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

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.

Tags: oil, Middle East, Corporations, U.S. Foreign Policy, Bush Administration, Jordan, Syria

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

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.

Tags: oil, Middle East, Corporations, U.S. Foreign Policy, Bush Administration, Saudi Arabia

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

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.

Tags: oil, Middle East, Corporations, U.S. Foreign Policy, Bush Administration, Egypt

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

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.

Tags: health care, corporations

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

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.

Tags: Mormons, LDS Church, Corporations

The Swiftboating of Sarbanes-Oxley

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.

Tags: Sarbanes-Oxley, Corporations

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

That is why pieces like this one are so irresponsible.

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

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

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

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

Oil Energy

St. Detroitsburg

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

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

Rumsfeld In SLC

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

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

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

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

Senator Lugar Strikes Back!

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

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

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

Senator Lugar spoke about this recently:

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

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

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

China's Energy

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

When in the Course of Human Events...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflicting Interests

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

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

Who Will Jesus Bomb next?

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

This article was in the Seattle PI this morning.

Read it!

After you read, go visit this website.

Dear Ms. Baum….

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

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

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

She continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War on Traffic

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

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

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

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

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