading. The Karzai government has not consolidated its power over the region. Warlords from the Northern Alliance have increased pressure on Karzai and the Taliban have resurfaced from tribal areas in Pakistan. The U.S. invasion was short lived, feebly implemented, and attention quickly shifted to Iraq before any long term positive changes could be secured. Second, there is a strong correlation between the attention, positive or negative, that the U.S. gives nations that produce oil. This attention turns on whether they follow U.S. economic policy. The oil producing nations that are willing to allow western nations to reap the benefits of the oil, are essentially given free reign in their nations to do whatever they please, be it brutal dictatorial regimes, few civil protections, or human rights abuses. When those oil producing nations choose other trading partners, especially China or Russia, then the policy quickly becomes regime change and pre-emptive military strikes become options the current administration will use, supported by a heavy partisan punditry, whose goal has never been honest journalism, but favor with the power structures. (This is the same reason ESPN commentators and anchors never publicly criticize players. If they do so, they don't get any more interviews and that often means fewer viewers.)

U.S. policy is exclusively based on whether the other nation does what they are told. In other words, if the U.S. can control a nation, the U.S. will embrace that nation and its policies, regardless of how antithetical to freedom, liberty, and democracy. If the U.S. cannot control the country, regardless of how free, and democratic, any justification necessary will be used to bring it in line. As there are very few democratic nations, and even fewer nations that actively promote universal civil rights, those two reasons can almost always be invoked to justify preventative attacks against an uncooperative state.

In the most egregious cases, the U.S. will turn to military options, as it did in Iraq in 2003. The war on terror did not change this modus operandi which has existed since WWII, but gave new and streamlined tactics to further its implementation even in the face of massive domestic and foreign popular opposition, as the expected invasion of Iraq brought. Iraq presented a particularly gruesome example which showed the administration willfully preying on the fears of an American public that the government and media intentionally sought to exaggerate and exploit in the wake of 9/11. It may even be likely that the regime change policy, again, put in place by Bill Clinton, had much more to do with pressure from the U.S. energy sector realizing that most of the profits for the oil fields in Iraq, once sanctions were removed would go to French and Russian oil companies. The only way the U.S. could prevent that was recasting the state in one of its own making. That could not have happened without something like 9/11, as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz concluded in early 1990's under the sponsorship of their think tank, the Project for a New American Century.

The basis of our foreign policy to each nation is in the economic dynamic between us and them. The bankers and financiers determine policy and our dutiful unitary executive carries it out. Follow the money, my friends, and all the wrinkles smooth themselves out.

It's the Oil, Stupid: U.S. policy in the Middle East and The X factors: Israel and 9/11

2006-09-15T12:16:00.000-07:00

Neither of these two factors have any thing to with our policy toward other nations in the Middle East. That is to mean, that we do not support or oppose any nation based on that nation's position on Israel. Further, the nations from which the 9/11 highjackers came have not lost our support and our policy has not changed toward them. We continue to support Saudi Arabia and UAE for instance even though some of the highjackers were born in those countries. In the case of Iraq, the Bush Administration attempted to draw connections between 9/11 and Iraq but after the U.S. invasion, it acknowledged that there was no connection and even denied that the administration had ever made such claims.

It's the Oil, Stupid: U.S. policy for Azerbaijan, Afghanistan & Pakistan

2006-09-15T12:12:00.000-07:00

Azerbaijan

The government:

The president is an absolute ruler. Demonstrations are often suppressed with violence, there are reports of torture and a strong censorship enables a personality cult. The Speaker of Parliament stood next in line to the President, but the constitution was changed at the end of 2002: now the premier is next in line. This was done to make it possible for the son of the 80-year old Heydar, İlham Əliyev to succeed his father, who was admitted to a Turkish hospital on July 8, 2003 because of heart problems. In August, 2003, İlham was appointed as premier with the fake signature of his already dead father, though Artur Rasizade, who had been prime minister since 1996, continued to fulfill the duties of that office so that İlham could concentrate on his presidential election bid. In the October 2003 presidential elections, İlham was announced winner while international observers reported several irregularities. He was sworn in as president at the end of the month, and Rasizade became premier again.

The economy:

Oil remains the most prominent product of Azerbaijan's economy with cotton, natural gas and agriculture products contributing vastly to its unprecedented economic growth perceived over the last five consecutive years. More than $60 billion was invested into Azerbaijan's oil by major international oil companies in AIOC consortium operated by BP. Oil production under the first of these PSAs, with the Azerbaijan International Operating Company, began in November 1997 and now is about 500,000 b/d.

I do not suppose that another dictator whose country has oil producing capabilities receives the tacit and often overt support of the United States, or at least its oil companies, will surprise anyone.

Afghanistan

The government:

Afghanistan is currently led by President Hamid Karzai, who was elected in October 2004. Before the election, Karzai led the country after being chosen by delegates of the Bonn Conference in 2001 to head an interim government after the fall of the Taliban. While supporters have praised Karzai's efforts to promote national reconciliation and a growing economy, critics charge him with failing to rein in the country's warlords, inability to stem corruption and the growing drug trade, and the slow pace of reconstruction.
The current parliament was elected in 2005. Among the elected officials were former mujahadeen, Taliban fighters, communists, reformists, and Islamic fundamentalists. Surprisingly, 28% of the delegates elected were women, 3% more than the 25% minimum guaranteed under the constitution. Ironically, this made Afghanistan, long known under the Taliban for its oppression of women, one of the leading countries in terms of female representation.

The economy:

Afghanistan is endowed with a wealth of natural resources, including extensive deposits of natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, and precious and semiprecious stones. In the 1970s the Soviets estimated Afghanistan had as much as 142 km³ (5 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas, 15 million m³ (95 million barrels) of oil and condensate reserves, and 400 million tons of coal. Unfortunately, the country's continuing conflict, remote and rugged terrain, and inadequate transportation network usually have made mining these resources difficult, and there have been few serious attempts to further explore or exploit them.

The most important resource has been natural gas, first tapped in 1967. At their peak during the 1980s, natural gas sales accounted for $300 million a year in export revenues (56% of the total). Ninety percent of these exports went to the Soviet Union to pay for imports and debts. However, during the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, Afghanistan's natural gas fields were capped to prevent sabotage by the mujahidin. Restoration of gas production has been hampered by internal strife and the disruption of traditional trading relationships following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gas production has dropped from a high of 8,200,000 m³ (290 million cubic feet) per day in the 1980s to a current low of about 600,000 m³ (22 million cubic feet) in 2001.

Very little of Afghanistan is useful for analytical purposes here due to its current reconstruction, but the U.S. military presence there ensures that it will remain as tightly under the thumb of Washington D.C. as they are able to, given the demands on the military occurring elsewhere in the world.

Pakistan

The government, in a particularly relevant passage can be somewhat summarized by the following selection:

Officially a federal republic, Pakistan has had a long history of alternating periods of electoral democracy and authoritarian military government. Military presidents include General Ayub Khan in the 1960s, General Zia ul Haq in the 1980s, and General Pervez Musharraf from 1999. However, a majority of Pakistan's Heads of State and Heads of Government have been elected civilian leaders. General elections were held in October 2002. After monitoring the elections, the Commonwealth Observer Group stated in conclusion:

We believe that on election day this was a credible election: the will of the people was expressed and the results reflected their wishes. However, in the context of various measures taken by the government we are not persuaded of the overall fairness of the process as a whole
On May 22, 2004, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group re-admitted Pakistan into the Commonwealth, formally acknowledging its progress in returning to democracy.

Pakistan's economy:

In 1947, when Pakistan became independent, agriculture accounted for about 53% of its GDP. While per-capita agricultural output has grown since then, it has been outpaced by the growth of the non-agricultural sectors, and the share of agriculture has dropped to roughly one-fifth of Pakistan's economy.
In recent years, the country has seen rapid growth in industries (such as apparel, textiles, and cement) and services (such as telecommunications, transportation, advertising, and finance).

As you can see, oil is not a major component of the economy of Pakistan. However, they remain an ally of the United States despite the allegation that Usama Bin Laden may be hiding there, allegations of human rights abuses abound, and:

Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world and the second most populous Muslim country. It was established as a modern state in 1947, as one of the two parts of the partitioned British India, but the region has a long history of settlement and civilization including the Indus Valley Civilization. The region was invaded by Afghans, Greeks, Persians, Arabs, and was incorporated into the British Raj in the nineteenth century. Since independence, Pakistan has experienced times of significant military and economic growth, and times of instability, with the loss of East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh). Pakistan has the seventh largest armed forces in the world and is a declared nuclear weapons state. (emphasis mine)

This is particularly ironic considering that Iran is under increased hostility by the U.S. for exactly the same reason, and UBL has never been suspected of crossing into Iran. For even more irony, please see look here.

It's the Oil, Stupid: U.S. policy for Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan

2006-09-15T12:09:00.000-07:00

Turkmenistan

The government:

Politics of Turkmenistan take place in the framework of a presidential republic, whereby the President of Turkmenistan is both head of state and head of government. Turkmenistan has a single-party system ruled by President for Life Saparmurat Niyazov.

The dictator has a Stalinist form of totalitarianism at his command, complete with human rights abuse allegations:

Human rights issues in Turkmenistan, an authoritarian state, include freedom of religion issues. According to Forum 18, despite international pressure, the authorities keep a very close eye on all religious groups and the legal framework is so constrictive that many prefer to exist underground rather than have to pass through all the official processes, which act as barriers. Protestant Christian adherents are affected, in addition to groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Hare Krishna. The Hare Krishna are not allowed to seek donations at the country's main airport, the Turkmenbashi Flying Aeroplane Station.

According to the 2005 Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index, Turkmenistan had the 3rd worst press freedom conditions in the world. No one is allowed to describe the President or his family negatively. Also, no reporters are permitted to mention that the President is a very short man (5'1", approx. 154 cm), or that he wears a toupee.

The economy:

Turkmenistan does not have oil reserves, but it does have natural gas at its disposal:

In 1994, Russia's refusal to export Turkmen gas to hard currency markets and mounting debts of its major customers in the former USSR for gas deliveries contributed to a sharp fall in industrial production and caused the budget to shift from a surplus to a slight deficit. Current GDP per capita shrank by 30% in the Nineties as a result. Industrial production of gas fell sharply, putting the budget into deficit--a deficit which has since continued to rise sharply. Currently, Turkmenistan is dependent on Russian pipelines to reach markets in Europe; because oil and gas account for one-third of Turkmenistan's budget revenues[citation needed], Turkmenistan is working to open new gas export corridors through Iran (Nabucco Pipeline) and under the Caspian Sea into Turkey. Privatization goals remain limited. After Russia's refusal to transport Turkmenistan's gas, a difficult investment environment, high rates of inflation, and government regulations made further economic progress unlikely.

However, partial price liberalization, the end of subsidies from Moscow, and poor control over fiscal and monetary aggregates contributed to the high rates of inflation and significant drops in living standards. Despite these conditions, official statistics for 1998 indicated improvements in Turkmenistan's economy. In September 1998 Turkmenistan began exporting gas to Iran via its first pipeline not crossing Russian territory.

This case is particularly interesting, and it will suit us to leave Wikipedia's space momentarily to illuminate some motivations. Note this

A senior US envoy underlined the importance of multiple energy pipelines during a meeting Monday with President Niyazov.

Both sides expressed confidence that mutual cooperation in the energy sphere would go a long way in promoting universal security. The sides also agreed that such cooperation should be based purely on economic considerations. The underlying consensus was that cooperation based on wholesome competition would serve to expand mutually advantageous and equal partnership.

Notice that a brutal dictator that has free reign in his country to do whatever he pleases is sought after as a business partner with the ultimate aim of promoting security.

Uzbekistan

The government:

Also passed in the 2002 referendum was a plan to create a bicameral parliament. Several political parties have been formed with government approval but have yet to show interest in advocating alternatives to government policy. Similarly, although multiple media outlets (radio, TV, newspapers) have been established, these either remain under government control, or rarely broach political topics. Independent political parties have been denied registration under restrictive registration procedures.

Despite extensive constitutional protections, the Karimov government has actively suppressed the activities rights of political movements, continues to ban unsanctioned public meetings and demonstrations, and continues to suppress opposition figures. The repression reduces constructive opposition even when institutional changes have been made. In the mid-1990s, legislation established significant rights for independent trade unions, separate from the government, and enhanced individual rights; but enforcement is uneven, and the role of the state security services remains central.

You can imagine what the practical effect of such unitary power has on the human rights of the Uzbek people.

The economy:

Minerals and mining also are important to Uzbekistan's economy. Gold is Uzbekistan's second most important foreign exchange earner at 22%. Uzbekistan is the world's seventh-largest producer, at about 80 tons p.a., and holds the fourth-largest reserves. Uzbekistan has an abundance of natural gas, used both for domestic consumption and export; oil almost sufficient for domestic needs; and significant reserves of copper, lead, zinc, tungsten, and uranium. Inefficiency in energy use is extremely high, given the failure to use realistic price signals to cause users to conserve energy.

Not an oil or natural gas producer, Uzbekistan does have important strategic assets for the United States. Aside from natural resources, its location makes it ideal for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, and a further check on China.

Uzbekistan was an active supporter of U.S. efforts against worldwide terrorism and joined the coalitions that have dealt with both Afghanistan and Iraq. The relationship between Uzbekistan and the United States began to deteriorate after the so-called "color revolutions" in Georgia and Ukraine (and to a lesser extent Kyrgystan). When the U.S. joined in a call for an independent international investigation of the bloody events at Andijon, the relationship took an additional nosedive and President Islam Karimov moved more closely into the orbit of Russia and China, countries which refused to criticize Uzbekistan's leaders for their behavior.

In late July, 2005, the government of Uzbekistan ordered the United States to vacate an air base in Karshi-Kanabad (near the Uzbek border with Afghanistan) within 180 days. Karimov had offered use of the base to the U.S. shortly after 9/11. (Neutrality in this section disputed.)

It may also have been important to control the area for purposes of controlling pipelines to China, although that conjecture and is not based on anything but my own speculation given its location between China and the Middle East.

It's the Oil, Stupid: U.S. policy for Qatar, UAE, Yemen, & Oman

2006-09-15T12:03:00.000-07:00

Qatar

The government:

In Qatar, the ruling Al Thani family continued to hold power following the declaration of independence in 1971. The head of state is the Emir, and the right to rule Qatar is passed on within the Al Thani family. Politically, Qatar is evolving from a traditional society into a modern welfare state. Government departments have been established to meet the requirements of social and economic progress. The Basic Law of Qatar 1970 institutionalized local customs rooted in Qatar's conservative Wahhabi heritage, granting the Emir preeminent power. The Emir's role is influenced by continuing traditions of consultation, rule by consensus, and the citizen's right to appeal personally to the Emir. The Emir, while directly accountable to no one, cannot violate the Shari’a (Islamic law) and, in practice, must consider the opinions of leading notables and the religious establishment. Their position was institutionalized in the Advisory Council, an appointed body that assists the Emir in formulating policy. There is no electoral system. Political parties are banned.

The economy:

In 1973, oil production and revenues increased dramatically, moving Qatar out of the ranks of the world's poorest countries and providing it with one of the highest per capita incomes. Despite a marked decline in levels of oil production and prices since 1982, Qatar remains a wealthy country.

Oil production will not long remain at peak levels of 500,000 barrels (80,000 m³) per day, as oil fields are projected to be mostly depleted by 2023. Fortunately, large natural gas reserves have been located off Qatar's northeast coast. Qatar's proved reserves of gas are the third-largest in the world, exceeding 7000 km³. The economy was boosted in 1991 by completion of the $1.5-billion Phase I of North Field gas development. In 1996, the Qatargas project began exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Japan. Further phases of North Field gas development costing billions of dollars are in various stages of planning and development.

Qatar's heavy industrial projects, all based in Umm Said, include a refinery with a 50,000 barrels (8,000 m³) per day capacity, a fertilizer plant for urea and ammonia, a steel plant, and a petrochemical plant. All these industries use gas for fuel. Most are joint ventures between European and Japanese firms and the state-owned Qatar General Petroleum Corporation (QGPC). The U.S.Qatar's oil and gas industry, and U.S. is the major equipment supplier for companies are playing a major role in North Field gas development.

Possibly the best example of all nations in the Middle East--no political parties, no dissent, plenty of oil, and no questions asked.

United Arab Emirates

The UAE is a collection of several emirates which is ruler or commander. These were created in the 20th century by the western powers. The government is similar to Syria's:

The relative political and financial influence of each emirate is reflected in the allocation of positions in the federal government. The ruler of Abu Dhabi, whose emirate is the UAE's major oil producer, is president of the UAE. The ruler of Dubai, which is the UAE's commercial center and a significant oil producer, is vice president and prime minister.

Since achieving independence in 1971, the UAE has worked to strengthen its federal institutions. Nonetheless, each emirate still retains substantial autonomy, and progress toward greater federal integration has slowed in recent years. A basic concept in the UAE Government's development as a federal system is that a significant percentage of each emirate's revenues should be devoted to the UAE central budget.

Though the United Arab Emirates have a kind of parliament, there are no elections and parties in the United Arab Emirates. The Federal National Council (Majlis Watani Ittihad) has 40 members, representing the Emirates, appointed by the rulers of the constituent states to serve two-year terms, with only advisory tasks. The United Arab Emirates does not allow political parties.

The economy is what you might imagine:

In 2003, the UAE produced about 2.3 million barrels (370,000 m³) of oil per day--of which Abu Dhabi produced approximately 85%--with Dubai, and Sharjah to a much lesser extent, producing the rest. Indeed, estimates say that Dubai has less than 10 years of oil left at current production levels and Sharjah has less. Sharjah however, does have some gas reserves remaining. Dubai's small remaining gas reserves are earmarked for use by Dubai, which is one of the largest aluminum smelters in the world, with a very low cost per ton of production, thanks in part to its energy needs being met by these gas reserves.

So again, not much of a democracy, but to compensate, there are plenty of oil reserves that are conveniently sold to the West.

Yemen

The government of Yemen has many characteristics similar to other western nations:

Politics of Yemen takes place in a framework of a presidential representative democratic republic, whereby the President of Yemen is both head of state and head of government. Although it is notionally a pluriform multi-party system, in reality it is completely dominated by one party, the General People's Congress, and has been since unification. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and parliament. The Judiciary is theoretically independent but in reality it is prone to interference from the executive branch. Yemen is a republic with a bicameral legislature. Under the constitution, an elected president, an elected 301-seat House of Representatives, and an appointed 111-member Shura Council share power. The president is head of state, and the prime minister is head of government. The constitution provides that the president be elected by popular vote from at least two candidates endorsed by Parliament; the prime minister is appointed by the president. The presidential term of office is 7 years, and the parliamentary term of elected office is 6 years. Suffrage is universal over 18.

The economy features oil but less prominently than many of its Middle Eastern counterparts:

Following a minor discovery in 1982 in the south, an American company found an oil basin near Ma'rib in 1984. A total of 27,000 m³ (170,000 barrels) per day were produced there in 1995. A small oil refinery began operations near Ma'rib in 1986. A Soviet discovery in the southern governorate of Shabwah has proven only marginally successful even when taken over by a different group. A Western consortium began exporting oil from Masila in the Hadhramaut in 1993, and production there reached 67,000 m³ (420,000 barrels) per day in 1999. More than a dozen other companies have been unsuccessful in finding commercial quantities of oil. There are new finds in the Jannah (formerly known as the Joint Oil Exploration Area) and east Shabwah blocks. Yemen's oil exports in 1995 earned about $1 billion.

Marib oil contains associated natural gas. Proven reserves of 280 to 370 km³ (10-13 trillion cubic feet) could sustain a liquid natural gas (LNG) export project. A long-term prospect for the petroleum industry in Yemen is a proposed liquefied natural gas project (Yemen LNG), which plans to process and export Yemen's 480 km³ (17 trillion cubic feet) of proven associated and natural gas reserves. In September 1995, the Yemeni Government signed an agreement that designated Total of France to be the lead company for an LNG project, and, in January 1997, agreed to include Hunt Oil, Exxon, and Yukong of South Korea as partners in the project (YEPC). The project envisions a $3.5 billion investment over 25 years, producing approximately 3.1 million tons of LNG annually. A Bechtel-Technip joint venture also conducted a preliminary engineering study for LNG production/development.

Oman

The government:

Politics of Oman takes place in a framework of a absolute monarchy whereby the Sultan of Oman is not only head of state, but also the head of government. Chief of state and government is the hereditary sultan, Qabūs ibn Saˤīd as-Saˤīd, who appoints a cabinet to assist him. In the early 1990s, the sultan instituted an elected advisory council, the Majlis ash-Shura, though few Omanis were eligible to vote.

The economy:

Oil was first discovered in the interior near Fahud in the western desert in 1964. Petroleum Development (Oman) Ltd. (PDO) began production in August 1967. The Omani Government owns 60% of PDO, and foreign interests own 40% (Royal Dutch Shell owns 34%; the remaining 6% is owned by Compagnie Francaise des Petroles [Total] and Partex). In 1976, Oman's oil production rose to 366,000 barrels (58,000 m³) per day but declined gradually to about 285,000 barrels (45,000 m³) per day in late 1980 due to the depletion of recoverable reserves. From 1981 to 1986, Oman compensated for declining oil prices by increasing production levels to 600,000 b/d. With the collapse of oil prices in 1986, however, revenues dropped dramatically. Production was cut back temporarily in coordination with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and production levels again reached 600,000 b/d by mid-1987, which helped increase revenues. By mid-2000, production had climbed to more than 900,000 b/d where they remain. Oman is not a member of OPEC.

Natural gas reserves, which will increasingly provide the fuel for power generation and desalination, stand at 18 trillion ft³ (510 km³). An LNG processing plant located in Sur was opened in 2000, with production capacity of 6.6 million tons/YR, as well as unsubstantial gas liquids, including condensates.
Oman does not have the immense oil resources of some of its neighbors. Nevertheless, in recent years, it has found more oil than it has produced, and total proven reserves rose to more than 5 billion barrels (0.8 km³) by the mid-1990s. Oman's complex geology makes exploration and production an expensive challenge. Recent improvements in technology, however, have enhanced recovery.

Oman is another good example of a nation in the Middle East with a monarchial system controlling oil reserves.

Tags: oil, Middle East, Corporations, U.S. Foreign Policy, Bush Administration, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Oman

It's the Oil, Stupid: U.S. policy for Iran

2006-09-15T12:00:00.000-07:00

The entry for Iran has a clip that gives an indication of the somewhat complicated Iranian government system:

The Constitution defines the President as the highest state authority after the Supreme Leader. The President is elected by universal suffrage, by those 16 years old and older, for a term of four years. Presidential candidates must be approved by the Council of Guardians prior to running. The President is responsible for the implementation of the Constitution and for the exercise of executive powers, except for matters directly related to the Supreme Leader. The President appoints and supervises the Council of Ministers, coordinates government decisions, and selects government policies to be placed before the legislature. Eight Vice-Presidents serve under the President, as well as a cabinet of 21 ministers, who must all be approved by the legislature. Unlike many other states, the executive branch in Iran does not control the armed forces. Although the President appoints the Ministers of Intelligence and Defense, it is customary for the President to obtain explicit approval from the Supreme Leader for these two ministers before presenting them to the legislature for a vote of confidence.

As you can see, there are checks on every office of the government including the Supreme Leader. Suffrage is universal. Read the rest of the article.

The economy:

Although petroleum plays a central part in Iran's exports, Iran's non-oil exports hit the $12 Billion mark in 2005[3], as Iran continues to diversify its economy.

Iran's former president Khatami followed the market reform plans of former President Rafsanjani and indicated that he would pursue diversification of Iran's oil-reliant economy although he made little progress toward that goal. The strong oil market in 1996 helped ease financial pressures on Iran and allowed for Tehran's timely debt service payments. Iran's financial situation tightened in 1997 and deteriorated further in 1998 because of lower oil prices. The subsequent zoom 1999 afforded Iran fiscal breathing room but does not solve Iran's structural economic problems. Iran's current president Ahmadinejad has promised sweeping economic reform, including widespread social services and an elimination of Iran's stock market.

I should include this selection concerning Human Rights in Iran:

The violation of human rights by the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to be significant, despite many efforts by Iranian human right activists, writers, NGOs and some political parties. Human rights in Iran face the issues of governmental impunity, restricted freedom of speech, gender inequality and discrimination against minorities and "outsiders" amongst other issues. Despite severe national and some international criticism, the Islamic government of Iran still continues to disregard the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in several aspects.

Human rights in Iran can be said to derive from two elements; firstly, traditional Islam and the Sharia law allow for significant gender inequality, gay persecution, as well as other internationally criticized practices such as stoning as a method of execution. Secondly, the Iranian government itself, in its continual drive to secure its own political power base, as well as to maintain centralized control over a fragmented multi-ethnic society, disregards human rights. However, the situation of human rights under the Islamic regime is far better than in many Middle Eastern countries, where women lack the rights to vote or receive education and all media is state-run.

While these allegations are serious and pressure should be exerted to correct them, they pale in comparison other nations that enjoy favorable status among U.S. trading partners.

It's the Oil, Stupid: U.S. policy for Iraq

2006-09-15T11:57:00.000-07:00

To Iraq's government:

Politics of Iraq takes place in a framework of a more or less federal parliamentary representative democratic republic, whereby the Prime Minister of Iraq is the head of government, and of a pluriform multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the National Assembly of Iraq. Politics of Iraq includes the social relations involving authority or power in Iraq. Before the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the Ba'ath Party officially ruled. The occupation yielded to an interim Iraqi constitution, which was replaced by a permanent constitution following approval in a referendum held on October 15, 2005.

Birth pangs can be painful, and in some cases, deadly.

The economy:

As chief executive of Iraq, Paul Bremer issued a series of orders designed to restructure Iraq's broadly socialist economy in line with neo-liberal thinking. Order 39 laid out the framework for full privatization in Iraq, except for "primary extraction and initial processing" of oil, and permitted 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi assets. Other orders established a flat tax of 15% and permitted foreign corporations to repatriate all profits earned in Iraq. Opposition from senior Iraqi officials, together with the poor security situation, meant that Bremer's privatization plan was not implemented during his tenure, though his orders remain in place. Privatization of the oil industry, in addition to around 200 other state-owned businesses, was scheduled to begin sometime in late 2005, though it is opposed by the Federation of Oil Unions in Iraq.
One of the key economic challenges was Iraq's immense foreign debt, estimated at $125 billion. Although some of this debt was derived from normal export contracts that Iraq had failed to pay for, some was a result of military and financial support during Iraq's war with Iran. The Jubilee Iraq campaign argued that much of these debts were odious (illegitimate). However, as the concept of odious debt is not accepted, trying to deal with the debt on those terms would have embroiled Iraq in legal disputes for years. Iraq decided to deal with its debt more pragmatically and approached the Paris Club of official creditors.

I have nothing to add, but imagine what would happen in any other country if an army invaded, installed its own governing authority, privatized (a euphemism for donating it to multinational corporations), and allowed any economic pillager to repatriate every dollar back to their home country leaving no benefit to the locals except for possible slave wages. What would dubya do?

It's the Oil, Stupid: U.S. policy for Lebanon

2006-09-15T11:47:00.000-07:00

Let's talk about Lebanon; its government:

Lebanon has a form of parliamentary democracy referred to as confessionalism, in which the highest offices are proportionately reserved for representatives from certain religious communities. A similar system has developed in the Republic of Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The constitution grants the people the right to change their government. However, from the mid-1970s until the parliamentary elections in 1992, civil war precluded the exercise of political rights. According to the constitution, direct elections must be held for the parliament every 4 years. The last parliament election was in 2005. The Parliament, in turn, elects a President every 6 years to a single term. The President is not eligible for re-election. The last presidential election was in 1998. The president and parliament choose the Prime Minister. Political parties may be formed; most are based on sectarian interests. Syria occupied the greater part of the country from the time of the civil war until 2005.

Obviously, Lebanon presents a somewhat unique situation, offering little analytical benefit for our purpose here; at least in the space and time constraints.

Turning to the economy:

For 2002, the government has put primary emphasis on privatization, initially in the telecom sector and electricity, with continued planning for sales of the state airline, Beirut port, and water utilities. The government has pledged to apply the proceeds of sales to reducing the public debt and the budget deficit. In addition, it projects that privatization will bring new savings as government payrolls are pared, interest rates decline, and private sector growth and foreign investment are stimulated. The government also is tackling the daunting task of administrative reform, aiming to bring in qualified technocrats to address ambitious economic programs, and reviewing further savings that can be realized through reforms of the income tax system. The Lebanese Government faces major challenges in order to meet the requirements of a fiscal adjustment program focusing on tax reforms and modernization, expenditure rationalization, privatization, and improved debt management.

It's the Oil, Stupid: U.S. policy for Jordan and Syria

2006-09-15T11:45:00.000-07:00

Jordan

Jordan is a Constitutional Monarchy. Jordan also has few natural resources and a somewhat staggered economy whose tourism has turned south by the frequent violence in the region since 1991. Ever wonder why you seldom hear about it? As soon as the pipelines are constructed, you will hear much more.

Syria

Syria has its own political issues:

Politics of Syria takes place in a framework of a parliamentary republic, whereby the power is in the hands of the President of Syria and the ruling Ba'ath Party. Officially, Syria is a parliamentary republic. In reality, however, it is an authoritarian regime that exhibits only the forms of a democratic system. Although citizens ostensibly vote for the President and members of Parliament, they do not have the right to change their government. The late President Hafiz Al-Asad was confirmed by unopposed plebiscites five times. His son, Bashar Al-Asad, also was confirmed by an unopposed referendum in July 2000. The President and his senior aides, particularly those in the military and security services, ultimately make most basic decisions in political and economic life, with a very limited degree of public accountability. Political opposition to the President is not tolerated. Syria has been under a state of emergency since 1963. Syrian governments have justified the state of emergency by the state of war which continues to exist with Israel and by continuing threats posed by terrorist groups. The Syrian army and security services maintained a considerable presence in the neighboring Lebanese Republic from 1975 until April 24, 2005; for more detail on this, see Syrian presence in Lebanon.

I would like to take this chance to draw a comparison between the state of emergency in Syria and the terrorist threat levels in the U.S. (Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.) It is also worthwhile to point out the degree of hostility in this entry that is eerily absent in other nations of the Middle East. I would imagine it may have something to do with the recent conflict in Southern Lebanon as well as the festering hostility of the U.S. policy.

As for the economy, this selection is relevant:

Syria has produced heavy-grade oil from fields located in the northeast since the late 1960s. In the early 1980s, light-grade, low-sulphur oil was discovered near Dayr az Zawr in eastern Syria. This discovery relieved Syria of the need to import light oil to mix with domestic heavy crude in refineries. Recently, Syrian oil production has been about 530,000 barrels per day. Although its oil reserves are small compared to those of many other Arab states, Syria's petroleum industry accounts for a majority of the country's export income. The government has successfully begun to work with international energy companies to develop Syria's promising natural gas reserves, both for domestic use and export. U.S. energy firm, ConocoPhillips, completed a large natural gas gathering and production facility for Syria in late 2000, and will continue to serve as operator of the plant until December 2005. In 2003, Syria experienced some success in attracting U.S. Petroleum companies, signing an exploration deal with partners Devon Energy and Gulfsands and a seismic survey contract with Veritas.

Syria has made progress in easing its heavy foreign debt burden through bilateral rescheduling deals with virtually all of its key creditors in Europe. In May 2005, Russia and Syria signed a deal that wrote off nearly three-quarters of Syria's debt to Russia, approximately €10.5 billion ($13 billion). The agreement left Syria with less than €3 billion (just over $3.6 billion) owed to Moscow. Half of it would be repaid over the next 10 years, while the rest would be paid into Russian accounts in Syrian banks and could be used for Russian investment projects in Syria and for buying Syrian products.

In summary, Russia seems to be taking the lead Syrian oil development. That means Russian corporations are those benefiting from the natural resources. This could be the reason for Dick Cheney's recent criticism of Russian democracy. It may just be coincidence.

It's the Oil, Stupid: U.S. policy for Saudi Arabia

2006-09-15T11:39:00.000-07:00

As one might imagine for unitary government systems, the article concerning the Saudi Arabian government is very brief. It is unnecessary to go further than this:

Politics of Saudi Arabia takes place in a framework of an absolute monarchy whereby the King of Saudi Arabia is not only head of state, but also the head of government. The central institution of Saudi Arabian Government is the monarchy. The Basic Law adopted in 1992 declared that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the sons and grandsons of King Abd Al Aziz Al Saud, and that the Qur'an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law.

A King rules Saudi Arabia on the base of Islamic Law. That makes it a monarchy and a theocracy. That is no basis for criticism as most of western civilization developed under the same conditions which often included such less desirable characteristics:

The situation of human rights in Saudi Arabia is generally considered to be very poor. Under the authoritarian rule of the Saudi royal family, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has enforced strict laws under a doctrine of Wahabism (a fundamentalist interpretation of sharia, Islamic religious law). Many basic freedoms as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not exist; it is alleged that capital punishment and other penalties are often given to suspected criminals without due process. Saudi Arabia has also come under fire for its oppression of religious and political minorities, torture of prisoners, and attitude toward foreign expatriates, homosexuality, and women. Although major human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly expressed concern about the states of human rights in Saudi Arabia, the kingdom denies that any human rights abuses take place.

Saudi Arabia is ruled by a king against whom allegations of human rights abuses are fairly well substantiated. However, there has never been the slightest effort by the U.S. government of any administration to resolve these concerns. To shed some light on this ostensible contradiction, follow this link.

Saudi oil reserves are the largest in the world, and Saudi Arabia is the world's leading oil producer and exporter. Oil accounts for more than 90% of the country's exports and nearly 75% of government revenues. Proven reserves are estimated to be 260 billion barrels (41 km³), about one-quarter of world oil reserves.

More than 95% of all Saudi oil is produced on behalf of the Saudi Government by the parastatal giant Saudi ARAMCO. In June 1993, Saudi ARAMCO absorbed the state marketing and refining company (SAMAREC), becoming the world's largest fully integrated oil company. Most Saudi oil exports move by tanker from Gulf terminals at Ras Tanura and Ju'aymah. The remaining oil exports are transported via the east-west pipeline across the kingdom to the Red Sea port of Yanbu. A major new gas initiative promises to bring significant investment by U.S. and European oil companies to develop nonassociated gas fields in three separate parts of Saudi Arabia. Following final technical agreements with concession awardees in December 2001, development should begin in 2002.

The oil that Saudi Arabia sells to the rest of the United States ensures that the U.S. will allow them to do whatever they want within their own country. There is no other conclusion that could possibly be drawn. Imagine what would/will happen when/if the Saudis begins selling oil to India and China.

It's the Oil, Stupid: U.S. policy for Egypt

2006-09-15T11:36:00.000-07:00

Not so long ago, the Secretary of State and the President in addition to pundits have been claiming that the escalating violence in the Middle East birth pangs of democracy in the region. Painful they are, but there is very little to suggest that the U.S. policy is actually turning the Middle East into a region of democratic countries. It is baffling that this tired rhetoric is still spoken but the degree to which this hypocrisy goes unnoticed in the media and general political discourse is frightening.

The Bush Administration is not interested in the nations comprising the Middle East becoming more democratic. In fact, that is what they fear most of all. If the people in these countries were allowed to vote, all indications are that they would elect leaders that oppose U.S. Policy. That policy is to control the resources (oil) of the region. It does not necessarily seek to own them because as long as it is able to control to whom the oil is sold (not China), they will still benefit from any proceeds. It is no secret that without oil, the U.S. economy, or any other, cannot function. We live in an oil-based world. It is as essential to our economic strength as it is to a property functioning motor vehicle. This is documented sufficiently in mainstream news sources that it should not be a point of contention.

Thus, the U.S. must control oil to function. Let us take a look at some countries that make up the Middle East. I will rely on Wikipedia entries because the contributors must pass reasonable and neutral scrutiny in order for the information to remain. That means anyone who has the desire can add their work. As long as it survives some nominal scrutiny it remains published for the average surfer to read. Contributors are able to disagree and when they do, things get sorted out. For more information about this, read this. I certainly do not rely on any of these sources as anything more than someone's interpretation of reality. That is sufficient for our purposes here.

Egypt

Here we go:

Egypt is regarded by many as being ruled by a military dictatorship. Although power is ostensibly organized under a multi-party semi-presidential system, whereby the executive power is theoretically divided between the President and the Prime Minister, in practice it rests almost solely with the President who traditionally has been elected in single-candidate elections for more than fifty years. Egypt also holds regular multi-party parliamentary elections. The last presidential election, in which Mubarak won a fifth consecutive term, was held in September 2005.

To summarize, Egypt is not a democracy. Let us look at its economy. One particularly relevant passage is found here:

Over the last 15 years, more than 180 petroleum exploration agreements have been signed and multinational oil companies spent more than $27 billion in exploration companions. These activities led to the findings of about 18 crude oil fields and 16 natural gas fields in FY 2001. The total number of findings rose to 49 in FY 2005. As a result of these findings, crude oil reserves as of December 2005 are estimated at 3.7 billion barrels, and proven natural gas reserves are 1.89 trillion cubic meters with a likely additional discoveries with more exploration campaigns. The main natural gas producer in Egypt is the International Egyptian Oilfield Company (IEOC), a branch of Italian ENI-AGIP. Other companies like BP, BG, Texas-based Apache Corp. and Shell carry out activities of exploration and production by means of concessions granted for a period of generally ample time (often 20 years) and in different geographic zones of oil and gas deposits in the country.

In sum, Egypt is blessed with the ability to pump oil from within its borders, although that ability is declining. Its government is not a democracy, but they trade with the United States and its Western partners, and do not receive excessive scrutiny for its lack of democratic institutions.

Health Country, USA! Why see a doctor, anywhere else?

2006-09-14T18:26:00.000-07:00

Reuters gave some solid treatment to the basic problem of health care in the Untied States here.

As explained, people are sometimes uninsurable because an insurance carrier views them as high risk, or unhealthy enough that their return on investment is either too low or a loss. No for profit business will ever invest in something that is not going bring some sort of profit in return. Therein lies the problem with subjecting the health of people to the market. Sometimes people will simply not be healthy through no fault of their own. We have made a decision, as a society, that these people have less value to society unless they are wealthy enough to afford higher premiums. Sure life isn’t fair and it never will be, but we can certainly afford to spend a little less on guns and a little more to preserve the lives of our people. It is times like this when I am urged to spit “culture of life” back into the talking point machine.

These problems are further exacerbated by the fact that when people get into real financial trouble, they throw the payments on their credit card which until last year was dischargeable under a filing bankruptcy. Similar protections remain in place for corporations which now offer fewer health insurance options for their employees. At least Wal-Mart is willing to help its employees fill out their Medicare applications.

As I have said many times before, I feel one of the main reasons that our country clings so tightly to employer-based insurance plans is that it keeps employees all the more reliant on the concept of employment in general which stifles entrepreneurship, ultimately reducing competition. It may not be an overt strategy but we need only remember that a corporation has no responsibility to anyone but its shareholders and that one responsibility is only to maximize profit.

The rest of us plebians go fuck ourselves.

"Life is not like college, it's like high school."

2006-09-14T13:30:00.000-07:00

I don’t know to whom I should credit this statement, but it sounds about right. In college, people had a chance to spend their time doing the things they enjoyed, academically and socially (probably not professionally, for those who worked). After this deviation through academia and counter-society, people generally went into much more structured organizations in work, family life, or whatever else.

However, high school was much more of a cattle herding process where most of the people were put through mostly similar programs for mostly similar reasons. No one could really deviate from the goal of graduation. Further, those who excelled, at least in public school, like mine, were either those who were exceptionally intelligent, or those who got along well with their teachers in whatever term can be most appropriately substituted for brownnosing.

When you settle into your first job, you quickly realize that your professional life is much easier if you can cultivate relationships with the right people in the organization. Often, but not always, this means substituting your own creativity and work with what you think the people in charge want. Every organization in which I was involved had many examples of those who were completely willing to do whatever their bosses told them without any moral reservation, regardless of how deplorable the possible result. Depending on the organizations and the ability of its managers to cultivate creativity, the people within generally excel or become deeply disillusioned with the system. What remains is a few people who are willing to substitute their freedom for the belief that they will be rewarded because of their "yesman-ability". These rewards may be in the form of recognition, promotions, raises, or additional power within the organization. In any case, people often and willingly make this trade, just as many did in high school. Because almost all professional organizations are hierarchical, they must be authoritarian and therefore the people that rise to the top benefit much more from their favor they curried with the managers, officers, and directors than their merits, professional ability, or any other skill they possess. This is certainly not always true; often people excel because they are needed, but let's face it, most people don’t want to go to the mattresses with people they don't like. It's usually a personality rather than merit based system.

Yesmen usually rise to the top. My favorite example of this process is the leadership structure of the LDS church (Mormons) which is described at some basic background here. There is a long process on the climb from local leader to president and at the very top, there are 12 men that form a quorum so exclusive and vetted that there is virtually no possibility of any significant change ever occurring. (A black member of the LDS church did not have the same standing that every other male did until 1978!) In the Mormon hierarchy, the vetting and weeding out occurs at the local level. Young and ambitious members make their bones there and of those only the most loyal yes men, the men who never question, the men who never dissent, are those who rise to the highest echelons.

The LDS church is an extreme example. Most organizations do not have the ability to invoke the name of God and divine inspiration. Most corporations for example, must shake up management from time to time to respond to market fluctuations, competitors scooping up market share, and the loss of key personnel with access to power structures.

If you allow it, life can certainly be a lot like high school. There are personality types that really benefit from that structure. The rest of us must rely on our own creativity to make things tolerable. As more people exercise that creativity, both professionally and socially, we may well be able to recast the paradigm into something that benefits people in general, instead of people who kiss their teachers' ass.

The Swiftboating of Sarbanes-Oxley

2006-09-14T10:55:00.000-07:00

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was the major response to the corporate scandals that occurred earlier in this decade. From Wikipedia:

The Committee approved the final conference bill on July 24, 2002 and gave it the name "the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002." The next day, both houses of Congress voted on it without change, producing an overwhelming margin of victory: 423 to 3 in the House and 99 to 0 in the Senate. On July 30, 2002, President George W. Bush signed it into law….

This is an amazing feat for the Bush Congresses and is certainly one of the most overwhelmingly supported bills passed in the history of the U.S. Congress. As with everything else, it has its shortcomings and its strengths.

Now just four years removed from this monumental event, the chatter in the financial publications is that Sarbanes-Oxley is too restrictive and burdensome on U.S. businesses, and should be rolled back.

I suppose this is only one of the many problems that occurs in a society that is dominated by corporations that can sue and be sued, avail themselves of legal protections as persons, and ultimately refashion all legal structures to benefit themselves above individuals, who are actual people. Even so, they cannot be subject to criminal laws because they are not people. It is so irrational that it defies any semblance of logic.

And even when real people overwhelmingly implement programs to cultivate transparency so fewer people have to experience situations like the Enron fiasco, the corporate sectors screams bloody murder. It's absurd. You can't have your cake and eat it too; you gotta take the bitter with the sweet. Excuse me, I forgot that these trite phrases only apply to people. A corporation is only a person when advantageous.

There is a Place in Hell Reserved for Me and My Friends

2006-09-12T10:40:00.000-07:00

The Speechreader-in-Chief recently joined the EU's criticism of China's crackdown on foreign news outlets. Of course, his own administration has threatened to do the same to stop journalists in the United States culminating in Alberto Gonzales defending and possibly embracing the idea himself. A strangely eerie development is ongoing with HP.

All of this is certainly not unexpected even five years after 9/11. The most common byproduct of violence or threats to peace, fabricated or real, is the subjugation of civil rights for security. People make these choices willingly and have done so since the time when we were all monkeys running around in packs. Governments across the world have taken the opportunity that 9/11 provided to do just that today. Certainly, bin Laden realized this which makes George Bush's conclusion that they hate us because of our freedom, all the more actual.

The truly scary aspect of it all is that our own high tech corporations are helping the Chinese government maintain the existing brutal regime. As the brutally honest Business Week reports, "major American manufacturers are rushing to supply China's police with the latest information technology."

This report is particularly frightening because it demonstrates the complete lack of moral fiber that a corporation has. Certainly the employees, officers, and directors of the company are interested in a free world for all, but inside of a the brand of their corporation, they are completely powerless to stop its never ending obligations to its shareholders to maximize profit. If that means it is directly aiding a brutal, communist regime, the decision obviously requires little deliberation. In fact, the only concern voiced in this report is adherence to customs regulations to ensure that sensitive technology is not given to the Chinese.

There may be a time, and it may not be far into the future, it may even be now, when this technology will be used against you and me. In the years before World War II, IBM employees developed technology to allow the Nazi regime to keep tabs on its dissidents and perceived enemies. We need not repeat this history, but it is shocking how closely we are doing so.

Combatting Terrorism

2006-09-06T10:25:00.000-07:00

The Bush administration has seen fit to update its strategy for winning the war on terror. The document is somewhat ironically titled, "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism". I would like to forthrightly point out that the document is not titled, Winning the War on Terrorism, and after reading the document, I can see that combating is much more appropriate term than winning. The entire document can be found here.

Perhaps the most simplistic and dishonest section that I read is the pitiful explanation for the causes of terrorism. Note that the piece does not discuss terrorists as the people they are, but the more abstract term, terrorism. I am not sure that is intentional, but the lack of analysis into that issue alone is cause for great concern among the thoughtful public. According to the National Security Council, and approved by GWB himself, terrorism "comes from":

Political alienation. Transnational terrorists are recruited from
populations with no voice in their own government and see no legitimate way to promote change in their own country. Without a stake in the existing order, they are vulnerable to manipulation by those who advocate a perverse political vision based on violence and destruction.

Grievances that can be blamed on others. The failures the terrorists feel and see are blamed both on others and on perceived injustices from the recent or sometimes distant past. The terrorists’ rhetoric keeps wounds associated with this past fresh and raw, a potent motivation for revenge and terror.

Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.

An ideology that justifies murder. Terrorism ultimately depends upon the appeal of an ideology that excuses or even glorifies the deliberate killing of innocents. Islam has been twisted and made to serve an evil end, as in other times and places other religions have been similarly abused.

The document summarily dismisses the following as causes for terrorism:

Terrorism is not the inevitable by-product of poverty. Many of the September 11 hijackers were from middle-class backgrounds, and many terrorist leaders, like bin Laden, are from privileged upbringings.

Terrorism is not simply a result of hostility to U.S. policy in Iraq. The United States was attacked on September 11 and many years earlier, well before we toppled the Saddam Hussein regime. Moreover, countries that did not participate in Coalition efforts in Iraq have not been spared from terror attacks.

Terrorism is not simply a result of Israeli-Palestinian issues. Al-Qaida plotting for the September 11 attacks began in the 1990s, during an active period in the peace process.

Terrorism is not simply a response to our efforts to prevent terror attacks. The al-Qaida network targeted the United States long before the United States targeted al-Qaida. Indeed, the terrorists are emboldened more by perceptions of weakness than by demonstrations of resolve. Terrorists lure recruits by telling them that we are decadent, easily intimidated, and will retreat if attacked.

The document is a pitiful example of the hubris of this dishonest and incompetent administration. Terrorism is a tool, not a person. It is impossible to fight a tool because it requires someone to use it before it has any efficacy. Terrorism has always been a tactic of those who have no other options. The paper is correct in that there are rich terrorists and non-Iraqi terrorists. Nor are all terrorists angry just about Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. However, its conclusions for what causes terrorism are horribly simplistic and superficial. In fact, they all seem to stem from the criticism of the Bush Administration's occupation of Iraq. They are all justifications of maintaining the current course in Iraq.

A quick look at each in turn:

Political alienation. For example, the Bush administration believes that when people can vote, they will not become terrorists. Or, because when they are politically alienated and have no voice in their government, they naturally turn to terrorism. Osama bin Laden was a very wealthy and had access to the power structures in Saudi Arabia. In fact, he also had some access to the U.S. power structures as a CIA operative fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now OBL is an atypical example but using him as an object lesson is no less responsible than using 9/11 perpetrators as proof that terrorism does not arise from poverty.

Grievances that can be blamed on others. I do not understand this bullet point or what it is trying to prove, but it sounds much more like the current GOP election season campaign talking point than a reason for terrorism to me.

Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. This is another bullet point that seems to describe Rovian political tactics rather than honest explanations for the proliferation of terrorism.

An ideology that justifies murder. Again, I do not understand how this is an honest explanation of the reasons people embrace terrorists tactics. Further, it is dangerous and inhumane to single out Islam as the only idealogy capable of producing a terrorist. To single one of my favorite objects of distaste, Mormonism, I submit that Mormonism also preaches justifications for terrorist actions. Please see Chapter 4 of the First Book of Nephi directly from the Book of Mormon on the official Mormon website. In this account, Nephi a poor son of a prophet and a one day prophet himself, kills a wealthy landowner, Laban, in Jerusalem. It is not so much the account of the murder, but the justification itself that is striking.

Every human being is born with the capability of writing a symphony or murder. Whether those talents and that potential are developed during their childhood and subsequent life is secondary to the fact that every human is born with that capability. Our institutions must be modified to bring out the best in each of us instead of ensuring that death by suicide is a more desirable option than making the most of our lives. Of course, democracy should be encouraged in every country, (not just those with oil and other resources), and for that the Bush administration is certainly to be commended, but the criticism remains that they do not have the slightest clue how to do that. If this document is the best they could commit to paper on how to cultivate democratic states, then I have even less confidence in their ability to actually bring it to pass.

That brings me back to the title, "combating" terrorism. There is far more money to be made from military contractors during war than there is in during peace. The state of perpetual war ensures a strong support financially and morally for the regimes that preach it. Therefore, the strategy is not to defeat terrorism, but to combat it as long as there is money to be made, and as long as their constituents accept it. If anything else were true, I am sure all the brainpower in Washington D.C. could come up with something better.

Oil Discovered! Peak Oil Theories Disproved! Climate Crisis Solved!

2006-09-06T10:03:00.000-07:00

These were my thoughts when I read this story this morning. However, it was not long into the story that this paragraph:

"It's a nice positive, but the U.S. still has a big difference between its consumption and indigenous production," said Art Smith, chief executive of energy consultant John S. Herold. "We'll still be importing more than 50 percent of our oil needs."

So much for dreams of energy independence…. and I was hoping finally to get that Chevy Suburban so I could support U.S. auto manufacturers and put a big support the troops sticker as well as a Bush/Cheney2004 oval sticker in the bottom left of the rear window. That was before I made it to this statement.

"The successful test well does not mean a huge supply of cheap oil will hit the market anytime soon."

So why is it in the paper, if it doesn't mean anything other than an increase in share price for the developer?

The GOP is facing a touch campaign season. Most respondents to polling express dissatisfaction with the direction the country is heading, and stories like this make people less worried, even if there are no short term benefits. In Washington, the GOP candidates are walking a fine line between pretending to be something other than Republicans and embracing President Bush, or his top political architect, Karl Rove. In the past three months, the triumvirate of Cheney, Bush, and Ted Stevens have all stumped for local candidates, Dave Reichart, and Mike McGavick, who have done everything they can to convince voters that they would not be rubber stamps to unpopular policies.

In the end, when oil men are the most powerful in the land, you can expect good things to happen at the right times, but at no other times. I imagine the price at the pumps will continue to fall until some crisis will give the industry reason to increase them in early December or late November. I don't even want to imagine what will happen should the GOP lose one or both houses. At the very least, I could imagine the DOJ might spend billions sniffing out a sinister blow-job plot.

This land was my land, but now it's your land

2006-09-06T09:56:00.000-07:00

The United States of America is just the latest in a long line of states to occupy this land. It is certainly unique in that it was created as a state in which people were not subject to the discretion of one person. However, we have allowed ourselves to believe that our country, government, and economy occupy a special and therefore somehow uniquely immune position in the history of the human experience. There is an underlying belief among most Americans that our government will protect us; that some invention will save us; or if all else fails, Jesus will return and set things in order. I would not have any problem with such sentiments but for this philosophy serves only to buttress the existing authoritarian structures to the detriment of anyone outside them. Further, these power structures are the means through which the majority of the people in the United States absorb these ideas. It seems as if a psychological feudalism is ushering us into a new medieval period.

To illustrate, we often hear from our elected officials that America's values are the reason that other militant groups dislike us. We are often told that America is protector of freedom and democracy and is charged with the specific mission of bringing those advancements to other nations. America has taken upon itself to establish the rule of law in many other countries across the world. America's generous foreign aid is second to none in the world community. Americans know that after we bombed Germany and Japan to hell and gone, we were the first to withdraw our soldiers and replace them with piles of money to develop the war torn countries. We, as Americans, learn that the people, all of them white men, who established this country by drafting and spearheading the ratification of a Constitution, were interested in ushering in a new age wherein America was to be the shining City on the Hill.

Such lofty motivations bring to mind the old adage, "if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

I certainly do think the idea of America is unique because it was conceived by a group of men (remember, woman and many others, most notably slaves were not included) who were completely hostile to the idea of tyranny and most of their work at the Constitutional Convention was certainly not to create a free and democratic society, but it was intended to rid themselves of tyranny, namely the tyrannical abuses of George III. Indeed, from the text of the Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

The English colonies on the Atlantic seaboard were uniquely positioned in the history of the world because they were rich enough in natural resources, and connected to a vast commercial trading system, that the colonists were able to exploit those resources and trading system quickly enough that they were able to challenge the legitimacy of George III within a couple of generations--much faster that the monarchy could react to the development. Even so, their ability to prevail against the most powerful military force the world had ever known is a testament to their vision if not practical organizational capabilities. As we all know, after the war, and a brief flirtation with the Articles of Confederation, they created a Constitution to keep tyranny in England.

Of course, if you were not a rich cash crop farmer, a wealthy New York financier, or a sharp-minded puritan politician, very little changed. Only after upheaval after social upheaval did many of the other residents of the United States obtain the rights of citizenship which the founding fathers claimed as their own in the late 18th century. While the signatories of the Declaration of Independence did not establish a free society for all, they did in fact, create a means for subsequent generations to build upon their framework and move closer to those ideals.

Tyranny today is as much a danger as it was then, and in many ways, it presents a much greater danger. Each day people sell their lives, liberty, and happiness to subject themselves to tyrannical power structures. If you work for someone, you are ceding to that person the very rights and privileges that you are told must be preserved. Recently, the dialogue has been revised and now order outweighs freedom in every aspect of life, not just the workplace. Senator Roberts, said very clearly: “I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties. But you have no civil liberties if you are dead.”

That is certainly true Senator Roberts, but had people thought that way in 1776, there never would have been no Declaration of Independence.

Perhaps it is the millions of lives working under authoritarian corporations, or congregating under authoritarian churches (count me in both groups); perhaps it is our failing public education system, more day care than learning; or our rampant consumerism that distracts us from loftier goals; Perhaps it is that our Senators are unworthy and incapable defenders of the ideals of our Constitution; maybe it is the suburban sprawl warping our minds into a vast, but mundane, network of conformity and complacency; it might be the internets, ipods, or pornography. Whatever it is, the idea of America is dimming, and people do not seem to be noticing.

Electioneering

2006-08-30T11:06:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-30T09:14:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-29T12:28:00.000-07:00

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!

2006-08-29T11:46:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-29T10:41:00.000-07:00

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...

2006-08-29T10:17:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-23T12:08:00.001-07:00

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?

2006-08-23T11:20:00.000-07:00

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….

2006-08-23T09:32:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-22T14:52:00.000-07:00

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"

2006-08-22T10:42:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-22T10:37:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-21T14:50:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-21T10:16:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-20T12:09:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-20T11:35:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-08T21:51:00.000-07:00

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

Financial Times with the real reasons

2006-08-07T13:43:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-06T14:09:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-06T14:03:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-06T13:45:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-01T11:05:00.000-07:00

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.

Breakfast

2006-07-31T12:08:00.000-07:00

It is extremely interesting at times to take a step back, or a long break, just to take in a larger view of the world.

It is the last day of July.

Our presence in Iraq appears no less likely to conclude than it did three months ago despite the escalation of violence.

Israel is in southern Lebanon.

The highest courts in both New York, and Washington have declined to extend basic civil rights to those whose sexual practices do not result children.

This part of the country has just escaped from a crippling heat wave that is in no way related to worldwide temperature increases as a result of people burning fossil fuels.

These are just some of the events that have developed over the last few months. None of them are very encouraging. However, it is also nice to witness many of the campaigns for seats in the House and Senate. It is extremely encouraging to see that people are actually able to get involved and call their elected representatives to account in the two or three months before they again disappear in Washington D.C. only to return to their old ways.

At least during the next few months, people have a chance to contribute to the dialogue.

Absurdity without Bounds

2006-05-08T10:11:00.000-07:00

The Financial Times' take on Cheney's remarks is timeless. In particular, this line struck me:

"Mr Cheney last Thursday accused Russia not just of using energy policy for
political ends, but of restricting citizens’ rights."

I don't know that any one in the entire world that has used energy policy for political ends more so than Cheney. It is absurd that he would accuse anyone else of those actions when he wrote the book on restricting rights to further his personal and political gains.

Furthermore, what in the world has the U.S. to gain by making comments like that? Is it really to begin another cold war so that the Neo-Cons can return to the good old days of gross military expenditures to counter the ubiquitous threat of the Russians? It would not surprise me. Of course, our military expenditures increased after the fall of the Soviet Union, but I doubt such a technicality would inhibit BushCo from increasing them again at the onset of Cold War II: Attack of the Clones.

Your "liberal" media

2006-05-07T10:31:00.000-07:00

This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy. Not only is it extremely childish and unprofessional, but people fall for it, so it continues to happen.

Compare these two articles about the senatorial race in Washington. First, an article about Cantwell. Next, one about McGavick looking to unseat Senator Cantwell.

No one is going to read the tripe the Times churns out anyway, but they will notice the photos. Mike's appears to be at his second grade best, but Cantwell's seems a little off. Subtle but effective. Indeed, it's nice to see the candidates run on the issues, and it's even better to see the press attempting to tease out the issues so that the public can easily participate in the process.

I was reading the paper and noticed the photo of Cantwell. I assumed the most recent article about Mike would be in similar fashion. Boy did I assume too much. Liberal media, my ass.

Another Energy Indepedance Article

2006-04-30T10:07:00.002-07:00

Here's another in an already huge pile of articles that discuss the future of energy in the United States.

The future is not in Iraq either.

Another Energy Indepedance Article

2006-04-30T10:07:00.001-07:00

Here's another in an already huge pile of articles that discuss the future of energy in the United States.

The future is not in Iraq either.

$3.00 and Rising

2006-04-30T09:53:00.000-07:00

In the couple of weeks since I have posted, gas prices have surged higher, with no end in sight. Since I do not own a car, I have not trouble with the price at the pump. In fact, I sort of get a grim sense of satisfaction every time I see an SUV drive by. It is difficult to get too excited about ever-increasing fuel prices, one positive effect might be that people will decrease their use of environmentally unfriendly vehicles. As fuel prices increase, so will the efforts to develop more reasonable energy sources. I do not think it is necessary to describe the possible reverberations throughout society and foreign policy as a result.

In the meantime, every other consumer product, that depends on transportation from elsewhere, will increase in price. That includes your groceries. Therefore, the products produced locally will finally be lower in priced than the products produced elsewhere including in free trade zones around the world. It may eventually have the effect of mitigating the advantages that publicly-traded multinational corporations have over your local corner grocer. I am not counting on it, but I will keep walking to my farmers market for my food.

Once More Unto the Breach…

2006-04-19T14:19:00.000-07:00

There's one here, and another one here. Maybe the media outlets, generally speaking, are starting to realize that it's popular, and therefore, profitable to criticize GWB.

I especially enjoyed the Rolling Stone's article. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, GWB was riding the wave of high popularity and his legions of Christy followers were quite happy to compare GWB to Abraham Lincoln and other of the more famous U.S. presidents. I never understood the Abe Lincoln comparison in particular. Abe was born in the largely rural frontier to a father who could not spell his name. Abe went on to immortality. GWB was born to wealthy parents in New Haven, CT while his parents were attending the most prestigious university in the country. Sounds like blue blood in every sense of the world. However, his carefully developed twang easily gives rise to the thought that he is just like one of us; a guy we would like to have a beer with after a long day at the site.

Maybe I am wrong and GWB will go on to immortality. Then the story might be different. Imagine a hypothetical Wikipedia article in 2059:

"...GWB was born on the hardscrabble farms on Western Texas. As a young child, he was forced to raise his younger brothers and sisters because his father was out defending the United States of America from communism While GWB grew up making his presence in the household a rare event. They were never the wealthiest, but they made ends meet.

GWB's hard work allowed him to attend Yale University where he earned C's because he was discriminated against by the radical left academic elements of one of the nation's liberal universities. His red state roots, and love of hard work allowed him to beat down his classmates in clever debate after clever debate. The debate skills he refined at the most prestigious university in the country allowed him to hold his own when he entered business and politics despite his humble roots..."

Well, you get the idea. Hopefully, people will begin to accept things with criticism from here on out. If so, maybe people like GWB will not win elections and serve in public office. Let them run oil companies into bankruptcy and preside over mediocre baseball teams, preferably not mine. Of course, GWB, to his credit, did say it best: "History. We won't know," he told the journalist Bob Woodward in 2003. "We'll all be dead."

The Corporation Administration

2006-04-19T14:17:00.000-07:00

GWB and his administration often relied on his business credentials to establish his credibility when he came into the political scene first as governor and later as president. Many viewed this as a good thing. His performance since then has cast doubt not on the corporate tactics in leadership positions, but rather on his own incompetence as a leader.

I believe it is perfectly logical that he could have been a very effective leader in the corporate world. The problem may not be his incompetence, his failure as a leader may actually be more demonstrative of the complete ineffectiveness of corporate leadership tactics.

When I use the term, corporate leadership tactics, I mean a tactic of leadership that demands extensive, and maybe even complete, control over the organization. Essentially, we are talking about a totalitarian or authoritarian form of leadership, one in which there are very few meaningful checks on a leader's authority. That is equivalent to the powers of a CEO of a publicly traded corporation. Now, I don't want excessively generalize. Certainly, the board of directors could remove a CEO, certainly the shareholders could sue the CEO on behalf of the corporation. These things happen, but they seldom happen enough to create any meaningful participation for those who are affected by a corporation's actions (community members, consumers, employees, vendors, subcontractors).

It is likely that we have all done time working for a corporation. I have worked in a few and they were authoritarian from the highest to the lowest level. Your boss's will is the law and dissent is rarely tolerated. Every now and then one will have the chance to work for a manager who is effective and facilitates the professional development of his or her staff, but that is never as likely to happen as the opposite possibility. As a result, everyone in the organization suffers, and as a result, the organization suffers.

Therefore, it is quite surprising that anyone should have expected anything but the current situation in Washington D.C. GWB runs his government like a corporation and therefore, we should expect corporate results. Again, most of us have experienced the inefficient, cutthroat, inhumane environment of the corporate entity. That is a world where the PR departments constantly attempt to ignore reality, the CEO makes speeches to crowds of roaring shareholders, and where profits supersede any other consideration. Indeed, GWB is our corporate president, and we have been appropriately rewarded under his leadership.

Local Partisianship

2006-04-19T14:13:00.000-07:00

Fewer posts this month. My excuse is I have spent too much time writing angry letters to the local paper's editors.

I received a call this afternoon from one to print this piece, but because I had submitted it to other papers, this one refused to run it. Therefore, the only light of day it will ever see is in this little corner of cyberspace. Enjoy:

The Washington Post ran an article this week about Senator Ted Steven's recent visit to our state. Stevens claimed politics were not on the agenda but we remember Steven's threats to come pay a visit to Senator Cantwell for standing up to his relentless attempts to open up ANWR. We know Stevens is moonlighting in Washington because he wants a Senator who will be a rubber stamp for the GOP leadership regardless of the desires of the people of Washington. Mike McGavick's campaign may weave a tale of a candidate who will not be a yes man for President Bush; but all we need see is VP Cheney's recent visit to shake the corporate money tree already overflowing with contributions from big oil and insurance.

The sooner the people of Washington see through Mike McGavik, the better for the state and the nation. The State of Washington, like every other state, should be attempting to rid themselves of malignant GOP Senate leadership, not adding to its ranks. One need only ask a simple question about the McGavik campaign: who you are you going to believe?

Sustaining Seattle

2006-04-07T12:36:00.000-07:00

Every now and then it is worth reading pieces like this.

Independence from Iraq

2006-04-04T11:05:00.000-07:00

Pieces like this one inspire me.

It is unpopular to criticize the American way of life. That does not sell newspapers. It does not make people feel good about themselves. I find that a very poor excuse. Since when should people feel good about inappropriate and maybe even irresponsible behavior?
We are in Iraq because at some level of consciousness, people decided that their way of life in the United States, supersedes the interests, and maybe even necessities of other people. Of course, that dynamic could not exist without the might of our military ready to back it up.

Under effective leadership, September 11, 2001 might have served as strong indication that our way of life is not sustainable, that it can only survive if we sacrifice the principles of democracy in this country, and other countries sacrifice their own existence.

We do not operate in a vacuum. Our lifestyle, firing on the engines of consumption, convenience, conformity, and consumerism in general, impacts the lives of people in locations far and near. Our weapons of mass consumption cause unrest, repression, turmoil and at the worst of times, terrorism on our own soil.

Our U.S. Government really does represent that which we have let them know time after time is our real desire--consumerism. As long as that rules, we can expect more of the same from our government.

I'll leave you with one quick illustration. Imagine that people tired of the occupation in Iraq just stopped going to work until the occupation ended. Now, assuming that everyone who disagrees with GWB's leadership in Iraq joins in the "stay at home strike," that might mean anywhere from 50-65% of the workforce absent. That means a lot of lost money for employers. Why would this never happen? It is not because corporations and our government would not bend. It is because people, deeply in debt and enslaved to their manufactured desires, would never be able to afford the time off.

Energy and Local Development

2006-04-04T10:38:00.000-07:00

One of the more exciting and unpredictable aspects of the flowering green energy movement is that it is not implemented from above, but developing from below. This is not a movement that multi-national energy corporations (MNC) are trying to sell to consumers. This is consumers telling MNC's that they want green energy.

As you can see here and here, this is a movement that poeple are largely propelling on their local level. Eventually, the MNC's will figure out how to use these movements to maximize the investment of their shareholders. When that happens, renewable energy sources will be much less democratic. However, in this case, I can let it slide I suppose. If they were doing good things, I would be much less concerned about the lack of democratic governance in them.

Capitol Hill, Seattle, USA

2006-04-04T10:05:00.000-07:00

Capitol Hill was the setting of a shooting rampage one and a half weeks ago. It occurred on Republican Street early on a Saturday morning. I lived on Republican Street (though at the other end of it.) Capitol Hill is my neighborhood; it is the one in which I choose to live, and the one in which I plan to work for the foreseeable future. When something like this happens, it reverberates throughout the community in ways that are inexplicable and at this point, unpredictable. There is very little that I can say that has not already been repeated widely.

In the film, Fog of War, Robert McNamara, while recounting one of his more difficult moments in the Deprtment of Defense paraphrased another's words, "humans must stop killing other humans." I don't know anyone who would disagree with such a simple statement. I believe it has universal applications.

I think it applies far beyond our neighborhood. It is unacceptable that one could walk into a house full of people and discharge firearms. It is equally unacceptable that another country should invade another country and discharge the military might. People are full of notions and ideals of military glory deployed for righteous reasons. I believe that it is impossible to reach righteous ends using wicked means. In other words, one cannot do evil in order to bring about good. To apply this premise directly, we cannot rid the world of terror by occupying another country, bombing civilians, and torturing suspects. We cannot build democracy through these activities either.

I have little doubt that the means through which nations interact have a way of reverberating through the populations of all countries. If we expect people to behave civilly toward each other, we should demand the same from our leaders. If it is unacceptable to destroy lives individually, it should be equally so for countries. The rule of law must apply at all levels. If one person is above it, then it does not exist at all.

Humans indeed must stop killing other human beings. That goes for house parties in Capitol Hill, Seattle, just as much as it does for any other person, in any other position, in any other country in the world.

Sketches of Russian History III: The Revolution of 1905

2006-04-04T08:01:00.000-07:00

Continuing with some of the strains of our last installment, I would like turn our attention to the Imperialist Russia during the reign of Nicholas II. Note that he was the last Czar to rule Russia, the last of a 300 year dynasty; his rule was the swan song of autocracy in Europe. (Symbolically speaking of course, the German and Austrian monarchies outlived Nicholas'.) Nicholas was the son of a more capable politician and ruler. He was the son of a stronger man, although his father was nothing to write home about. He was ill-equipped mentally and intellectually to deal with Russia's endless problems. He felt his faith in god and his belief that god had endowed him with authority to rule would carry him through the most tumultuous times. (Reference my last post for more on historical similarities. I cringe when GWB talks about god watching over this country.)

In 1904, Russia became entangled in the conflict now known as the Russo-Japanese War. Though Russia was able to send Napoleon back to France with his tail between his legs, she was unable to subjugate Japan largely because of the logistical problem of sending troops through 12 time zones on a primitive rail system. To make matters worse, the Russian people were not interested in this conflict because they had little to gain from victory and much to lose (social and political reform and indeed the lives their children) in defeat. Lenin was able to call this conflict one between imperialist powers grabbing more resources within their disputed spheres of influence.

Be that as it may, our favorite son pressed forward in war. The political and social liberals of the day (those who favored a constitutional monarchy and basic civil rights) unleashed what they called a banquet campaign. The movement was appropriately named as it was a political meeting with a big meal. People got together, ate, drank vodka, and decided to protest against the actions of the government. Their demands were not unreasonable; they were the same which had existed in almost every other country in Europe enjoyed.

The story of course does not end well. The banquet campaign enticed people to take action by peacefully marching to the Czar's palace in St. Petersburg where the Czar's guard shot them down though they were unarmed and had no apparent inclination toward violence. Perhaps the greatest beneficiaries of the Czar's shortsightedness were the radical movements on the left led by Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and the Social Revolutionaries. This turmoil produced Lenin, the Soviet Union, Stalin, one of the more repressive dictators in history.

I am always struck by this moment in Russian history because it represented so many possibilities, if one can freeze the clock for a few seconds and speculate. Had the Czar not fired, had he apologized, or conceded that his empire should be based around human rights instead of authoritarian principles, maybe the moderates would have taken over and there would never have been a Soviet Union. Each faction's path would have been dramatically different and we can hardly imagine what might have been. For every event like this, there are so many more that have been erased from history.

I suppose there are just as many conclusions that one can draw. I wonder how many of these individuals felt they were right, acting as though history will someday vindicate them. Most of them would not have bet their lives had they not felt so. The one guiding principle that they lacked was the conviction that human beings should be valued higher than the revolution, higher than the integrity of the monarchy, and higher than any merchant's holdings. Because they fought for something else, Russia experienced another 100 years of terror, turmoil, and instability. These effects were not limited to inside the borders of Russia either.

That path was not pre-ordained. It was the collective errors of countless named and unnamed individuals. As we know well, rationality will not save us--it is almost always absent in the first place.

Sketches of Russian History II: Alexander III's counter-reforms

2006-04-04T07:58:00.000-07:00

Alexander's father, the aptly named Alexander II, was the man who freed the serfs. Alexander III however, did not believe in his father's reforms, and rather felt that they undermined his and his family's authority.

Alexander was strongly influence by Constantine Pobedonostsev. As you can see from his political briefs, he felt that reforms were antithetical to the development of Russia. He distrusted education and felt that the less the better. Social programs were wasteful because the individual was insignificant except to serve the purpose of the state which was divinely granted the Czar. Further, once people become aware, through education, of a way, Constantine feared that they would contribute to societal conflict. Culture and art, not to mention welfare programs have little or no value to the Czar. According to the supporters of this policy, that would lead to less order not more.

I found Pobedonostsev interesting for many reasons. Perhaps most of all, he understood and attempted to implement programs, with an accompanying ideology, that would most likely keep the Czar in power. The less the people know, the better.

As I am often tempted to do, I recognize parallels between this ideology and those that run in conservative circles today. The debt, the war, the fear mongering all allow GWB to cut social programs. However, as most realize, that does not decrease spending. GWB is spending more than ever on the military, or should I say, the administration gives money once used for social programs to his friends in defense firms whether we need their products or not. That in turn, allows power and money to be consolidated in fewer individuals. I find it particularly worrisome to realize that the same ideology employed 150 years ago to keep power, are used today to acquire more of it.

The losers in this game are the same as those in the past: the people, the individual, and the institution of democracy.

In our day, a mechanism exists to regain some semblance of democracy in this country. That mechanism is participation--active participation in the political process.

Sketches of Russian History I: Russian Populism (Narodnichestvo)

2006-04-04T07:53:00.000-07:00

One of my guiltiest pleasures is reading completely worthless, mindless, and boring histories of a country whose name I recognize. Last up was a short history of Russia. While you really cannot gain anything in a survey beyond a few generalized statements about things which the author is familiar, you can get a feel for historical developments within the larger historical context.

I found this most interesting in the second half of the 19th century in Russia. To put it in context, Russia had maintained the institution of slavery for some time. It wasn't until the 1860's that serfdom was abolished. That action, of course, was the greatest change in Russian society in century. It signaled the end of the old aristocracy that Chekhov and Turgenev so vividly described. It also allowed for the new peasant class to be politicized or manipulated.

The first group to attempt to do so was the populists led, in spirit at least, by N. K. Mikhalovsky and M. A. Bukanin. Their followers adhered to a set of principles that was a form of populism wherein the commune (or mir) was the spiritual center of the Russian agrarian society. Therefore, those closest to it, the Russian peasants, were to propel the country into a true democratically socialist state. The populists believed that when the peasants bought in, the country could by-pass capitalism and rocket toward socialism.

So off they went into the country to get involved and indoctrinate the peasants. The effort failed miserably. The peasants were suspicious of the city-dwellers and in many cases, reported them to the police. The agitators were either imprisoned or returned to the cities for plan B.

History may repeat itself but a more inclusive adage would be events in history often bare similarities to those today. While not as catchy, it is more accurate. Recall Thomas Frank's recent opus, What's the Matter with Kansas? It is an analysis of the countryside from a city-dweller. There is no Marxist or populist flavors in the book, but there is a sort of quiet derision written between the lines. Imagine what would happen if Seattleites moved en masse to Kansas to try to preach liberalism to the people. It would be worthless as anything but a comedy. People must reason for themselves. Just look at how well Democracy is working in Iraq. No matter how great your motives, no matter how much it will eventually help someone, you cannot force them into it and expect results. Any attempt to do so makes the one imposing a dictator and the system authoritarian.

USA and MNC spells Synergy

2006-04-03T09:39:00.000-07:00

Not to belabor the point, but here is another report of good things happening in Iraq. Allegedly, the U.S. multi-nationals are able to bask in the good news of massive resource acquisition.

At the risk of belaboring yet another point, a corporation's only purpose is to maximize profits. Are they going to make more money by investing in renewable energy technologies or invading countries rich in oil to privatize them? In fact, when they also supply the machines of war, it becomes a win-win. This is the kind of synergy that is most effective, and most sought-after. When you marry the government and the private corporate interest, people like you and me, and especially Iraqi civilians, lose.

Help us GWB!

2006-04-03T08:46:00.000-07:00

Most of us are aware of the problems associated with burning fossil fuels for energy. It appears even GWB is attuned to the problem. Be that as it may, even he is completely powerless to do anything about it short of dramatically upending the current body of corporate governance law in the United States.

As long as short term profits supersede every other consideration, there will never be significant development in the area of renewable fuels and sustainable business practices.

Why? The corporate governance statutes in this country do not allow a corporations' officers and directors to worry about renewable energy unless it will maximize profits in the short term.

Oversight, Overschmight

2006-04-03T08:30:00.000-07:00

This article describes a good example of business as usual over the last five years. When I sign contracts with people, I usually try to attach an addendum that says, "I am not bound by this agreement."

Actually, I don't do that because I cannot. No one would do business with me if I tried to conduct myself thusly. I imagine those reading this are bound by the same principles. So why is it OK, for the nation's presiding administrator to do it? Are there laws to which he is bound?

Gorbachev

2006-04-03T07:54:00.000-07:00

Let's take a few minutes to remember Mikhail Sergeivich. Time published an article in which he answers questions about his yet to be released book.

Perhaps the most frightening line is not far into the interview, referencing Yelstin: " He allowed the wealth of the country to be taken by a few people."

Does that sound familiar? Does it matter that we did it through the mechanism of corporatism while it happened in Russia through cronyism. On second thought, aren't those two sides of the same coin?

Global Warming

2006-03-24T06:41:00.000-08:00

GWB will be known as the president who ignored global warming. As he said and says often, "we don't know enough about it, and we need to continue to study it until we get all the facts."

I love that because he never studied any facts on Iraq, or used some other lame excuse to avoid a problem that is much more threatening than terrorism.

I always love the arguemnts that people throw at me when I bring up global warming. There are two groups of people you can believe when it comes to global warming. 1.) Scientist, who study the issue, and report their conclusions. 2.) Business leaders, who have an interest in you not believing global warming. Therefore, they deny its existence or squirm out of the questions if they do not want to lie on camera. I put GWB in the latter camp.

This article is great. Make sure you read the last sentence.

War Prophets

2006-03-23T17:53:00.000-08:00

I do not need to say much about this one, but I probably will anyway. Plenty of people have offered their opinions about GWB's uncle making a pretty penny during the war.

Our presence in Iraq makes a lot of sense when you consider that those closely connected to the people who make the decisions in the government have been profiting handsomely since the U.S. military invaded Iraq.

That is why there was such a rush to invade.

That is why there is no real military strategy for victory.

That is why there are so many contractors in Iraq.

That is why future presidents will decide when we leave. (That nest egg gets bigger every day.)

That is why there are so many allegations of corruption in government.

War is worth a lot of money to a very select few.

The people responsible, who are also those benefiting, will stay the course as long as they can. Wouldn't you?

Finding the Fathers

2006-03-23T17:05:00.000-08:00

I don't own a car, but I drive a Flexcar when, on occasion, it is necessary to get from A to B outside of the bus schedule's constraints. I listen to talk radio exclusively when I drive alone because I love to listen to people call a radio host and receive the latter's praise or derision.

One of them this morning left a particularly poignant reminder of the political discourse to which pundits cling. For some reason the host, a self-proclaimed liberal and critic of the current administration, felt it appropriate to reference the founding fathers, even going so far as to say something like, "all of the first President's with the exception of John Adams, did or were X."

I hope that any reader of this post is familiar with a few of my guiding principles by now. To reiterate, one of those is the non-sacredness of the Founding Fathers. First of all, I don't really know to whom that term refers. Is it those who signed the Declaration of Independence? Is it those who wrote it? Is it the first five to 10 presidents of this country? Was it everyone who attended the Constitutional Convention? Everyone on Mount Rushmore? Who are they?

If they refer to more than three people, say Adams, Jefferson, and Washington, there is hardly any possibility of a consistent political worldview among them. They all were affiliated with different groups. Adams and Jefferson rarely agreed on anything before 1815 as far as I can tell, at least from what I have read. To disclaim yet again, I am no expert in early American political history, but I am tired of the invocation of that term in order to validate one's opinion. Above all, I hate it when so called "liberals" employ that tactic because it serves only to erode their credibility.

Allow me to elaborate.

Those people who were responsible for chasing the British army out of their U.S. colonies were not interested in creating a country with freedom and justice for all. They gave no rights to women; they affirmed the institution of slavery; they stole the land that made up the country from its owners just before calculating their slaughter, and they vested most of the real power to govern in themselves--the wealthy, landowning class.

For all the talk, there was very little democracy in any of the institutions. The state legislatures chose the Senators in those days instead of direct elections. The people did not even directly vote for a president. Certainly those were different times, the country was different, the world was different, but that does not alter the conclusion that they actually did very little to create a democratic society. They simply created a similar one in which they were not obliged to a monarch across the ocean.

However, they did establish the rule of law, and promulgated a Constitution that would provide a framework of adaptability to times other than their own. These accomplishments should not be overshadowed by my criticism.

The point is the Republican leaders' comparison to the founding fathers is much more consistent with who I think the founding fathers were. I don't look at their leadership as desirable and I certainly do not approve of the use of that term to describe anything close to the ideal form of government. It is better than absolutism, autocracy, totalitarianism, and other forms of complete authoritarianism. As a country, given our resources, and our ingenuity, I think we can do better than compare ourselves to the founding fathers.

Job Production in Germany

2006-03-23T16:23:00.000-08:00

The rise and fall of any given Western civilization typically depends on their ability to take full advantage of the natural resources within their geographic designation.

Until Modern times, it was wood, and river power. The tribes that became the most powerful in Europe were those that controlled the forests and the rivers that allowed transportation to and from them.

The UK reigned supreme because it was rich in coal. To a lesser degree, the same is true for France and Germany depending on who controlled the coal deposits of Alsace-Lorraine. France and Germany fought for several generations, culminating in World War II over this coal-rich area.

The United States has become the unchallenged, supreme power in the world largely because of its natural resources.

Energy is power; that is a simple concept. That tends to be the reason I find articles like this one so worthy of reading.

Let's examine quickly all of the reasons to exploit, alternative, renewable energy sources:
Easy on the environment,
Job production
Less dependence on foreign oil
Fewer foreign entanglements
Less pollution
Renewable

I do not want to post about the merits of alternative energy sources. I just want to point out why we are not aggressively pursuing this kind of development. You should know the answer: A corporation's job is to make as much money as possible. Corporations can make more money by keeping things the same, (to hell with our ability to breath) than they can by spending a lot of money to develop other sources. That's why after all we know about fossil fuels, global warming, and all the adverse health effects of excessive fuel consumption, GM is increasing production of SUV's.

Way to go Germany!

Tort Reform Retort

2006-03-21T10:55:00.000-08:00

I wanted bring your attention to the debate on tort reform. If you read my take, hopefully, you also read Jonathan Stein's article. Please read the comments because there are some terrific arguments and new points of view.

As I have said before, blogs and blawgs allow people to voice their opinions. In a society that purports to be democratic, debate and dissent are essential. Enjoy it while you still can!

What to do?

2006-03-20T12:36:00.000-08:00

There must be millions of people willing to write about what is wrong with our society, but there always seems to very few who offer solutions. In response to a comment on a previous post, I decided to offer my ideas.

To disclaim, this is the big picture as I see it. I cannot speak about what can be done in each locality in the country. My suggestion concerns only what must be done within culture and society at large. It is up to you to decide how such ideas can be implemented in a location near you. I'll give you both the long-term and short-term vision, recognizing that social changes will never occur overnight, at least in any desirable manner.

Short term:

If we want to get out of Iraq, we need to support those candidates for public office who run on that platform. I think the answer is fairly simple and my take on it is likewise simplistic. Certainly, there are people running for the Senate or the House this year who want to reduce the number of troops in Iraq. Certainly, some of them will change their minds when they get to Washington, but not all of them will. The war will end regardless of the victory strategy, when enough people in this country make it known to their representatives, that our continued presence in Iraq will cost them elections. If our representatives do not acknowledge this fact, we will send another representative who is more willing to follow the dictates of her/his constituency.

This is a principle that does not concern political parties, which say and do whatever it takes to consolidate their grip on the power. If that means doing something against the party line, they will do it save their own skins. However, if we do not get involved in this process, as is largely the case today, the representatives will not have that pressure and will answer to their campaign donors, rather than the voters. We must apply that pressure.

Long Term:

We need to reduce the number of barriers between people. Due to the proliferation of automobile ownership, suburbs, highway projects, business parks and campuses, drivethru's, supermarkets, and strip malls, we have become detached from each other. This trend continues to a frightening degree through email, chat rooms, and many other recent communication innovations that allow for anonymous interaction.

While none of these things is inherently bad, at least one overall latent consequence is that they disengage people from each other. They smother casual and informal relationships between people and that only serves to brew fear and selfishness. It is hard to care about people you do not know. It is impossible to form a relationship with a supermarket, but easy to do so with the corner grocer. When was the last time you recognized the cashier at your local supermarket? (Ironically, most of the TV commercials for these establishments would lead you to believe that you do have a relationship, going so far as to portray satisfied customers reminiscing about their favorite deli worker. Is that really the case?) When you do not realize the stake that you hold in your community; and worse yet, when you have no stake in your community, it becomes nearly impossible to involve yourself in it.

People who associate with other people will inevitably begin to realize their potential. That potential can manifest itself in countless ways. First and foremost, it will empower people to take a more active role in their communities. Once they realize their stake in the community, people will start building stronger communities.

Let me illustrate. Many people own a piece of land in a town, but most feel like they have no ownership stake in the town. Most people rely on large businesses to move in to create jobs, and pay taxes to fund schools, build parks, and other amenities. There is no reason why enough people cannot put their heads together and take their lives into their own hands. It takes creativity, ingenuity, certainly time and it does take money, but above all, it requires people to get together. Almost every town has a chamber of commerce where business leaders can push their agenda, but how many towns have resident councils, neighborhood councils, or some other entity which represents the community's interest at large? There is no reason this cannot happen, but people have to remove the barriers and start talking first. For some wonderful examples of what people can accomplish, take look at this book.

I am not naïve enough to think that the state of affairs is going to change dramatically because a few people started having conversations. However, I know that no desirable development in this country that we use today to extol our greatness occurred because the government granted it without a lot of people asking. Each of these movements and each result came about because enough people decided they wanted it, and worked for it. They gained a voice, and used it.

We can certainly take our chances by doing nothing, but change never resulted from doing nothing. Iraq is a symptom of the larger problem of fear, apathy, and a general sentiment of helplessness. Engagement and association with each other is the solution.

V.V. Putin's Energy Plan Update

2006-03-19T18:55:00.000-08:00

The alleged leak agenda for the G8 of which Russia is the current president.

Not exactly what I would have hoped, but I know better than to hope. Another nice little rule to keep in mind, those in

Tort Reform?

2006-03-19T13:00:00.000-08:00

I agree for the most part with the comments of another lawyer blogger. Sometimes they refer to themselves as blawgers. Be that as it may, this article makes some salient and timely arguments. I certainly am not an objective observer, but I would like to add some thoughts.

The subtle use of words in our society completely reinforces the power structures that are in place. Our country is not unique in this regard. It is the case in every single stable society that has ever existed. Otherwise, there would be much less "law and order."

In our culture, the perception is that the personal injury attorneys are the "bad guys." They chase ambulances; they prey on those who have no alternatives, they seek gain through the suffering and injury of others. The very mention of personal injury law or personal injury lawyer is typically somewhat derisive in common usage. Doesn't that make sense?

Now on the other hand, the lawyers who work for insurance companies to ensure the lowest possible responsibility are usually known as "commercial litigators." You rarely read or hear about the insurance companies' hand in things like high premium rates or smothering business. That blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the infamous personal injury lawyers.

Thus, enters "tort reform." That is the term that insurance companies and their lobbyists call the solution. As they articulate it, the problem is that high insurance rates are inhibiting the ability of businesses and doctors to "practice their love" all over the country, and lawyers are responsible for the high interest rates. The substance of "tort reform" is to reduce potential awards that plaintiffs could receive and I would imagine plans may even be to permanently cut off a plaintiff's right to sue altogether.

Let me illustrate the importance of this dynamic with a simple little story. Let's pretend that I like to steal wallets from people while walking down the street. I might get away with that for a while, but eventually, someone is going to catch me and call the police. I might get arrested, I might even be held in jail for a day or two. I have no idea what the sentence for conviction is in your jurisdiction, but at the very least I might have to do some community service.

Now let's pretend that I am a corporation who has been dumping waste into the local water supply. A few people might get sick, some might even die of cancer. Over a 10 year period, there may be numerous adverse heath and environmental problems. Those living in the community suffering from these problems would have no simple recourse. They could complain, protest, or even start an anti-Mark Inc. crusade among the local media affiliates. However, the police would never respond on your behalf and unless someone on the inside "blew the whistle" alleging that someone within is breaking the law, no one would ever be arrested. (Actually, those who protest Mark Inc. may be arrested for disturbance of the peace, or trespassing.) Remember, a corporation's job is to make money for its investors, so chances are the officers and directors of Mark Inc. calculated that it would be less expensive to pay the Environmental Protection Agency fines for dumping waste, which may or may not be enforced, than it would be to responsibly dispose of their waste.

The only recourse any one would have against Mark Inc. is to find a lawyer willing to file a lawsuit on her own dime (without interest as Mr. Stein pointed out). It is therefore, not at all surprising that there are forces pushing a "tort reform" agenda.

No one wants to hire a personal injury lawyer. That can only mean that something terrible has happened. However, when something terrible does happen it is at least somewhat comforting to know that, at least for the time being, you do have some ability to hold those who are culpable to account.

America's Heartland

2006-03-19T10:29:00.000-08:00

This article is worth a read. I am, like every person in this country, concerned about America's security. However, I never believed that an invasion of Iraq had anything to do with America's security. I think the invasion of Iraq is about money just like 99% of the "why's" in the universe. While most people in this country will not personally profit from U.S. military presence in Iraq, there are plenty of people who will. These people are primarily within large corporations that are favorably paired with the U.S. government. You have heard the names many times so I will not repeat them.

This article interested me because I was reminded of all the people out there who sincerely believe that there is some sort of "victory strategy" in Iraq. Certainly, the plan is not to place troops in front of angry locals with guns. However, that has become the concession in order to create some semblance of security for large corporations to operate, or at least to take government contracts.

You may wonder why these reasons are not discussed and debated on the news and opinion/editorial pages. The answer is again quite simple; no one would support sending troops to a place like Iraq in order to increase the revenue of a select group of large corporations. On the other hand, if the security of the nation is at stake, people demonstrate immense willingness to put their livelihoods on the line.

Energy Security for the World, by V. V. Putin

2006-03-18T13:46:00.000-08:00

I feel obligated to post this article penned by Vladimir Vladimirovich himself. This blog is, after all, supposed to cover some aspects of Russia.

I always find it interesting to read about the conclusions that leaders draw about energy. Of course, I do get suspicious with his use of the word "stakeholders" when speaking about energy. Each one of us are stakeholders in the game global energy. In my experience, leaders who use stakeholders really intend that word to convey an image of something kind and gentle even though it is just a synonym for shareholders.

However, the article does say what we all want to hear, i.e. the most powerful among us are looking out for all of us. Do you believe it? Should you believe it?

Simple Truths: The Corporation

2006-03-18T13:45:00.001-08:00

My parents are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as Mormons. Consequently, I was raised a Mormon and spent most of every Sunday until I was a teenager learning about, as I was told they are called, the "simple truths" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Although I have long since abandoned my faith in that particular school of thought (or cognitive dissonance as I like to think of it), I still cling to the idea that there are truths that are simple. Whether there really is truth and whether it could possibly be simple is another discussion altogether.

In the United States, there is at least one simple truth, and one that can be articulated very simply: the objective of any incorporated entity is to make the most possible money for its investors. Put another way, a corporation's single purpose is to make as much money as possible.

In the study of law, these truths are flowered up by judicial holdings and statutes to make it sound a little less menacing, but make no mistake, the purpose is clear. If the CEO, or any directors are thought to have been less than faithful and loyal to these purposes, they may be, at the very least, removed from their position. They may even be sued by shareholders in the name of the corporation.

Once you accept and internalize this simple truth, you should begin to see things under an entirely different framework. I have numerous conversations on this subject with people and I am amazed at how difficult it is for people to accept this. I believe it is because people feel that there is something very wrong with that premise.

When you get angry at an oil company for spilling oil into the Puget Sound, remember that at some point a decision was made that if they take fewer precautions in transporting oil, it would cost them less than cleaning up an oil spill--or denying fault in the event.

How about your local national car repair chain? Their objective of fixing your car will never supersede its profit motive. If it is less expensive, and even if they can make an example of you by vigorously defending your completely legitimate complaints, they will do so regardless of their customer-first approach they portray in their numerous advertisements and TV commercials.

Remember the next time you see and hear something from a news organization, all of which are owned by a small number of very large corporate conglomerates, that you are only hearing that which will not impede the overarching goal of their profit maximization. There are no principles and values involved. For example, Fox News consistently features pundits and speakers who extol family values, but they are also the network whose TV shows feature The Simpson's and Family Guy--hardly the model of traditional family values.

What about all those banks that lend money to communities in need? All those that look "beyond the numbers," because people matter to them most? If you believe that, you have not internalized today's simple truth.

Are corporations responsible for some "good" in our society and culture? Certainly, but never at the expense of their first and single responsibility. If they were to do so, the directors and officers would be removed and as I said, may even be the subject of extended litigation.

This is a simple truth. However, it is one that people resist accepting because it fundamentally alters, for the worse I would say, the perception of the place of people in our culture and society. That will only change for the better when people begin to accept the current situation.

Operation Swarmer

2006-03-18T13:45:00.000-08:00

There are numerous articles that explore the efficacy of the latest and greatest from our military. Here is one take from the BBC. Time has another. Operation Swarmer is the code name for the mission and forgettable may be the best description. What kind of a mission was it intended to be?

Feingold and Greenwald

2006-03-18T13:44:00.000-08:00

This is one of the more interesting articles that I have read about Senator Feingold's bill to censure GWB.

The short version is that most Democratic voters support the censure and thus Feingold's popularity has increased even though the rest of the Democratic Senators are running for cover. It might be wise for more Democrats to jump on board because they will likely benefit from greater support from the 50% of the country who are "somewhat to very" inclined toward the left.

As you might imagine, I thoroughly enjoy reading blogs of all shapes, sizes, tongues, creeds, and viewpoints. However, those of the political vein limit their debates to cover only a tiny fraction of the political spectrum. Essentially, if it is not an issue that does not come up in the news, which further functions to limit the discourse, the bloggers rarely talk about it.

That said, blogs do allow anyone who has enough time and patience to articulate their ideas. Eventually, more people will gradually become more exposed to ideas that are outside of the so-called "mainstream." (Of course, I consider "mainstream" to be a term that some use to discredit a view that is inconsistent with the amalgamation of swill the Democrats and Republicans spew.) In the meantime, we can expect more of the same from both parties. In every election over the last 30 years, the same group of people benefits and neither party shows any sign of doing anything but continue that trend.

Another Update in Iraq

2006-03-17T11:27:00.000-08:00

It turns out there was something else behind the recent air attack beyond what we were led to believe by the evening news.

I let you read the information for yourselves, and make your own conclusions.

Of the people, by the people, for the people...

2006-03-17T09:53:00.000-08:00

Do you have $10 million dollars that you want to throw into your campaign coffers in your bid for the U.S. Senate? Do you have $10 for lunch? Do you have $100 in your savings account? Do you have a savings account?

This is another installment of my continuing rant about the disconnect between the American dream and the American reality. In our educational experience, most of us were taught that hard work will lead to prosperity and wealth. That principle applies regardless of how much we start out with. You hear countless stories about all the self made billionaires out there who started with a suitcase full of dirty socks, a can of tomatoes, and three saltine crackers, and built a soup empire vast enough to end world hunger.

Most of the people who heard these types of stories with me in public schools went on to become forklift drivers, insurances brokers, salespeople, bricklayers, and some of them even started a technology company in the late 1990's. They worked hard, some were able to buy homes and others even have some degree of financial stability.

Most of the extremely wealthy out there started with considerably more. I am not going to list any people, but it is a fun research exercise. Wikipedia your favorite rich person and read about his/her early life. It is extremely illuminating.

Then there's our favorite former Secretary of State of Florida, (perhaps because she is the only we know), who is able to dump $10,000,000.00 of her own money into your campaign for U.S. Senate. This coming shortly after allegations that she took funds illegally from defense contractors associated with the fallen "Duke"-stir.

You cannot be a citizen of this country or a member of this culture very long without realizing the perception of the ultimate "goodness" of the United States. Its history has been crafted to conform to a narrative that good people are always rewarded; that people whose actions are questionable will be punished; that the founders of this country had the best interests of the people in mind without any other motives. Further, the politicians of our day assume the mantle of the great revered founding fathers; just as they were nearly divine in nature, so are our present day leaders. The "goodness" with which the founding fathers endowed this country will never expire because it is drawn with the authority, and blessing, of God. Therefore, it cannot be flawed. However, most people probably realize that our history is not a story from the Bible.

I volunteer at a few legal clinics in Seattle. During these clinics, people who have run into legal issues can speak with a lawyer. They have about 20 minutes to talk without charge. The one thing that is common to each person with whom I have ever spoken is that they believe that in a just legal system, of a righteous country, within a divinely inspired-world, bad things cannot happen to good people who work hard for a living.

There certainly is a disconnect, and the same group of people consistently end up on the same side of the social dynamic.

News from Iraq

2006-03-16T09:20:00.000-08:00

I am just one member of the majority of Americans who think the war in Iraq was a mistake. I am also a member of the majority of Americans who dissaprove of the handling of the war in Iraq. Because Iraq is on the other side of the globe, my information is limited to what I read in the newspapars. That information may or may not be filtered. Suffice it to say, I have limited information on the situation, but that does not preclude me from voicing my opinions on it.

Today's big story from Iraq is disturbing because I really have no idea of the objective by engaging in the largest air attack since the beginning of the war. Presumably, we have been attacking insurgents, militants, and other combatants, up to this point. Thus, if we knew where they were, we would be going after them. This appears to another round of 'shock and awe' to terrify those that survive into submission. The target may even be civilians who are contemplating arming themselves.

History is full of examples of angry people taking up arms against oppressive forces that claim authority and demand submission. People are more likely to rebel against those forces when they have nothing left to lose, when they don't have to worry about protecting family members, property, or anything else.

Again, I am no foreign policy expert, and do not hold myself out as one. However, there are certain principles that do not require advance degrees and years of study. As a child on the playground, I realized that I should not spit on everyone else in the playground. They might gang up on me. Even the biggest kid on the playground, that hulking third grader, could not stop everyone if they united against him. The U.S. is certainly, the biggest, smartest, and most powerful kid ever to grace that playground, but I still think it is better to play nicely and share, rather than take over the entire playground and hope that a sufficient number of enemies do not get together against you.

Ask 1,000 people what they would do in the same situation and most of them will respond as I would. Most people are 'good' people. It is funny what happens when we are taken out of that face to face context. It is frightening what we tacitly accept.