Restless Farewell

2 + 2 still equals 4

2007-05-22T11:23:00.000+02:00

Check out some very serious propaganda in today's Guardian Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iran. Of course, the money quotes all come from an unnamed "senor administrion official in Baghdad."I am still pretty sure that Cheney and George will strike against Iran b/f they leave office. It may be that Gordon Brown's reversal on British troop levels in Iraq is related to this plan. I'm not following things as much as I was before, but I still think that Cheney's self-interest and Bush's "logic" almost require them to do this. Cheney knows it is now-or-never and George has god on his side.

We'll see.

Energy Mercantalism Revisited

2007-05-03T20:44:00.000+02:00

I noted a few months back Russia's energy nationalism as a harbinger of the end of "free market" fundamentalism (The End of Neo-liberalism and the New Energy Mercantalism). More recently Hugo Chavez has raised the flage on what was Venezuela's last privately run oil field.

Yesterday, finally, George responded to these dramatic developments. Yes, George has got a word for these kind of people: terrorists. According to today's White House Watch (see Dan Froomkin), Cox News Service reports on George's appearance before the Associated General Contractors meeting in DC. George said:

"...'You can attack a nation several ways. One, you can get 19 kids to fly airplanes into buildings, or you can gain control of something a country needs and deny that country access to that, in this case, oil, and run the price of oil up, all attempting to inflict serious economic damage.'"

Frightening stuff. We now know where the twins will not be going for spring breakk 2008.

French Elections, Round 2

2007-04-24T15:56:00.000+02:00

The Times They are a Changin, Sort Of

2007-04-02T23:31:00.000+02:00

Come gather round voters
With your mouths full of foam
And admit that your wallets
Are dry to the bone
And just accept it now
That you’ll soon loose your home
Pray your I-R-A
Is worth savin’
Then you better start laughin
Else you’ll die with a moan
For the times they are a changing, sort of

Come talking heads and pundits
Who think like a herd
Be as dumb as you want
Cause your paid by the word
Remember the louder you scream
The better you’ll be heard
There’s no end to your childish
Name-callin
And the dumbest one now
Will just be called back again
For the times they are a changing, kind of

Come senators and congressman
In search of a buck
Don’t pass legislation
That’ll compromise your luck
And the sign on your desk
Says fuck and get fucked
By the lobbyists outside
A ragin’
But your pimping ways
Lacks the dignity of a whore!
Yes the times they are a changing, sort of

Come Iraqi veterans
Who can’t pay the rent
And forget that already
Next month’s paycheck is spent
For what matters most is that
We invade Iran
The Iraqi War is
Rapidly aging
Please join us in the new one
If you’ve still got two hands
For the times they are a changing, kind of

A line it is snorted
The beer can makes a blast
Old Dubya is off
On the war path
One more roll of the dice
Try and salvage his past
Common sense is
Rapidly fading
And the dead one’s now
Will never come back
For the times they are a changing, sort of

Who says political science is not an experimental science?

2007-02-13T08:33:00.000+01:00

Here is an excellent real-world test of the Democrats' commitment to being the anti-war party. It is from Congressman Walter B. Jones (R) of North Carolina’s 3rd district and is reproduced below. If the Democrats genuinely wanted to prevent Cheney from attacking Iran they would be 100% supportive of this joint resolution. not surprisingly, Nancy Pelosi has been described as non-committal about it. I give it about a 1% chance of getting to the House floor for an actual vote and a 0.1% chance of being passed.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Concerning the use of military force by the United States against Iran.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAN.

(a) Rule of Construction- No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran.

(b) Requirements- Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces, the President shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran.

The audacity of cynicism, part I

2007-02-12T20:40:00.000+01:00

I am slowly beginning to accept the reality that sooner or later—and probably sooner—the Cheney administration will strike at Iran. The details of this action need not be hashed out here—a US-lead/Israeli lead? Nuclear/conventional? etc,—what matters is that this is now almost inevitable. Here’s why…

In a nutshell, Dick Cheney is pursing the grand strategy that he has set out for himself. He and George and their neo-con friends have proclaimed that they want to re-make the Middle East in their own image. This is their stated goal and despite a lot of missteps, head fakes, and outright lying about a lot of other things, they are sticking to this claim. They started in Afghanistan, to the east of Iran, next they went into Iraq, to the west of Iran, and now comes Cheney’s hat trick, Iran itself. In the book The March of Folly which describes four historical episodes where ruling powers pursued failed strategies despite all kinds of facts that should have lead them to do otherwise, Barbara Tuchman finds that those in power are much more willing to fail than they are to admit that they are wrong. So it matters not a wit to Cheney how bad things get in Iraq (or Afghanistan) he’s going forward with Plan A.

So if Cheney won’t stop Cheney, who can? Well, the Democrats, of course!

But let’s listen to what the Dems are saying and take stock of exactly what they are not doing.

In November 2006, in results that surprised even themselves, the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress. They did so on a wave of anti-Bush and anti-war sentiment, which frankly, as a party, they did relatively little to push or swell. So what have they done to lift up these anti-war voices, to press the demands of the people who put them into power? First off they have resuscitated the policeman that was suffocating under the ass of the former Speaker of the House, Danny Hastert. With the investigatory powers accorded to the legislative branch once again in play, there is now an opposition party asking questions. Second, they have come out publicly (being quoted in mainstream newspapers even!) and asserted that the Bush (sic) administration does not have the legal authority to invade Iran without expressed written permission from the Congress. Third, they have tried (and so-far failed) to pass a non-binding resolution stating their opposition to the president’s “surge strategy” in Iraq. Bold moves from a Party emboldened by victory. Onward soldiers of justice!

Now let’s look at the real effect of these three gambits. First, the ever-vigilante Henry Waxman (D, California), as new chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, will do his best to embarrass the hell out of the Republicans. He will publicize their lies, corruption, nepotism, veniality, and incompetence. He will subtly reveal (to the those already in the know) that the Republican Party is willing to risk the lives of Americans so that they and their rich friends might continue to pay the kids private school tuition bills without changing their sacred current-consumption patterns. Don’t get me wrong, I like Henry Waxman and I believe that he’s a first class and honest muckraker. But he is a Party man and though we can’t know for sure his own appetite for truth, we do know his party’s. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: Republicans like to serve truth as the appetizer, while Democrat’s prefer it for dessert, but neither would ever dare serve it as the main meal.

And as for the policy implication of the other two maneuvers? Well, the Democratic Party has finally come straight out and said it, “The President’s powers are limited.” That’s right! There it is! They’ve said it and they’ve even said it in public! You didn’t think they had it in them but they said it. Many of us had come to think that the Party had no balls. But they proved us wrong. And if George tries to break the Constitution again well this time they’re really going to do something about it like…like…pass a non-binding resolution saying that what he did was wrong (as opposed to the current one wherein they say what he’s going to do is wrong.)

In other words, all of the Democratic Party’s current strategies are designed to not change a thing. It is pure political jockeying, intentionally designed for political advantage without risking any policy changes. The Democrats know that both ideas—the surge in Iraq and the bombing of Iran—are awful and immoral, but they also know that they cannot intervene without putting at risk the entire house of cards, a.k.a. the current American political establishment. So they do the only thing they can do: they tuck a political card into their sleeve so that next year after the surge plan has failed and the bombing campaign in Iran has happened (and thanks to their own sins of omission tens- maybe hundreds-of-thousands of more lives have been lost), they can say they told us so.

So in my continuing effort to turn the social sciences into a predictive science, here’s what I see in the crystal ball:
(1) The US attacks Iran on flimsy evidence;
(2) The Democrats hem-and-haw, spin around three-and-half-times, and hem-and-haw some more;
(3) The MSM, while continuing to quote the Cheney administration that the evidence implicating Iran is air-tight, reports that some administration opponents say that the administration’s evidence against Iran is, in fact, not perfect;
(4) The truly innocent civilians of Iran die in the tens- and maybe hundreds-of-thousands; and,
(5) Paraphrasing Sourush Shehabi, the current (very unpopular) Iranian regime remains in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians become radicalized.

Don't say you were never warned...

2007-02-11T22:43:00.000+01:00

A few weeks back I gave my Doublespeak Quote of the Year Award for 2007. Now it's time to announce Man of the Year and without hesitation I'm giving the title to Soroush Shehabi, a reporter (?) from Washington Life Magazine. The following vignette was described on United Press International on-line.

At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. "I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers," said Soroush, "and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."
"I know," President Bush answered.

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

President Bush chuckled and walked away.

Links we never followed

2007-02-11T17:03:00.000+01:00

In the tradition of the New Yorker’s Block that Metaphor, I’m starting up a “Links we never followed”. The list below is the first step. I think they speak for themselves.

“Man denies masturbating on ski lift…” (Drudge Report, 8 February 2007)

“Britney vs. the Terrorists” (Washington Post, 9 February 2007)

“Beauticians cut, curl, offer stroke-prevention info” (CNN, 11 February 2007)

And this one from the US embassy in Bagdad…

“Job Opportunities” (http://iraq.usembassy.gov/, 11 February 2007)

Is this really the best government money can buy?

2007-02-07T22:16:00.000+01:00

I don't generally buy the theory that politicians are one-dimensional beings whose sole reason for pursuing politics is self-enrichment. Frankly, if the Cheney administration were only after money we would all be a lot better off. Sadly, dangerously, the folks in the White House are motivated by ideas, the most dangerous things on the planet. Like some reconstituted Khmer Rouge, Cheney et al. are pursing grand ideas, and they are pursing them with extreme prejudice. (Of course, they will also profit handsomely from this calling, but hey, in their eyes they deserve the money.) Nonetheless, my prediliction for things being "over determined"--to mangle Freud--is being pushed to the limit with stories like this one, which was picked up by Talking Points Memo and originally reported by Reuters.

The Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said Tuesday.
The money, which had been held by the United States, came from Iraqi oil exports, surplus dollars from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program and frozen assets belonging to the ousted Saddam Hussein regime.

Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve, said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

"Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that's exactly what our government did," the California Democrat said during a hearing reviewing possible waste, fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq.

On December 12, 2003, $1.5 billion was shipped to Iraq, initially "the largest pay out of U.S. currency in Fed history," according to an e-mail cited by committee members.

It was followed by more than $2.4 billion on June 22, 2004, and $1.6 billion three days later. The CPA turned over sovereignty on June 30.

Cognescenti of Americana will recognize that Waxman is quoting Will Rogers who once asked, ""Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone?" But my question is, for $4 billion can't we get a marionnette that works?!

Nannie-nannie boo-boo!

2007-01-29T08:08:00.000+01:00

Below is an excerpt from Fox News from an interview with Dick Cheney done by Newsweek. If anyone ever doubted the subtlety of Dick's use of language or his Zen-like way of being, surely the quote below will convert you into a believer.

In the interview, Cheney also said he doesn't spend any time worrying about how the public or the media view him. When pressed to react to personal criticism from people with whom he has worked before, Cheney said: "Well, I'm vice president and they're not."

The End of Neo-Liberalism and the New Energy Mercantilism

2007-01-25T13:41:00.000+01:00

In early January, when Russia again cut oil exports to Belarus, and in the process disrupted energy supplies to Germany and Poland, I was struck by the thought that perhaps we are now firmly in the final stages of neo-liberal hegemony. Russian energy nationalism, the rise of people’s movements in South America, the failure of the Washington consensus to deliver on any of its promises vis-à-vis development in developing countries, the US obsession with the GWOT—all of this sounds to me like the death knell of “Freimarkt über alles!” The hum that reverberates in all of these situations is that the neo-liberal worldview is loosing legitimacy. Thus, for example, the US must resort to violence to obtain its current and future foreign policy objectives. We no longer share enough common ground with the folks on the other side of the table to discuss matters, so we have no option but to pull out a gun to “explain” ourselves.

While I think these stories are related I don’t have the time or the expertise to pull it all together. But I will reference a recent “article” I saw from an investment research firm with a very free-market bias. While I would contest their interpretation of the events, if the facts they lay out are accurate, I think they are good indicators of free market backlash in the energy sector. They—the private energy deals of China and India, for example—are also fascinating examples of an alternative to the US belligerent, costly, and inhumane approach to securing cheap oil for the future.

From Investment U Research

Rapid expansion in China and India has led the governments of these countries to make sweeping changes in the way they buy oil. In many cases, they are beginning to circumvent the traditional distribution networks of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), and other bourses, entirely.

In fact, they’re undermining them, “locking up” supplies by purchasing crude from oil-producing countries directly – behind closed doors…

These deals last years, often taking large oil reserves off the market for a decade or more. And, though it will be difficult to know by how much, they could potentially impact the future price of crude. Consider the following:

* Angola committed to supply China with 200,000 barrels of crude per day at $60/barrel for the next 10 years, in return for Chinese investment in infrastructure projects such as railroads, roads and bridges.

* China National Petroleum Corp. has entered joint development agreements with Sudan, which is expected to produce as much as 300,000 barrels per day. Another Chinese firm, Sinopec Corp., is erecting a pipeline from that complex to Port Sudan on the Red Sea, where the Chinese are building a tanker terminal for shipping raw crude to the Chinese mainland. Altogether, Sudan provides 10% of Chinese petroleum imports.

* India already imports about 24 million tons of crude from Saudi Arabia every year, which is 26% of its total crude imports. It has stated a desire to secure long-term contracts to assure delivery in the future. Indian public sector firms have participating interests in oil and gas projects in Vietnam, Sudan, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Myanmar, Libya, Syria, Australia, Ivory Coast, Qatar and Egypt.

This strategy is coming to be known as "Energy Mercantilism."

Producers and consumers are bypassing the marketplace altogether. And the free markets that have historically determined the pricing and allocation of oil suddenly face a new uncertainty: Now that oil prices are being locked in outside of the marketplace, not everyone will pay the same price. It directly counters market pricing, and destabilizes the supply/distribution channels that currently determine how much we pay for oil.

The "State-Run" Energy Market

The world relies on an open marketplace to set the price of energy. For decades, the NYMEX has been the epicenter of oil trade.

But China and India, in cooperation with a key supplier, Russia, have turned the tables by making bilateral agreements to lock in long-term supplies at set prices, or by forming consortiums to guarantee supply.

And these “private” oil deals are beginning to roll in…

* In Russia, Vladimir Putin has been squeezing Europe by withholding supplies of natural gas while negotiating for exclusive pipeline deals. In 2003, he dismantled the Yukos oil group who had expanded dealings with the West. He has explicitly stated that Russia will demand bilateral long-term supply contracts with consuming nations, so Russia could guarantee stable demand for its exports.

* Recent testimony before the Congressional Committee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations outlined how China's three state-owned oil companies “have managed to establish control over about 3 mb/d [million barrels a day] of crude production, which could reach up to 6 mb/d by 2008.”

* In November 2005, Chinese President Hu Jintao toured Latin America and completed a number of economic deals, including an oil deal with Argentina. Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, has said Chinese firms would be allowed to operate 15 mature oil fields in eastern Venezuela, which could produce more than one billion barrels. Chavez has also invited Chinese firms to bid for natural gas exploration contracts.

The fact is, 90% of world reserves are controlled by national oil companies, as opposed to market-driven public companies.

Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM), for example, is the largest publicly traded oil company. And it ranks only 14th in proven reserves, directly below 13 national oil companies, including those of Iran and Venezuela.

The Bottom Line

A task force for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a highly respected Washington think tank, recently released a report that contains dire predictions for our economy and global oil markets.

Led by ex-CIA chiefs John Schlesinger and John Deutsch, the group reports that the United States will be unable to achieve energy independence any time in the foreseeable future, even with massive injections of ethanol, wind power and other alternative fuels.

Noting the potential ramifications of Energy Mercantilism, it recommends radical conservation initiatives, possibly including higher gasoline taxes and gasoline rationing.

It also calls for the implementation of “an active public policy… to correct these market failures that harm U.S. economic and national security.”

Most oil and gas resources,” the report states, “are controlled by state-run companies, some of which enter into supply contracts with consumer countries that are accompanied by political arrangements that distort the proper functioning of the market.”

The fact is, more and more oil buyers and sellers are hooking up directly, outside of the marketplace. And in many cases, they’re including other “payments” into the transactions – direct investment, infrastructure development and trade agreements.

It’s not certain how Energy Mercantilism will impact the price of oil, in real terms. But it will be an important trend to watch. We will continute to follow it, and be sure to bring any material developments to your attention.

Good Investing,
Don Miller,
Investment U Research

The "Surge" Revisited

2007-01-19T21:56:00.000+01:00

Following up on last Thursday's theatrics, I came across a story in Truthdig.com by Stan Goff, a long-time military man turned journalist author. Goff offers a very similar analysis to mine but with more facts and more military insight. The article is a bit long, but it is in informative and does a particulary good describing the military situation both in Iraq and the at home.

The Hydrocarbon Law

The reason I lead into a discussion of the Bush administration’s military “surge” plan for Iraq by talking about fossil fuels is that neither the government nor the media seem inclined to talk about the subject. The desperation of the coming escalation of criminal lunacy is based not on some fantasy but on a real and coming competition between the U.S. and basically everyone else for these energy stores, even as most honest experts agree that world production of oil has now peaked and will begin an inexorable and irreversible decline. The reason for attempting to implant permanent U.S. military bases in the Persian Gulf area and install compliant governments (the real reason for the war from the very beginning) has everything to do with securing control over the region.

The surge plan is a painfully twisted military option, but what is twisting it is not well understood. Stability in Iraq could be achieved relatively easily, even now, in conjunction with a precipitous redeployment of Anglo-American military forces. The strange attractor—strange mostly because the media never mention it—is Iraq’s ”first postwar draft hydrocarbon law,” which would ”set up a committee consisting of highly qualified experts to speed up the process of issuing tenders and signing contracts with international oil companies to develop Iraq’s untapped oilfields.” This law, which is tantamount to privatization with an Anglo-American franchise in perpetuity, is the bottom line for the U.S., as evidenced by the fact that this is the one, absolute, bottom-line point of agreement between the Bush administration and the so-called Iraq Study Group. The rhetorical scuffle between these two entities is not the what, but the how.

For the whole story follow click here “Petraeus! Is Baghdad Burning?”

The Sun, the Moon, the Truth, and Wikileaks

2007-01-18T11:20:00.000+01:00

For the past few weeks I've been thinking about why the Cheney administration has been so adamant about re-asserting the power of the executive office. My thoughts are still jumbled on this complicated matter, but one thing I'm thinking is that perhaps the progressive movements of the 1960s were much more effective than I realized. The civil rights movement, feminism, the environmental movements, the right-to-know movements, gay & lesbian rights movements, and the many other social movements were all assertions of the rights of individuals to be treated as equals and to use the power of the State to help enforce those rights. In doing so, this tended to do two things. First, it crowded out the claims made by big business. If Congress was busy passing civil rights legislation that meant it didn't have as much time for the multi-naiontal mining company that "needed' special tax treatment. At the same time, many of the specific claims made by these groups had the unintended consequence of making these groups more effective consumers, thus aiding at least some businesses. Second, and more importantly, it taught ordinary citizens that they could assert themselves and succeed. As J.E. Hoover is claimed to have said, the most dangerous thing the Black Panthers ever did was to give free breakfasts to black school children. If a group of young not-terribly-rich folks could provide free meals to kids, why couldn't the US government?

Another development, in many ways not related to the political developments, happened on the technology front. Over the past 20 years or so, there has been an explosion in computer, communication, and media technologies that have increased the power of citizens relative to large institutions (the State, corporations, foundations, international institutions like the IMF and the WB). In the hands of intelligent, dedicated, and organized people--i.e, average citizens with a legitimate claim--these technologies have made it substantially cheaper and easier to organize political activities, analyze complex situations, and publicize new claims. When you have a powerful, vested interest in keeping things the way they are, these kinds of developments are threatening.

As I said, all of this is still a jumble in my head. I hope to present a better summary in the future. But, as I was trying to organize these thoughts I received an email about a new site from the revolutionaries at Wikipedia.

http://www.wikileaks.org/index.html

Wikipedia describes the page as:

Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact; this means our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by non-technical people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking about with regards to citizens' newly-discovered ability to assert their power. I encourage everyone to check out the site. It is an amazing idea and it is a perfect example of what is scaring the shit out of Dick Cheney and, in my current thinking, helps to explain why he needs terrorism and the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, etc,.

Democracy on the ropes

2007-01-15T08:30:00.000+01:00

Now that I've made the connection between the GWOT and the Resource Wars virtually everything that is going on in US foreign policy makes sense to me. Even so, I could barely believe the quotes in today's WAPO article summarizing some of the weekend's tv programs. The Post quotes Dick Cheney as saying that "you can't fight a war by committee." Asked about the unpopularity of the war in Iraq, George farted out the following:

'You cannot simply stick your finger up in the wind and say, 'Gee, public opinion's against, we better quit,' " Cheney agreed. That would "validate the al-Qaeda view of the world," he added.

Apparently, al-Qaeda has some twisted notion that the will of the people, their insights, ideas, fears, and hopes may have some value. The Cheney administration, of course, knows better and that's why George is fighting for democracy in Iraq.

"Surging toward the holy oil grail", by Pepe Escobar

2007-01-14T15:21:00.000+01:00

The following is an excerpt from the Asia Times Online which dares to posit a connection between the "surge" and the Petroleum Law. It also points out, correctly I think, that a large racheting up in the violence is inevitable over the next six months.

Grabbing those oil fields by the horn
Washington's successive divide-and-rule tactics - facilitating a possible genocide of Sunnis, contemplating a mass slaughter of Shi'ites, betting on a regional Sunni/Shi'ite war - never for a second lose sight of the riches of Iraqi. For Big Business, an Iraq eaten alive by Balkanization is the ideal environment for the triumph of Anglo-American petrocracy.

A new Iraqi oil law will most likely be voted on in Parliament in the next few weeks, before the arrival of Bush's 21,500 men, and it should be in effect in March. The law is Anglo-American Big Oil's holy grail: the draft has been carefully scrutinized by Washington, Big Oil and the International Monetary Fund, but not by Iraqi politicians. The profit-sharing agreements enshrined by the law are immensely profitable for Big Oil. And crucially, the law prevents any Iraqi government from nationalizing the oil industry - as the majority of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) member states did. In essence, it's a game of "if you nationalize, we invade you - again". So the law fulfills the early-2003 neo-con boast of "we are the new OPEC".

Iraq's petrodollars will turn to mush - or rather, as with Saudi Arabia, be recycled back to US banks. Security company Blackwater will make a killing "protecting" Iraqi pipelines. Bechtel and Halliburton will get myriad fat contracts to rebuild everything the US has bombarded since 1991.

But what's the use of an oil law in a 100-cadavers-a-day hellhole? Enter the escalation as a way of providing "stability". Whichever way the coming surge goes - ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, the battle of Sadr City - what matters is not the piling up of Arab Muslim (or American) bodies, but how much less cumbersome is the path toward the holy oil grail. Big Business will make a deal with anyone that facilitates the passing of the oil law, be it Maliki's Da'wa Party, the SCIRI, or - in a wildest-dream version - the Sadrists or al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, Sunni and Shi'ite, want the US out, and as soon as possible. A rape of Iraq's oil wealth enshrined by a Parliament-approved oil law would certainly lead to national unrest. For the moment it's fair to assume the US is taking no chances in its backroom deals, as the SCIRI's support for the new law, via Vice President Adil Abdul Mahdi, is practically assured. Da'wa must be in the process of being bribed to death.

But Muqtada is another story. He is close to some Sunni factions. They are getting closer. And crucially, they agree on being Iraqi nationalists who want the Americans out. There's a very strong possibility of the Sadrists joining the muqawama in the event the oil law is approved. Thus the preemptive, two-pronged Bush escalation on the war front - against both Muqtada and nationalist Sunnis.

The ever-expanding killing fields
Stenographers of the "clash of civilizations" may rejoice. But what really matters is what 1.5 billion people of the Muslim ummah are seeing. They see, on a given day, apart from made-in-USA bombs over Palestine, the US bombarding Arab Muslims in Iraq, Central Asian Muslims in Afghanistan, black Muslims in Somalia. Soon, perhaps, Persian Muslims will be included. Blowback is assured.

Referring to the hearings on Capitol Hill last month on the Lancet study compiling 655,000 civilian deaths provoked by the war on Iraq, University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole wrote in his blog that the US government "has committed cliocide" - after the Greek muse Clio, who watched over the course of human history. Cliocide will of course continue.

In Iraq, there are only two stark, inevitable options for the White House: cliocide, as in mass slaughter (of Sunnis and Shi'ites alike); or defeat (which is all but assured). Bush has chosen the first option. The upcoming battle of Sadr City will signal the descent of Iraq into absolute, abysmal, irreversible chaos. Bush, in imperial-Rome mode, can then call the desolation victory, and retire. Provided, of course, the oil law is in the bag.

Pepe Escobar's complete article in the January 12, 2007 Asia Times Online can be read here.

Doublespeak Quote of the Year

2007-01-14T12:53:00.000+01:00

It is only the 14th day of the year, but I think we alreay have the 2007 Doublespeak Quote the Year. Let's hope so. I found this in Friday's Whitehouse Briefing. Froomkin reports:

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told CNN that Bush's condemnation of what she called 'Iran's meddlesomeness' [in his Wednesday night speech] was an important signal to the region. "'Surely the United States is not the one being threatening,' she said. 'We are not the ones being meddlesome and troublesome in Iraq.'

We invaded Iraq, we sat by while their national treasures were pillaged, we tortured their sons, and brothers, and fathers, we raped their daughters, and sisters, and mothers, we killed their childen, we aided and abetted in ushering in a civil war, yet Iran is the one who is meddling.

How the "surge" strategy might succeed

2007-01-11T00:52:00.000+01:00

While reading Monday’s White House Briefing on George’s “surge” strategy, the following theory came to me as if in a dream. Things that didn’t make sense suddenly fell into place. For those of you who like a little drama, below I lay out the whole story in five acts. For the rest of you, here’s the summary:

The “surge” strategy is not just smoke and mirrors on the domestic front intended to help George save face, although it is that. It is also something liquid and crude. Dick Cheney has promised to keep the Maliki government in power through January 20^th, 2009, in exchange for passage of a new Petroleum Law. This new Petroleum Law, drawn up with the help of the consulting firm BearingPoint, will provide extremely preferential access to Iraq’s here-to-fore-nationalized oil reserves for US-based oil companies. See the article “Blood and Oil” which appeared in The Independent for a description of the New Petroleum Law. The “surge” is essentially Dick Cheney sending in the Marines, literally and figuratively, to protect the Maliki government long enough so that it can put the new law on the books. Only in this light does the surge strategy make any sense whatsoever.

Here’s the play in five acts…

Act I – Where in we learn the facts on the ground

First, the purpose of the war, as Helen Thomas so regularly reminds us, has never been explained with any plausibility. Every justification given so far has fallen, sometimes like a brick, usually like a feather. None have stood the test of time. We are fighting “to get the job done,” but George will not tell us what the job is.

Second, the current proposal for “going forward”, described as a troop “surge” by some and “escalation” by others, is the same weak hand of cards George tried to play in 2004, 2005, and 2006. But lets put aside the gambler’s hope that this time he’s going to draw three aces, the fact is that not a single substantial assertion about Iraq made by George and his friends has come to pass. Whatever rhetoric is employed to explain and/or justify the “surge” strategy it should be ignored.

Third, an Iraqi “government” doesn’t really exist, by any normal definition of the term. It does not have the monopoly on violence; it could not collect taxes if it wanted to; it barely provides basic human services to its people. Virtually all of the day-to-day political power is held by religious based organizations usually operating at the sub-municipal level. However, the Maliki administration does hold, for the moment, one thread of national power and that is the ability to pass laws, even if it cannot enforce them.

Act II – Where in the Hedgehog plays mouse with the Fox

First, George is a simple man. Once approvingly described as an ‘every man’ by Peggy Noonan, George is as easily read as a children’s book. George has been playing president for six years and for a while it was fun, but now George is tired. George is also willful and proud and doesn’t bargain with himself. He’s not going to give up in Iraq even if Barney and Dick Cheney are the last two dawgs in the country who support him. Another thing we know about George is that when he plays chess he thinks two or three moves ahead.

Second, Dick Cheney is a complex man. He is determined, intelligent, detail-oriented, and cunning. Dick Cheney is the hedgehog who knows many big things. Dick Cheney is Chuck Norris on steroids. To Dick Cheney, water boarding is just a dunk in the water. Dick Cheney is an oilman who understands peak oil and knows that energy conservation is nothing more than “a personal virtue.” Dick Cheney has a strong sense of his nation’s destiny. When Dick Cheney plays chess…he just shoots you.

Third, the mainstream media has discovered the real motive behind the "surge" strategy, and hard-boiled beatniks that they are, they’re not afraid to print it. Poor Georgee, that great mansion in the rolling hills of west Texas that he hoped to leave as his legacy is looking more like a broken down West Virginia outhouse. Nothing is going right in Iraq and even George—the fox who knows one thing—knows that the clock is ticking. What if--these streetwise Freudians provocatively ask--the whole “surge” strategy is just George’s egotistical attempt to quickly drywall a legacy worthy of his own deluded sense of self? These, of course, are the same reporters who deliberately obscure the truth by using such misleading terms as “the Bush administration.” But Dick Cheney doesn't leave things to chance. So while the pundits are blabbering about George's psychological motivations, Dick Cheney is keeping his mouth shut and making things happen, telling George what to think, who to fire, who to hire, where to invade, and what the job in Iraq really is.

Act III – Where in the laws are passed, the surge is made, and the blood is shed

First, Maliki and company will pull out all of the stops to get the new Petroleum Law through the parliament. Maliki and friends will do this as if their lives depend on it, because they do. Their gift to the people of Iraq and America will be wrapped in the traditional rhetoric of imperialism. US papers, to the extent that they actually cover it, will dutifully relay the words of American government officials and businessmen who will describe the new Petroleum Law as “necessary” and as “a first step in modernizing the out dated laws put in place under the old dictator.” Above all else, the bow on the box so to speak, the new law will be labeled as “fair.” (Here we will be given a chance to see the chasm that separates the right wing press from the far-right wing press. The far right wing press will describe the law as “fair,” while the right wing press will describe the law as “fair, given the circumstances.”) In reality, as described in a recent article in The Independent, the Petroleum Law as currently conceived will be extremely generous to US oil companies, allowing them to secure long-term contracts to exploit Iraqi oil resources at profit margins that are twice the industry average. Oil companies will also have the opportunity to sign these contracts when the national government is the weakest it has been in nearly 40 years. And as for the problem of enforcement, well unlike any other OPEC country, Iraq’s new Petroleum Law will permit international arbitration of disputes. The story of the new Petroleum Law is presented by The Indpendent in "Future of Iraq: the spoils of war" and "Blood and Oil".

Second, the troop escalation will take place. There will be tens-of-thousands of US troops added to the cauldron that is Iraq. They will operate to provide protection to the Maliki government on the one hand, and on the other, they will be a constant reminder to him and his friends of who is filling their off shore accounts.

Third, more American soldiers will die and maybe even die at a higher rate than they have over the past six months. The blood shed, suffering, and death will be a thousand-fold worse for the Iraqis.

Act IV – Where in much that was inexplicable now makes sense

First, what was the purpose of the US invasion of Iraq? Each time a “mission accomplished” is banner is waved—Saddam Hussein is toppled, the WMDs are…, a constitution is passed, free elections are held, a government is formed—the goal line is pushed back and we are told, “The job is not yet done.” But if the “job” is still not done, then clearly those other goals were simply necessary steps along the way to the ultimate goal. The real goal, the only goal, is and always has been to provide US-based oil companies with legalized access to the Iraqi oil fields.

Second, what are these “consequences” that the Maliki government is going to suffer if it doesn’t shape up? The notion that now George really means business is nonsensical. What partial steps could George take against the Maliki government to get it back on track? And if you can think of one, why hasn’t George already taken it? The only card that the Maliki government holds is the power to grant the legal right to exploit Iraq’s oil fields. The only “consequence” that the Maliki government can suffer is political and personal extinction.

Third, what could the addition of twenty-thousand troops actually achieve? The escalation cannot really affect the long-term prospects for peace in the country. Military experts uniformly agree that securing Iraq would take a force of about 500,000 troops. Going from about 140,000 to about 160,000 is clearly meaningless in the grand scheme of peace. It could however provide a good level of protection for the Maliki government, especially if things were to heat up on account of their giving away the nation’s oil reserves to the occupying force. The “surge” is about one more chance, but it is not one more chance to save Bush’s ego. It’s about one more chance for the Maliki government to deliver the goods that Dick Cheney wanted yesterday. And if Maliki and company don’t come through, well as we learned in Act II, Dick Cheney only thinks one move ahead, ‘cause he’s just gonna shoot you.

Act V – Where in the predictions are made and George suffers the consequences

First, the Democrats will hem-and-haw about the escalation and a few will even threaten to withhold funds to pay for it. Nothing will come of this.

Second, a new Petroleum Law, extremely favorable to US-based oil companies, will be pushed through the Iraqi parliament by the Maliki government. This may or may not result in increased attacks against the Maliki government; it will surely further erode its legitimacy.

Third, the escalation will happen. Many more will die on all sides. The increased death rates for Americans will be billed by the Dick Cheney administration as further evidence that we are winning and that the insurgency is in its last throes.

Third, the Maliki government will stay in power at least through January 2009 with or with out any appreciable change in its effectiveness as a governing entity. (Corollary prediction: many of the people in the Maliki government as well as their sons and brothers will become extraordinarily rich and virtually none of them will live in Iraq.)

Fourth, in ten years, regardless of the political situation that plays out in Iraq over the next few years, US-based oil companies will be pumping cheap Iraqi crude and making billions of dollars thanks to the contracts that they will have signed under the aegis of the Maliki government’s Petroleum Law.

Fifth, for the majority of American citizens no one will care very much about the US’s illegal invasion of a sovereign country in 2003. But before that happens Oliver Stone will make a movie about the drama that was MESSOPATAMIA…

"This aggression will not stand, man": Nicolas Sarkozy and the execution of Saddam Hussein

2007-01-05T17:41:00.000+01:00

I just picked up this story thanks to someone from Americans for Peace and Justice, an anti-war organization based in Montpellier which I joined a few months ago. The piece entitled "L'exécution de Saddam Hussein est une faute" orginally appeared in Le Monde and was then translated and posted on Truthout.org.

Nicolas Sarkozy is the current presidential candidate for the Union pour un mouvement populaire (UMP). The UMP is the right of center party here and Sarkozy is generally considered the right-wing of the UMP. He’s a short man, brash, expressive, a little hot-tempered sometimes. It’s is interesting to compare his heated performances to the cool Ségolène Royal, the presidential candidate for the Parti socialiste. I may try to write more on the French elections as things begin to heat up here, but now I’d like to share the op-ed that Mr. Sarkozy wrote about the recent hanging of Saddam Hussein.

Many folks on the French left believe that Sarkozy is a dangerous man, an extremist, and even a closet fascist who would sacrifice the country’s principles of fraternité, liberté, and égalité at an altar of corporate greed and jingoism. With that in mind read the following letter from him and judge for yourself. I am no fan of Sarkozy’s neo-liberalist leanings and his visit to see George last year seemed to me not just awful politics on his part, but also a scary insight into what this man may think passes for good governance.

Nonetheless, read what the right-wing of the right in France thinks about Saddam Hussein's finish.

***

Saddam Hussein's Execution Is a Mistake
By Nicolas Sarkozy
Tuesday 02 January 2007

I would have liked to greet Saddam Hussein's trial as a significant step in Iraq's democratization. Unfortunately, the execution of the former Iraqi dictator throws an event that should have been a positive one in the reconstruction of this martyred country into a bad light. First, however, I must acknowledge with satisfaction that Saddam Hussein was judged.

I observe that the Criminal High Court is an Iraqi decision-making body, composed exclusively of Iraqi judges, the hearings of which are public. Experts and observers say, certainly quite rightly, that the arguments were conducted in a disorganized way and that the proceedings lacked dignity. Moreover, three defense attorneys were assassinated. The fact that Saddam Hussein should be judged by an Iraqi court is already a feat in itself under the circumstances into which the country is plunged. Let us remember that Iraq has only made the discovery of free elections, of a freely chosen constitution, of a coalition government, of parliamentary deliberations, and of an independent judiciary in recent months; but also, above all, let us remember that it is the scene of a particularly bloody civil war.

The trial is also a feat because the defendant happens to be the person who subjugated his fellow citizens through murder and terror for over thirty years and whom terrorists (I, for one, cannot call people who daily let off bombs among civilians a "resistance.") still claim as their own.

I would have liked to hail the fact that through this highly symbolic trial the Iraqi government had applied for itself those elements that essentially contribute to its sovereignty, such as an independent and professional judiciary system, or a democratic and uncorrupted police force.

The death penalty and the execution of the convicted man prevent me from that. I am opposed to the death penalty. For me, it's a question of principle. I believe that the world must continue to make its way toward total abolition of the death penalty. And, in the present instance, even though we're dealing with one of history's great criminals, I deem that Iraq would have grown and become greater by not executing the one who had made it suffer so much. I ardently desire Iraq's stabilization. But, as I see it, the in-depth stabilization of this region can take place only through the promotion of democratic values. I hate the idea that certain peoples should be condemned to violence for no reason other than that violence is part of a multi-century, even thousand-year-old tradition. And I believe that an indispensable step in the democratization of Iraq is the abolition of the death penalty.

Finally, I deeply deplore that Saddam Hussein, the dictator who had more blood on his hands than anyone in the world, did not have to appear and account before the law for his other crimes. I am sorry that justice was not done the Kurds, whose sufferings were unspeakable, and for whom the massacre of 5,000 civilians in the little town of Halabja in 1988 was only one monstrous event among many others. I am sorry justice was not done to the Shia, who were subjected to a barbarous repression in 1991 by the Iraqi Republican Guard - under the impassive regard, incidentally, of the international community.

It is difficult to reconcile the different constituencies of a people at the departure of a dictatorship. But that task seems even more difficult when light is not shed on the past.

The execution of Saddam Hussein, the worst of men, is a mistake.

Google experiment No. 1: Update

2006-12-31T15:24:00.000+01:00

Okay, December 31, 2006 at 3:23pm (local time), the Google querry "Bustifer P. Jones" returns this blog, and only this blog. I'd say that is pretty quick indexing on their part. Keep a look out for Google experiment No. 2, Rustifer P. Nose.

Le Boulanger de Bagdad

2006-12-31T08:41:00.000+01:00

With the recent demise of Saddam Hussein I’ve been forced to reconsider my post of December 17^th, “A New Filk”. Obviously, the events of the past few days have put a knot in Saddam’s singing career and the Hussein-Rumsfeld “power duo” that I hoped for is not going anywhere fast. But there is still hope for Mr. Rumsfeld. Indeed, this maybe why Don Rumsfeld was born to this world…

Let’s step back and look at the big picture. It is clear that a unified Iraq requires a strong alpha-male leader. But the country is currently wracked by in-fighting and sectarianism. These problems cry out for reconciliation and forgiveness, characteristics not typically included in the personalities of most tyrants. But as is so often the case, Don Rumsfeld is the exception to the rule. Here’s a man who lives these contradictions every day. He is the grand-fatherly tyrant, the man with a heart of gold and fists of iron, an honest-broker just trying to make the world a better place and willing to crush anyone who gets in his way. So, where many see chaos and civil war, I see opportunity and, in particular, a job opportunity for Mr. Rumsfeld. Let’s replace the Butcher of Baghdad with the Baker of Baghdad.

What image could bring more hope, more optimism, more compassion than the sight of Donald Rumsfeld—former military leader of the occupying forces—dusted in flour, kneading dough, and making bread for the children-loving people of Iraq? There’s so much fear about a “Shia crescent”, but what about a “Shia croissant”? And why not a “Sunni Napoleon”? Let’s replace the pain-loving Sadam, with the pain-amant Rumsfeld.

Here’s the milestone I want to see: Don Rumsfeld exiting off the back of a C-130 sporting a French beret, a baguette tucked under his arm, and wearing a tee shirt advertising his new Bagdad bakery with the slogan—in English, French, and Arabic—“Buy my bread, or else…”

Google experiment No. 1

2006-12-29T19:25:00.000+01:00

Bustifer P. Jones

SFO, NYC, SDF, DIY-G

2006-12-29T14:44:00.000+01:00

Here is a story about a social experiment currently going on in the Bay Area. I'm posting it for two reasons. First, I think it is an interesting example of how some folks are trying to live their convictions and learning how difficult it is to try and do something perfectly. I also think the story can get folks to think about consumerism and community and to what extent they are compatible and incompatible.

The other reason I'm posting this story is because I think it is a great example of the American DIY spirit. The article reminds me of a news story reported on French TV about a group of NYC residents who got together to fight hunger. The group, a collection of NYC-DIYers with good intentions and presumably progressive-leaning political tendencies, raided restaurant and super market trash bins and then prepared pretty fancy meals for a few homeless folks lucky enough to know about their "program." It is commendable that the group would undertake such a radical plan, but I wonder why they are so dismissive of using their governments--local, state, or even national--to address what is clearly a social problem.

By contrast, for the past two weeks there have been about 250 tents lined up along the canal Saint-Martin in Paris protesting the national government's failure to improve conditions for the country's SDF ("sans domicile fixe"), the homeless. The tents are attracting quite a lot of attention in print and TV media. They've also gotten results: the national government has agreed to increase the number of beds in shelters from 1,100 to 4,000 in the next few months and to 10,500 by the end of 2007. Also, the existing shelters will open earlier in the afternoon and allow folks to stay later in the morning during the week, and will be open 24 hours a day over the weekends. Not a bad "first step" as the organizers of the sleep-out are describing it.

It seems to me that Americans are fixated on a DIY approach to all problems, even social ones that, by definition, require collective action. The thinking seems to be, "We can do it on our own and we don't need your stinking government." The SFO & NYC approaches have a lot of things in common, not the least of which is that the two groups are working in two of the wealthiest cities in world. But the other thing, which I think is a general trend even among traditional lefty-types, is the writing-off of government as an instrument of social improvement.

I'm all for individual initative, but does it have to exclude collective action? It's as if some someone has updated the old Hippocratic aphorism and applied it to the body politic: first, Don't Involve Your Government.

***

Group's Rejection of Consumerism Is Catching On
By Carolyn Jones
The San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday 27 December 2006

Three-thousand people attempt to get by without buying new things.

For Shawn Rosenmoss, the deal-breaker was a drill bit.

John Perry's worst temptation was a plumber's snake for his clogged drain.

Sarah Pelmas and Matt Eddy succumbed to the siren song of new white paint.

But aside from the occasional hardware crises, the Compact – an ever-growing group who have vowed not to buy anything new except food, medicine and underwear - is going strong on its first anniversary.

The Compact originated in December 2005 at a San Francisco dinner party, where guests decided to take recycling one step further and go for a year without new purchases. Consumerism, they said, is destroying the world and most of us already own far more than we need.

They called themselves the Compact as a semi-joking reference to the solemn commitment of the Mayflower pilgrims, but the concept is being taken quite seriously and has quickly spread.

They've been featured in newspapers across the United States and Europe and on the "Today" show, "Good Morning America," "CBS Evening News," TV news in China and Poland, and countless shock-jock radio programs. They were offered book contracts and at least two TV reality shows, all of which they turned down because it seemed contrary to the Compact principles.

Almost 3,000 people from six continents have joined the Compact group onYahoo, and chapters have sprung up around the globe from Alabama to New Zealand.

"It's been staggering," said Compact co-founder John Perry, who works in communications at a Silicon Valley technology company. "We never set out to start a movement or be holier-than-thou models of righteous behavior, but it's been very gratifying to see the impact."

There's also been a mild backlash. One Seattle radio host did a show called "The Compact: Bad for America," and others have logged on to the Compact blog and Yahoo group to accuse them of hypocrisy because they drive cars, fly in planes and otherwise consume nonrenewable resources.

"I was really shocked at some of the venom," Rosenmoss said. "I still don't quite understand it. Why would anyone else care what we do? We're not out to convert anyone."

But for most, participants say the Compact has been a rewardingexperience. Compacters are allowed to buy secondhand items and are encouraged to borrow and reuse whatever possible.

Kids' birthday parties? That's easy. Rosenmoss lets her daughters, who are not bound by the compact, spend their allowance money on new gifts for friends, or encourages them to make something. Instead of giving a gift, Perry, who has two children, makes a donation in the birthday child's name to a group committed to ending world hunger.

"The parents love it because it's one less hunk of molded plastic in their homes," Perry said. "It also gives them something to talk about with their kids."

Baby gear? Not a problem. Secondhand stores are filled with bottles, sippy cups and pacifiers, all of which can be easily sterilized.

Pelmas, a high school administrator, and Eddy, a high school science teacher, bought a house in 2006 and managed extensive renovations with only one trip to the hardware store. That was when they needed white paint for their ceilings. It's easy to find surplus paint in colors, which they used for the walls, but impossible to find surplus white paint. So they caved in and bought new.

Rosenmoss broke the Compact only twice, when she needed a drill bit and when she needed sleeping bags for her kids.

"I looked for used sleeping bags, but frankly the idea was so gross I just couldn't do it," said Rosenmoss, an engineer for the city of San Francisco. "It was like buying used underwear. So I gave myself a reprieve."

But Perry has not veered once from the Compact rules. His bathroom sink has been plugged for months, and it'll stay that way until he finds a drain snake at Thrift Town.

But overall, the year of anti-consumerism has been unexpectedly rewarding, they said.

"We've enjoyed the camaraderie and competitive spirit with friends," Perry said. "And it's been really good for us to think about what we need, as opposed to what we want."

The social aspect appealed to Rosenmoss as well.

"I've really felt part of a community," she said. "I think a big part of our consumer culture has to do with being independent, not asking people for things. But with the Compact you have to borrow a lot, and you realize it's OK."

Most of the original Compacters planned to renew their vow for 2007, but Pelmas and Eddy said they'd had enough - they're headed to Crate and Barrel on Jan. 1.

Meanwhile, Perry wants to turn the Compact up a notch and eliminate packaging. He and his partner already buy shampoo, laundry detergent, peanut butter, olive oil, pasta, spices and other foods in bulk, and he thinks they can go even further.

"The only problem has been toothpaste," he said. "We haven't found it in bulk yet, but we're trying."

An Open Letter to SustainAbility

2006-12-18T23:15:00.000+01:00

The letter below was recently sent to SustainAbility, a business that "advises clients on the risks and opportunities associated with corporate responsibility and sustainable development." While I am generally supportive of these kinds of business endeavors, I am often taken aback by how exploitative these "doing-well, by doing-good" companies can be. For a full account of the "risks" associated with this particular brand of sustainable development, click on the job link below.

****

December 18, 2006

Dear Maddy Rooke-Ley:

I write in regard to your job "Associate Director, Research and Advocacy", which I saw advertised on the Ethical Corporation web site.

I worked for several years as the director or research at a not-for-profit organization that promoted community development-oriented venture capital. My politics are left-leaning though my experience has taught me that properly managed markets can have positive social and economic outcomes. I'm generally a high-tax, high-services kind of guy, which is one of the reasons I live in France. I'm perfectly willing to pay higher prices for energy, food, clothing, etc, if I know that these items are being produced in a sustainable manner. One could say, I am a fellow-traveler and it this proximity of spirit--this shared vision for a better future--that inspires me to write to you about your job advertisement.

I don't want to come across as flip or insensitive, but I think the job that your advertising for the Associate Director position sounds like part of the problem and not part of the solution. I am telling you this because my guess is that no one who actually wants the job can do so, even though what I'm going to say is far more truthful than 95% of the cover letters that you are likely to receive.

The problem is that the job you are advertising is at least a 70 hour per week position. In other words, the work your are proposing is completely unsustainable. I understand that, on one side, your company is working to solve immense and complex problems and, on the other side, your clients are pressing for good, cheap, and fast--a trifecta which they themselves, of course, could never win. However, the work you are giving to this one position is enough to squeeze the life out of even the most dedicated of work horses. You will, of course, find someone to fill this position and they will be excited to work on these interesting and worthwhile projects. But given the litany of responsibilities, he or she will not last more than a few years and is likely to leave looking like Jimmy Carter circa 1981. Is it too much to ask that a company whose stated goal is to promote sustainability try and create a sustainable work environment?

Please don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with the objectives of your organization. I support your goals whole-heartedly and accept the inevitable imperfections that go with all human endeavors. Nor do I mean to single out SustainAbility, except in so far as your organization has revealed itself as being particularly concerned with sustainable solutions. The fact is that many companies (and even more not-for-profits) with good intentions pursue equally unsustainable working conditions. My unsolicited advice: hire one person to do Research & Writing and hire another to do Outreach & Networking. Don't try and get one person to do both.

Good luck with your organization and good luck hiring the right folks.

Regards,

Brian T. Schmitt

A New Filk

2006-12-17T11:16:00.000+01:00

With all of the talk about the Iraq Study Group, "going forward," and the Decider's victory plans, I am inspired to write another filk. This one is special in that I've written it for a particular person. I am trying to get the former dictator and American ally Saddam Hussein to sing it and I am hoping to get Donald Rumsfeld to help produce and market this sure-fire hit.

The filk is titled "Time is on my side" and it's based on the Rolling Stones' song "Time is on my side", which was released on their 1964 album 12x5.

UPDATE (30 December 2006): While time may no longer be on his side, we can be sure that if the Bush administration thinks it was a good idea to hang Saddam then it must be a bad idea. And every time you hear George use the word "milestone" try replacing it with "mill stone" and the image of a mill stone wrapped around George's neck. This gives a more accurate picture of the situation.

Time is on my side

Time is on my side, yes it is
Time is on my side, yes it is

Now you always say
That you want to be free
But youll come running back (said you would baby)
Youll come running back (I said so many times before)

Youll come running back to me
Oh, time is on my side, yes it is
Time is on my side, yes it is

Youre searching for good times
But just wait and see
Youll come running back (I wont have to worry no more)
Youll come running back (spend the rest of my life with you, baby)
Youll come running back to me

Go ahead, go ahead and light up the town
And baby, do everything your heart desires
Remember, Ill always be around
And I know, I know
Like I told you so many times before
Youre gonna come back, baby cause I know
Youre gonna come back knocking
Yeah, knocking right on my door
Yes, yes!

Well, time is on my side, yes it is
Time is on my side, yes it is cause I got the real love
The kind that you need
Youll come running back (said you would, baby)
Youll come running back (I always said you would)
Youll come running back, to me

Yes time, time, time is on my side, yes it is
Time, time, time is on my side, yes it is

Oh, time, time, time is on my side, yes it is
I said, time, time, time is on my side, yes it is

Oh, time, time, time is on my side
Yeah, time, time, time is on my side

"Mr. Bush Tear Down This Fence!"

2006-10-26T20:26:00.000+02:00

Hugo Chávez quoted earlier today during his appearance on the Rush Limbaugh show.

The only question worth asking

2006-09-20T21:04:00.000+02:00

I read White House Briefing pretty much everyday and Dan Froomkin asks a lot of good questions that reporters should put to George and company. But in the end I think there is only one question worth asking, over and over again in a Helen Thomas sort of way: Why should I believe this time?

Bush Gives Time Line for Troop Withdrawal from Iraq?

2006-09-14T23:47:00.000+02:00

In an interview this past Tuesday with several conservative journalists, George noted that the current mis-administration is engaged in an ideological war and that such battles take time. Indeed, George was quoted as saying that weeks and months were just a "nanosecond" compared to the long course of the conflict. So if the Iraq debacle is just a nanosecond in the GWOT, and assume that it will be over in a second, we can expect a troop withdrawal in about 34.5 years, or the year 2040. And yes, that is 2040 AD.

Thought experiment to help us think about Iraq

2006-09-08T19:57:00.000+02:00

With someone actually referencing this site, I’m feeling some pressure to get something new out. So here it is: a thought experiment that might help some of us gawd-fearin’ ‘mericans to get a handle on the current situation in Iraq.

Imagine that a foreign country, let’s say China, takes over the US, the way we've taken over Iraq. As modern wars go, it’s relatively bloodless with only a few tens-of-thousands of Americans killed. So China takes over but rather than putting themselves in direct charge they decide to keep the US constitution and most of our institutions but add the sole rule that rich people can not be in positions of power--no political offices, no boards of directors, no legal positions, etc. Anyone in the top 20% of the wealth bracket is out. You can vote but that's about it. Further, imagine that everybody could tell with a very high degree of accuracy who was rich. Of course, it would be an imperfect system and there would be exceptions (maybe even a lot) but on paper and mostly in practice the rich would be denied their gawd-given-right to rule over the masses. Finally, to cover all the bases, the Chinese insist on a national poll and, miraculously, the results show that more than half of all Americans polled are in favor of the new system. Not surpisingly, many are very suspicious of the results of the poll.

Now, what do you think America’s rich would do? They’d still have money, they still have access to guns and ammo, newspapers, and some TV channels to broadcast their views. What would the US look like after three years? Five years? How long would it take for the “Chinese system” to be accepted? What would you think of the new folks in charge?

Follow up questions for Tony-the-Snow-Man

2006-07-25T14:45:00.000+02:00

An article in today's Washington Post, White House Softens Tone On Embryo Use

by Peter Baker, quotes Tony-the-Snow-Man backing off from the strong language he used earlier in which he described stem cell research as a form of "murder". Baker writes:

"White House press secretary Tony Snow said yesterday that he "overstated the president's position" during a briefing last week but said Bush rejected the bill because "he does have objections with spending federal money on something that is morally objectionable to many Americans."

So my follow up questions:
(1) When did the president start making decisions based on the poll numbers? and
(2) What about the millions of Americans who believe that the war in Iraq is morally objectionable?

Back to the Bottle Again

2006-07-25T10:09:00.000+02:00

Everyone is probably familiar with Steve Winwood's 1980s hit, "Back in the High Life Again". You may have also heard Warren Zevon's cover, which apparently is the preferred version according to the results of Cover-vs-Original . And if you've not heard Zevon's cover, try to because it is dry, eerie and poetic, nothing like the pop hit put out by Winwood.

While the melody for the filk comes from Winwood and the mood comes from Zevon, the story for the song comes from Dr. Justin Frank's, M.D. book entitled Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President (2004).

It is an excellent book, well written and well argued. Frankin adopts the family psychology theories of Melanie Klein to explore George's current psychological condition. The most amazing fact I learned was that the Bush family lost a child. George's younger sister Robin was diagnosed with leukemia in the spring of 1953 when he was six and when she was just three years old. The diagnosis

"...set into motion a series of extended East Coast trips by parents and child in the ultimately fruitless pursuit of treatment. Critically, however, young George was never informed of the reason for the sudden absences; unaware that his sister was ill, he was simply told not to play with the girl, to whom he and grown quite close, on her occasional visits home. Robin died in New York in October 1953; her parents spent the next day golfing in Rye, attending a small memorial service the following day before flying back to Texas. George learned of his sister's illness only after her death, when his parents returned to Texas, where the family remained while the child's body was buried in a Connecticut family plot. There was no funeral." (p.3)

Whoa…that’s rough, not easily dry walled over, even with George’s nearly twenty year’s of sobreity.

So it is with some tactlessness and anger that I indulged myself with this little filk.

Back to the bottle again

It used to seem to George
He could never drive too fast
Coke and booze and mary jane
It must have been a gas
But you’re your daddy’s son
And there’s a battle to be won
Goin’ mano-a-mano in the driveway
Who’s gonna be the one?

He’ll go back to the bottle again
All the prayers he has said will
go up in smoke again

He’ll go back to the bottle again
All the anger and hatred is too
much to hold in

And now you’ve shown your hand
Made war across the land
You beat Sadam and the Taliban
Who could doubt your plan?

But fate is a measured rope
That can wrap around your neck
Pulling tight in a choke-hold
Man, it’s gotta hurt like heck

So he’ll go back to the bottle again
All the prayers he has said will
go up in smoke again

He’ll go back to the bottle again
All the anger and hatred is too
much to hold in

And he’ll drink and smoke with both hands free
Ignore the wife and loose his keys
Oh he’ll be a sight to see
Back in the bottle again

Doping referees?

2006-07-25T08:53:00.000+02:00

What if we could give drugs to referees that would allow them to see and hear better, dramatically improving their abilities to detect infractions on the field? Would this be considered doping? What if we learned that some referees were already doing this? Would it be an international incident?

Quote of the day

2006-07-25T08:46:00.000+02:00

The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.
-Paul Feyerabend, Against Method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge (1975)

Support the Truth: Civil War in Iraq

2006-07-23T23:14:00.000+02:00

A few months back, there seemed to be a major debate in the Internet-press about whether it was appropriate to call the situation in Iraq a “civil war”. While the rhetoric meant nothing to the millions of Iraqis directly and indirectly affected by the day-to-day violence, the matter seemed very important in the domestic battle for the “hearts and minds” of Americans. Since then the world has moved on and no one seems to think it so important anymore. Recently, however, it occurred to me that it was easy enough to compare the current situation Iraq, which has only gotten worse since the spring, to the US’s own record with civil war to get a sense of the accuracy or absurdity of this statement.

The table below presents the numbers in detail, but I'll just cut to the chase: between April 1861 and April 1865 the US lost 184,594 American lives, or about 0.13 percent of the total US population each year. In Iraq today, assuming that the death rate of 75 persons per day continues for another 12 months, the country will have lost 0.11 percent of its total population. The 75 persons per day maybe a high estimate and the population estimate may be a bit low, but even so the impact clearly puts the situation in Iraq today in the same ball park as the US Civil War.

Another way to look at the current situation in Iraq is to project the violent death rate there onto the US and adjust for population differences. Using this approach, if Americans were dying at the same rate as Iraqis we would be experiencing about 325,000 violent deaths per year, compared to our actual annual murder rate of about 16,000 per year. In other words, we’d be experiencing 26,796 murders each month instead of 1,345; or, 881 per day instead of 44 per day. And if you want an even more macabre way to understand these numbers, imagine one September 11th every three-and-a-half days.

By these metrics, it seems to me unconscionable that anyone could describe the situation in Iraq as anything other than a tragedy for humanity, a complete failure of neoconservative foreigh policy, and another victory for the red horse of the apocalypse.

Iraqi Civil War

Deaths per day 75

Deaths per year (projected) 27,375

Population (est.) 25,000,000

Annualized deaths as pct. of population 0.11%

US Civil War

US Civil War combat deaths (1) (a) 184,594

US population est. at the time (1) 34,300,000

Annualized death rate (April 1861 to April 1865) (b) 0.13%

Iraq's Violent Death Rate in the US

US Murders in 2004 (2) 16,137

Iraqi murder rate/100,000 population (est.) 109.5

US Population (2004) (3) 293,656,842

US Equivalent of Iraqi murder rate 321,554

Notes:

(a) The usual number of deaths estimated in the Civil War is 620,000. Combat deaths, however, vary from the low reported above to as many as 204,000.

See http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm for this higher estimate.

(b) Wikipedia

Sources:

(1)The US Civil War Center at LSU. http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

(2) Dept. of Justice, FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

(3) Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2005-sa.html

Excitable Boy, Part II

2006-07-23T17:38:00.000+02:00

I'm not one to follow celebrity trials and murder stories in the news, but this one on CNN jumped out at me because it reminded me of one of the greatest songs of the 1970s, if not of all time, Warren Zevon's Exciteable Boy. (Warren Zevon).

Grounded teen killed family before going to prom.

I have no idea if the guy is guilty or innocent. The line of reasoning taken by the defense, as briefly described in the article, seems plausible to me. And the fact that the local police actually decided not to search for finger prints on the crime scene, doesn't help the prosecutor's case. On the other hand, the guy was living in Dade County, Florida when he was picked up, which, in my experience, is the layman's version of the federal Witness Protection Program.

The story also raises a question about whether we need to start recognizing that "faith-placed" violence doesn't just happen in Iraq.

Bidding farewell

2006-07-23T05:27:00.000+02:00

I would have liked to have started this blog a few days ago and thus commemorate a great event in the history of human dignity, July 19th, 1946--the day my uncle Walter was born. But things are rarely the way we want them to be and so I am starting today. In fact, Walter may have been the world's first blogger even before the concept was discovered, in the same way that Bob Dylan, another obvious inspiration for this blog, was the inventor of rap music long before it had a name. (cf. SUBTERRANEAN HOMESICK BLUES).

Walter was a first rate complainer. He was master of the pithy statement, an encyclopedia of aphorisms, a lifetime guardian of “J’accuse”. Above all else, he was blessed with the ablity to believe anything that he wanted.

One afternoon Walter was on the Long Island Rail Road heading out to Stony Brook where he and his partner lived. It was rush hour and the train was crowded. The three-seat rows on the LIRR have a particular design where the seat closest to the aisle has a lowered backrest. Walter was seated in the middle seat, another passenger was next him in the window seat. A woman boarded the train and quickly took the empty aisle seat next to Walter. The train started up and after a moment the woman turned to Walter and said: “Excuse me, could we please switch seats?”

“No thank you,” Walter replied, “I am comfortable where I am.”

Surprised by his refusal the woman turned back. After a couple of minutes back and forth in the seat trying to get comfortable, she tried again:

“Excuse me but I have a back problem and these aisle seats are not good for it. Could we please switch seats so that I don’t hurt my back?”

“No thank you,” Walter replied again, adding that there were other cars and other seats if she wanted to look elsewhere.

The woman turned back again, but now the pot was on the front burner. She pushed this way and that all over the seat trying to make the best of the diminutive backrest. But physical comfort was impossible given the emotional stress and the explosive logic of fight or flight.

After a few more minutes of elevated heart rate and swirling interior monologue, she boiled over.

“You know, I can’t believe you. Someone with a bad back asks you to switch seats so that they are not in pain and you are so selfish as to say no. I feel sorry for you. ”

To which Walter calmly replied, “You know, I feel sorry for me too.”

Realizing that this was no ordinary mad man, the woman had no option but to gather her things and march off in a huff. After she had left the car a passenger in the row behind who had been following the drama tapped Walter on the shoulder.

Walter turned around and the man said to him, “That was beautiful.”