Telegraph | Money | India and China battle over Russian oil"
India and China battle over Russian oil
By Malcolm Moore (Filed: 14/02/2005)
India is fighting China in the battle for Russian oil by angling for a supply deal and a stake in Yuganskneftegaz, the oil unit that was seized from Yukos and is now owned by Rosneft, the state oil company.
Mani Shankar Aiyar, India's petroleum minister, will visit Russia on February 21 to discuss the possibility of the country taking a 15pc to 20pc stake in the oil unit, which is still the focus of legal action in the US. "There are no full stops and the dialogue is continuing," he said.
The fact that Yukos has threatened to sue anyone who interferes with its former unit has not put India or China off. China has offered $6billion (£3.34billion) to fund the purchase of Yugansk, in return for a guaranteed 360m barrels of oil over the next five years. India has been offered a similar quota but wants a slice of equity for its national oil company ONGC.
Rosneft paid $9billion for Yugansk, which pumps about a million barrels a day, through a holding company called Baikal Finance. Yukos has filed for damages concerning the sale of Yugansk, and is petitioning for $20billion from Rosneft, Gazprom and their subsidiaries. Yukos also said it would pursue Deutsche Bank, a situation that could see the German bank threatened in the US.
One source claimed Yukos had discovered proof that Deutsche had played a role in the sale of Yugansk, a situation that would put it in clear contravention of the US bankruptcy court that ruled that the auction should be delayed.
Yukos returns to court on Wednesday to persuade the judge that it should be allowed to continue its bankruptcy proceedings, and to plead that any claims against the company from the Russian government be heard in an international arbitration forum. Under its new plan for repaying creditors, the Russian government has slipped substantially down the list of importance.
Meanwhile, a former Russian prime minister has hit out at the destruction of Yukos and the climate of uncertainty that it has brought to the economic outlook in Russia. Yegor Gaidar, who was briefly prime minister under Boris Yeltsin and is a noted free-market economist, told a group of institutional investors in London last week: "What they are doing could be explained rationally only if the goal was to stop economic growth.
"Growth is very difficult to stop. It is very robust. Even the 1998 crisis only stopped growth for one year. So it is a very ambitious target but then, as Stalin said 'There are no fortresses that the Bolsheviks cannot storm'."
He added: "Ten days ago we held a seminar with Russian government officials to try to set the agenda for this year. They asked how could we compensate for the negative effects. The answer is that it is impossible. You cannot compensate for this sense of unpredictability by any improvement in regulations when Russians really do not believe that tax and property rules will be upheld. No laws will resolve this problem."
Mr Gaidar also called on the government not to bow to political pressure to use the country's savings to cut taxes. Russia has been building a budgetary stabilisation fund off the back of recent high oil prices, which amounts to 647.2billion roubles (£12.3billion)."
Monday, February 14, 2005
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Chrenkoff
Chrenkoff
Thats the attitude of our MSM: "the sleazy UN goings-on in Congo (or the Balkans for that matter) will not elicit the same sort of salivating fascination from our Western media as reports of military misdeeds in Iraq. The reason is simple: the perpetrators are not American, and the victims are African. The former is arguably more important a factor than the latter; if the Marines were raping Rwandan women we wouldn't be able to turn on the news without another live report from the dark heart of Africa.
As it is in Congo, the locals are being abused multilaterally with no oil wells in sight; so, no story. Pity the Congalese, because if anything, the plight of their country deserves far more attention than it's currently getting. Since 1998, some 3.3 million people have died (that's 33 times the unreal leftoid figure of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians) and 2.25 million have been displaced as a result of the conflict, a savage struggle over political influence and the prodigious bounty of mineral resources and precious stones. Foreign corporations are profiting out of the scramble, but there's no Halliburton in sight and far too many of the companies are European (only 8 out of 85 implicated in illegal exploitation of Congalese resources are American firms).
The media yawns and the world nods off. A combination of four widely-held beliefs will conspire to keep the fate of Congo and many other places from generating sufficient levels of international outrage: American misdeeds are the worst in the world; there are worse misdeeds in the world, but that's to be expected of others, so who cares? now back to American misdeeds; American misdeeds are the most offensive because America holds itself to the higher moral standard than others; American misdeeds deserves the most attention because by publicizing them within the Western world you actually have the greatest chance of affecting change (this is a sort of backhand, and often unintended, compliment to the strength of the American political system).
Whichever way you look at it, it would have been better for the Congalese had their country been invaded by the US: for a right-winger this would hold a promise of bringing peace and stability there; for a left-winger it would provide a spur into action to expose and publicize the Congolese disaster. From either point of view, the people of Congo would be now better off." Read the whole story!
Thats the attitude of our MSM: "the sleazy UN goings-on in Congo (or the Balkans for that matter) will not elicit the same sort of salivating fascination from our Western media as reports of military misdeeds in Iraq. The reason is simple: the perpetrators are not American, and the victims are African. The former is arguably more important a factor than the latter; if the Marines were raping Rwandan women we wouldn't be able to turn on the news without another live report from the dark heart of Africa.
As it is in Congo, the locals are being abused multilaterally with no oil wells in sight; so, no story. Pity the Congalese, because if anything, the plight of their country deserves far more attention than it's currently getting. Since 1998, some 3.3 million people have died (that's 33 times the unreal leftoid figure of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians) and 2.25 million have been displaced as a result of the conflict, a savage struggle over political influence and the prodigious bounty of mineral resources and precious stones. Foreign corporations are profiting out of the scramble, but there's no Halliburton in sight and far too many of the companies are European (only 8 out of 85 implicated in illegal exploitation of Congalese resources are American firms).
The media yawns and the world nods off. A combination of four widely-held beliefs will conspire to keep the fate of Congo and many other places from generating sufficient levels of international outrage: American misdeeds are the worst in the world; there are worse misdeeds in the world, but that's to be expected of others, so who cares? now back to American misdeeds; American misdeeds are the most offensive because America holds itself to the higher moral standard than others; American misdeeds deserves the most attention because by publicizing them within the Western world you actually have the greatest chance of affecting change (this is a sort of backhand, and often unintended, compliment to the strength of the American political system).
Whichever way you look at it, it would have been better for the Congalese had their country been invaded by the US: for a right-winger this would hold a promise of bringing peace and stability there; for a left-winger it would provide a spur into action to expose and publicize the Congolese disaster. From either point of view, the people of Congo would be now better off." Read the whole story!
2Slick's Forum: Thinking Outside the Box
2Slick's Forum: Thinking Outside the Box''
A suggestion for the first major decision of the new government: a new name for the country.
'Iraq' has a history basically from WWI, and the British mandate following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire - the last vestige of the Muslim Caliphate. The problem is (besides a name imposed by the British Empire) that the name does nothing to unify or appeal to the people who live their now. There is no overwhelming sense of Iraqi nationalism- no ethnic, religious, political or cultural unifying theme in Iraq.
I would suggest that the new government look to the rich history of the region - the birthplace of civilization, and appeal to the historical significance of the area within Iraq's borders. By going back before the birth of Islam, you bypass the Shia-Sunni strife, and going back far enough you can claim the first modern culture in the world. Call the new Nation Sumer or Babylon appeals to the pride, nationalism, and helps redefine an identity. That identity will be key in defeating the Sunni-Shia-Kurd-insurgent factions as they struggle to find a place in the new country. Calling it Babylon appeals to the people and helps them define themselves in a new way, outside of the horrible history of the last century - much in the same way Egypt or Syria claim a historic heritage to the ancient civilizations, the newly elected government should choose a new name that unifies the country, appeals to their rich history, and by passes the existing divisions with a goal of building a newer, stronger nation.
Anyway, just a thought. If I lived there, I'd want people to identify themselves as a Babylonian (or Sumerian, whatever - Babylon may have poor connotations to the Christian world) than a Sunni, or Shia, or Kurd - it's a way to build some unity, and capitalize on the promise of the elections. "
A suggestion for the first major decision of the new government: a new name for the country.
'Iraq' has a history basically from WWI, and the British mandate following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire - the last vestige of the Muslim Caliphate. The problem is (besides a name imposed by the British Empire) that the name does nothing to unify or appeal to the people who live their now. There is no overwhelming sense of Iraqi nationalism- no ethnic, religious, political or cultural unifying theme in Iraq.
I would suggest that the new government look to the rich history of the region - the birthplace of civilization, and appeal to the historical significance of the area within Iraq's borders. By going back before the birth of Islam, you bypass the Shia-Sunni strife, and going back far enough you can claim the first modern culture in the world. Call the new Nation Sumer or Babylon appeals to the pride, nationalism, and helps redefine an identity. That identity will be key in defeating the Sunni-Shia-Kurd-insurgent factions as they struggle to find a place in the new country. Calling it Babylon appeals to the people and helps them define themselves in a new way, outside of the horrible history of the last century - much in the same way Egypt or Syria claim a historic heritage to the ancient civilizations, the newly elected government should choose a new name that unifies the country, appeals to their rich history, and by passes the existing divisions with a goal of building a newer, stronger nation.
Anyway, just a thought. If I lived there, I'd want people to identify themselves as a Babylonian (or Sumerian, whatever - Babylon may have poor connotations to the Christian world) than a Sunni, or Shia, or Kurd - it's a way to build some unity, and capitalize on the promise of the elections. "
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Power Line: Rope-a-dope works, but the blogosphere is no dope
Power Line: Rope-a-dope works, but the blogosphere is no dope"Given its lack of desire to report the news objectively, only two things can motivate the MSM to report stories that are embarrassing to liberals. The first is the desire to spin the story and the second is the desire not to be embarrassed itself. Both motives kick in only after a story has gained a considerable amount of buzz, but it's clear that blogs can generate that buzz in certain cases."
Power Line: Moral Guidance From the U.N.
Power Line: Moral Guidance From the U.N."A basic assumption of American liberalism is that the United Nations occupies a higher moral plane than the United States. Thus, actions taken under the U.N.'s auspices are automatically vested with more moral authority than those taken unilaterally by the U.S. And liberals take seriously hectoring of the U.S. by lightweights like Kofi Annan."
Itzaz� Around Here--Great Thoughts!
Itzaz� Around Here!Monday, February 07, 2005
What IS a Job?
JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they
do for a living.
This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but
it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the
armed services do what they do for a living.
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never
served, think of the military.
Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn): "How can you run for
Senate when you've never held a real job?"
Senator Glenn (speaking) D-Ohio: "I served 23 years in the United States
Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane
was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space
program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It
was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash
receipts to the bank."
"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's
hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies - in the eye, and
tell THEM they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at
NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus
Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell
them that their DADS didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day
and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.
You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that
those people didn't have a job?
I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men - SOME MEN - who held REAL jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose - and a love of country and a dedication to duty - that was more
important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible. I HAVE held a job, Howard! What about you?"
For those who don't remember - During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an
attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he's a Senator!
Things that make you think a little........
But Wait, there's more......................
1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during January.... In
the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn
country of Iraq
2. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state
the following:
* FDR...led us into World War II.
* Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
* Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea. North Koreanever attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of18,334 per year.
* John F. Kennedy. .started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
a. c. d. e. Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000
lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
* Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multipleoccasions.
* In the years since terrorists attacked us President Bush hasliberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, andcaptured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It
took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch
Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the
police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chapaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Florida!!!!
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is
high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English
thank a Veteran.
What IS a Job?
JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they
do for a living.
This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but
it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the
armed services do what they do for a living.
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never
served, think of the military.
Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn): "How can you run for
Senate when you've never held a real job?"
Senator Glenn (speaking) D-Ohio: "I served 23 years in the United States
Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane
was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space
program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It
was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash
receipts to the bank."
"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's
hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies - in the eye, and
tell THEM they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at
NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus
Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell
them that their DADS didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day
and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.
You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that
those people didn't have a job?
I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men - SOME MEN - who held REAL jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose - and a love of country and a dedication to duty - that was more
important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible. I HAVE held a job, Howard! What about you?"
For those who don't remember - During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an
attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he's a Senator!
Things that make you think a little........
But Wait, there's more......................
1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during January.... In
the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn
country of Iraq
2. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state
the following:
* FDR...led us into World War II.
* Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
* Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea. North Koreanever attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of18,334 per year.
* John F. Kennedy. .started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
a. c. d. e. Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000
lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
* Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multipleoccasions.
* In the years since terrorists attacked us President Bush hasliberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, andcaptured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...It
took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch
Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the
police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chapaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Florida!!!!
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is
high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English
thank a Veteran.
Power Line: Remembering Mr. Lincoln
Power Line: Remembering Mr. Lincoln
Remembering Mr. Lincoln
Today is the anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth. I've been studying Lincoln's life and speeches in reverent awe for over thirty years. Five years ago Rocket Man and I picked up one thread in Lincoln's life that led to the most famous of the cases he tried as a practicing lawyer: "A genius for friendship." In that piece, we note that Lincoln was America's indispensable teacher of the moral ground of political freedom at the exact moment when the country was on the threshold of abandoning what he called its "ancient faith" that all men are created equal. Here is one example of how he did it -- one that we usually run on July 4 -- teaching the eternal meaning of Independence Day to Americans.
On July 9, 1858, Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas gave a campaign speech to a raucous throng from the balcony of the Tremont Hotel in Chicago. Abraham Lincoln was in the audience when Douglas prepared to speak and invited Lincoln to sit on the balcony. In his speech Douglas rang the themes of the momentous campaign that Lincoln and Douglas waged that summer and fall for Douglas's senate seat.
Douglas paid tribute to Lincoln as a "kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman, a good citizen and an honorable opponent," but expressed his disagreement with Lincoln's June 16 speech to the Illinois Republican convention that had named him its candidate for Douglas's seat. In that speech Lincoln had famously asserted that the nation could not exist "half slave and half free." According to Douglas, Lincoln's assertion was inconsistent with the "diversity" in domestic institutions that was "the great safeguard of our liberties." Then as now, "diversity" was a platitude hiding an evil institution that could not be defended on its own terms.
Douglas responded to Lincoln's condemnation of the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision -- a condemnation that was the centerpiece of Lincoln's convention speech. "I am free to say to you," Douglas said, "that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such manner as they should determine."
Lincoln invited Douglas's audience to return the next evening for his reply to Douglas's speech. Lincoln's speech of July 10, 1858, is one of his many great speeches, but in one respect it is uniquely great. It concludes with an explanation of the meaning of Independence day to Americans with matchless eloquence and insight in words that remain as relevant now as then.
lincoln.jpg
Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, sometime about the 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them.
We are now a mighty nation, we are thirty---or about thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country,---with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men,---we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves---we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men---descended by blood from our ancestors---among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe---German, Irish, French and Scandinavian---men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, [loud and long continued applause] and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.]
Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of "don't care if slavery is voted up or voted down" [Douglas's "popular sovereignty" position on the extension of slavery to the territories], for sustaining the Dred Scott decision [A voice---"Hit him again"], for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices---"me" "no one," &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of "no, no,"] let us stick to it then, [cheers] let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]
Posted by The Big Trunk at 07:31 AM
Remembering Mr. Lincoln
Today is the anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth. I've been studying Lincoln's life and speeches in reverent awe for over thirty years. Five years ago Rocket Man and I picked up one thread in Lincoln's life that led to the most famous of the cases he tried as a practicing lawyer: "A genius for friendship." In that piece, we note that Lincoln was America's indispensable teacher of the moral ground of political freedom at the exact moment when the country was on the threshold of abandoning what he called its "ancient faith" that all men are created equal. Here is one example of how he did it -- one that we usually run on July 4 -- teaching the eternal meaning of Independence Day to Americans.
On July 9, 1858, Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas gave a campaign speech to a raucous throng from the balcony of the Tremont Hotel in Chicago. Abraham Lincoln was in the audience when Douglas prepared to speak and invited Lincoln to sit on the balcony. In his speech Douglas rang the themes of the momentous campaign that Lincoln and Douglas waged that summer and fall for Douglas's senate seat.
Douglas paid tribute to Lincoln as a "kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman, a good citizen and an honorable opponent," but expressed his disagreement with Lincoln's June 16 speech to the Illinois Republican convention that had named him its candidate for Douglas's seat. In that speech Lincoln had famously asserted that the nation could not exist "half slave and half free." According to Douglas, Lincoln's assertion was inconsistent with the "diversity" in domestic institutions that was "the great safeguard of our liberties." Then as now, "diversity" was a platitude hiding an evil institution that could not be defended on its own terms.
Douglas responded to Lincoln's condemnation of the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision -- a condemnation that was the centerpiece of Lincoln's convention speech. "I am free to say to you," Douglas said, "that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such manner as they should determine."
Lincoln invited Douglas's audience to return the next evening for his reply to Douglas's speech. Lincoln's speech of July 10, 1858, is one of his many great speeches, but in one respect it is uniquely great. It concludes with an explanation of the meaning of Independence day to Americans with matchless eloquence and insight in words that remain as relevant now as then.
lincoln.jpg
Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, sometime about the 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them.
We are now a mighty nation, we are thirty---or about thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country,---with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men,---we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves---we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men---descended by blood from our ancestors---among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe---German, Irish, French and Scandinavian---men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, [loud and long continued applause] and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.]
Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of "don't care if slavery is voted up or voted down" [Douglas's "popular sovereignty" position on the extension of slavery to the territories], for sustaining the Dred Scott decision [A voice---"Hit him again"], for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices---"me" "no one," &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of "no, no,"] let us stick to it then, [cheers] let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]
Posted by The Big Trunk at 07:31 AM
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Yahoo! News - THE LITTLE INJUN THAT COULD
Yahoo! News - THE LITTLE INJUN THAT COULD
Ann Coulter exposes Churchill:
THE LITTLE INJUN THAT COULD
Wed Feb 9, 7:59 PM ET
Add to My Yahoo! Op/Ed - Ann Coulter
By Ann Coulter
If Ward Churchill loses his job teaching at the University of Colorado, he could end up giving Howard Dean (news - web sites) a real run for his money to head the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites).
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter
Churchill already has a phony lineage and phony war record -- just like John Kerry (news - web sites)! (Someone should also check out Churchill's claim that he spent Christmas 1968 at Wounded Knee.) In 1983, Churchill met with Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi and later felt it necessary to announce that his group, the American Indian Movement, "has not requested arms from the Libyan government." In 1997, he was one of the "witnesses" who spoke at a "Free Mumia" event in Philadelphia on behalf of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Come to think of it, Churchill could give Hillary a run for her money. All that's left for Churchill to do now is meet with Al Sharpton (news - web sites) and kiss Suha Arafat.
Churchill's claim that he is an Indian isn't an incidental boast, like John Kerry pretending to be Irish. It is central to his career, his writing, his political activism. Churchill has been the co-director of the American Indian Movement of Colorado, the vice chairperson of the American Indian "Anti-Defamation" Council, and an associate professor and coordinator of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado.
By Churchill's own account, a crucial factor in his political development was "being an American Indian referred to as 'chief' in a combat unit" in Vietnam, which made him sad. This is known to con men everywhere as a "two-fer."
In addition to an absence of evidence about his Indian heritage, there is an absence of evidence that he was in combat in Vietnam. After the POW Network revealed that Churchill had never seen combat, he countered with this powerful argument: "They can say whatever the hell they want. That's confidential information, and I've never ordered its release from the Department of Defense (news - web sites). End of story." Maybe we should ask John Kerry to help Churchill fill out a form 180.
In one of his books, "Struggle for the Land," Churchill advances the argument that one-third of America is the legal property of Indians. And if you believe Churchill is a real Indian, he also happens to be part owner of the Brooklyn Bridge.
In his most famous oeuvre, the famed 9/11 essay calling the 9/11 World Trade Center victims "little Eichmanns," he said "Arab terrorists" -- his quotes -- had simply "responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq (news - web sites)" by giving Americans "a tiny dose of their own medicine."
Having blurted out "Iraq" in connection with 9/11 in a moment of pique, Churchill had to backpedal when the anti-war movement needed to argue that Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Arab terrorism. He later attached an "Addendum" to the essay saying that the 9/11 attack was not only payback for Iraq, but also for various other of this country's depredations especially against "real Indians" (of which he is not one).
In light of the fact that Churchill's entire persona, political activism, curriculum vitae, writings and university positions are based on his claim that he's an Indian, it's rather churlish of him to complain when people ask if he really is one. But whenever he is questioned about his heritage, Churchill rails that inquiries into his ancestry are "absolutely indefensible."
Churchill has gone from claiming he is one-eighth Indian "on a good day" to claiming he is "three-sixteenths Cherokee," to claiming he is one-sixty-fourth Cherokee through a Revolutionary War era ancestor named Joshua Tyner. (At least he's not posing as a phony Indian math professor.) A recent investigation by The Denver Post revealed that Tyner's father was indeed married to a Cherokee. But that was only after Joshua's mother -- and Churchill's relative -- was scalped by Indians.
By now, all that's left of Churchill's claim to Indian ancestry is his assertion: "It is just something that was common knowledge in my family." (That, and his souvenir foam-rubber "tommyhawk" he bought at Turner Field in Atlanta.)
Over the years, there were other subtle clues the university might have noticed.
Churchill is not in the tribal registries kept since the 1800s by the federal government.
No tribe will enroll him -- a verification process Churchill dismisses as "poodle papers" for Indians.
In 1990, Churchill was forced to stop selling his art as "Indian art" under federal legislation sponsored by then-representative -- and actual Indian! -- Ben Nighthorse Campbell, that required Indian artists to establish that they are accepted members of a federally recognized tribe. Churchill responded by denouncing the Indian artist who had exposed him. (Hey, does anybody need 200 velvet paintings of Elvis playing poker with Crazy Horse?)
In the early '90s, he hoodwinked an impecunious Cherokee tribe into granting him an "associate membership" by telling them he "wrote some books and was a big-time author." A tribal spokeswoman explained: He "convinced us he could help our people." They never heard from him again -- yet another treaty with the Indians broken by the white man. Soon thereafter, the tribe stopped offering "associate memberships."
A decade ago, Churchill was written up in an article in News From Indian Country, titled, "Sovereignty and Its Spokesmen: The Making of an Indian." The article noted that Churchill had claimed membership in a scrolling series of Indian tribes, but over "the course of two years, NFIC hasn't been able to confirm a single living Indian relative, let alone one real relative that can vouch for his tribal descent claim."
When real Indians complained to Colorado University in 1994 that a fake Indian was running their Indian Studies program, a spokeswoman for the CU president said the university needed "to determine if the position was designated for a Native American. And I can't answer that right now." Apparently it was answered in Churchill's favor since he's still teaching.
If he's not an Indian, it's not clear what Churchill does have to offer a university. In his book, "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present," Churchill denounces Jews for presuming to imagine the Holocaust was unique. In the chapter titled "Lie for Lie: Linkages between Holocaust Deniers and Proponents of the Uniqueness of the Jewish Experience in World War II," Churchill calls the Third Reich merely "a crystallization" of Christopher Columbus' ravages of his people (if he were an Indian).
His research apparently consisted of watching the Disney movie "Pocahontas," which showed that the Indians meant the European settlers no harm. (That's if you don't count the frequent scalpings.)
Even the credulous Nation magazine -- always on red alert for tales of government oppression -- dismissed Churchill's 1988 book "Agents of Repression" about Cointelpro-type operations against the American Indian Movement, saying the book "does not give much new information" and "even a reader who is inclined to believe their allegations will want more evidence than they provide." If The Nation won't buy your anti-U.S. government conspiracy theories, Kemosabe, it's probably time to pack up the old teepee and hit the trail of tears.
In response to the repeated complaints from Indians that a phony Indian was running CU's Indian Studies program, Churchill imperiously responded: "Guess what that means, guys? I'm not taking anyone's job, there wouldn't be an Indian Studies program if I wasn't coordinating it. ... They won't give you a job just because you have the paper." This white man of English and Swiss-German descent apparently believes there are no actual Indians deserving of his position at CU. (No wonder the Indians aren't crazy about him.)
As long as we're all agreed that there are some people who don't deserve jobs at universities, why isn't Churchill one of them?
Ann Coulter exposes Churchill:
THE LITTLE INJUN THAT COULD
Wed Feb 9, 7:59 PM ET
Add to My Yahoo! Op/Ed - Ann Coulter
By Ann Coulter
If Ward Churchill loses his job teaching at the University of Colorado, he could end up giving Howard Dean (news - web sites) a real run for his money to head the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites).
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter
Churchill already has a phony lineage and phony war record -- just like John Kerry (news - web sites)! (Someone should also check out Churchill's claim that he spent Christmas 1968 at Wounded Knee.) In 1983, Churchill met with Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi and later felt it necessary to announce that his group, the American Indian Movement, "has not requested arms from the Libyan government." In 1997, he was one of the "witnesses" who spoke at a "Free Mumia" event in Philadelphia on behalf of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Come to think of it, Churchill could give Hillary a run for her money. All that's left for Churchill to do now is meet with Al Sharpton (news - web sites) and kiss Suha Arafat.
Churchill's claim that he is an Indian isn't an incidental boast, like John Kerry pretending to be Irish. It is central to his career, his writing, his political activism. Churchill has been the co-director of the American Indian Movement of Colorado, the vice chairperson of the American Indian "Anti-Defamation" Council, and an associate professor and coordinator of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado.
By Churchill's own account, a crucial factor in his political development was "being an American Indian referred to as 'chief' in a combat unit" in Vietnam, which made him sad. This is known to con men everywhere as a "two-fer."
In addition to an absence of evidence about his Indian heritage, there is an absence of evidence that he was in combat in Vietnam. After the POW Network revealed that Churchill had never seen combat, he countered with this powerful argument: "They can say whatever the hell they want. That's confidential information, and I've never ordered its release from the Department of Defense (news - web sites). End of story." Maybe we should ask John Kerry to help Churchill fill out a form 180.
In one of his books, "Struggle for the Land," Churchill advances the argument that one-third of America is the legal property of Indians. And if you believe Churchill is a real Indian, he also happens to be part owner of the Brooklyn Bridge.
In his most famous oeuvre, the famed 9/11 essay calling the 9/11 World Trade Center victims "little Eichmanns," he said "Arab terrorists" -- his quotes -- had simply "responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq (news - web sites)" by giving Americans "a tiny dose of their own medicine."
Having blurted out "Iraq" in connection with 9/11 in a moment of pique, Churchill had to backpedal when the anti-war movement needed to argue that Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Arab terrorism. He later attached an "Addendum" to the essay saying that the 9/11 attack was not only payback for Iraq, but also for various other of this country's depredations especially against "real Indians" (of which he is not one).
In light of the fact that Churchill's entire persona, political activism, curriculum vitae, writings and university positions are based on his claim that he's an Indian, it's rather churlish of him to complain when people ask if he really is one. But whenever he is questioned about his heritage, Churchill rails that inquiries into his ancestry are "absolutely indefensible."
Churchill has gone from claiming he is one-eighth Indian "on a good day" to claiming he is "three-sixteenths Cherokee," to claiming he is one-sixty-fourth Cherokee through a Revolutionary War era ancestor named Joshua Tyner. (At least he's not posing as a phony Indian math professor.) A recent investigation by The Denver Post revealed that Tyner's father was indeed married to a Cherokee. But that was only after Joshua's mother -- and Churchill's relative -- was scalped by Indians.
By now, all that's left of Churchill's claim to Indian ancestry is his assertion: "It is just something that was common knowledge in my family." (That, and his souvenir foam-rubber "tommyhawk" he bought at Turner Field in Atlanta.)
Over the years, there were other subtle clues the university might have noticed.
Churchill is not in the tribal registries kept since the 1800s by the federal government.
No tribe will enroll him -- a verification process Churchill dismisses as "poodle papers" for Indians.
In 1990, Churchill was forced to stop selling his art as "Indian art" under federal legislation sponsored by then-representative -- and actual Indian! -- Ben Nighthorse Campbell, that required Indian artists to establish that they are accepted members of a federally recognized tribe. Churchill responded by denouncing the Indian artist who had exposed him. (Hey, does anybody need 200 velvet paintings of Elvis playing poker with Crazy Horse?)
In the early '90s, he hoodwinked an impecunious Cherokee tribe into granting him an "associate membership" by telling them he "wrote some books and was a big-time author." A tribal spokeswoman explained: He "convinced us he could help our people." They never heard from him again -- yet another treaty with the Indians broken by the white man. Soon thereafter, the tribe stopped offering "associate memberships."
A decade ago, Churchill was written up in an article in News From Indian Country, titled, "Sovereignty and Its Spokesmen: The Making of an Indian." The article noted that Churchill had claimed membership in a scrolling series of Indian tribes, but over "the course of two years, NFIC hasn't been able to confirm a single living Indian relative, let alone one real relative that can vouch for his tribal descent claim."
When real Indians complained to Colorado University in 1994 that a fake Indian was running their Indian Studies program, a spokeswoman for the CU president said the university needed "to determine if the position was designated for a Native American. And I can't answer that right now." Apparently it was answered in Churchill's favor since he's still teaching.
If he's not an Indian, it's not clear what Churchill does have to offer a university. In his book, "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present," Churchill denounces Jews for presuming to imagine the Holocaust was unique. In the chapter titled "Lie for Lie: Linkages between Holocaust Deniers and Proponents of the Uniqueness of the Jewish Experience in World War II," Churchill calls the Third Reich merely "a crystallization" of Christopher Columbus' ravages of his people (if he were an Indian).
His research apparently consisted of watching the Disney movie "Pocahontas," which showed that the Indians meant the European settlers no harm. (That's if you don't count the frequent scalpings.)
Even the credulous Nation magazine -- always on red alert for tales of government oppression -- dismissed Churchill's 1988 book "Agents of Repression" about Cointelpro-type operations against the American Indian Movement, saying the book "does not give much new information" and "even a reader who is inclined to believe their allegations will want more evidence than they provide." If The Nation won't buy your anti-U.S. government conspiracy theories, Kemosabe, it's probably time to pack up the old teepee and hit the trail of tears.
In response to the repeated complaints from Indians that a phony Indian was running CU's Indian Studies program, Churchill imperiously responded: "Guess what that means, guys? I'm not taking anyone's job, there wouldn't be an Indian Studies program if I wasn't coordinating it. ... They won't give you a job just because you have the paper." This white man of English and Swiss-German descent apparently believes there are no actual Indians deserving of his position at CU. (No wonder the Indians aren't crazy about him.)
As long as we're all agreed that there are some people who don't deserve jobs at universities, why isn't Churchill one of them?
Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections = Venezuela USA Chrisis?
Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections = News and Trends
Analysis on the Venezuela-USA oil relationship
17-01-05 Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been ratcheting up the rhetoric over cutting off US markets from Venezuelan oil supplies during the past several weeks. On the surface the idea seems preposterous. Along with Mexico, Canada and Saudi Arabia, Venezuela has ranked among the top four US oil suppliers for decades and currently supplies approximately 11 % of US oil needs.
Located just across the Caribbean from the US Gulf Coast, it is ideally situated to supply the US market. Denying that in order to supply customers in Asia or Europe would cut deeply into Venezuela's profit margins.
However, Chavez's primary rationale is not economic, it is political. Opposition to the United States is an ideological fact for him, and he wants to reduce Venezuela's economic links to the superpower to his north -- even if it means a little less cash for his coffers.
Now, we do not take Chavez exactly at his word. We never expect him to stop all shipments to the United States, not out of love or kindness, but because the primary customer for Venezuelan crude in the United States is CITGO, a subsidiary of PdVSA, the state-owned Venezuelan oil company. Chavez might be many, many things, but he is not about to cut off supplies to one of his own companies -- or at least not before he sells it (although that is another issue we will get to in good time).
CITGO uses about 860,000 bpd to supply its refineries and approximately 700,000 bpd of that total comes from PdVSA. To fill domestic refinery needs, Venezuela keeps about another 1.3 mm bpd at home, of which some 900,000 bpd of product is shipped abroad with the remaining 400,000 bpd being used at home.
That leaves Venezuela with only about 600,000 bpd of additional crude exports to play with. In a global system where demand is at about 80 mm bpd, 600,000 bpd can be mopped up pretty quickly.
But Chavez has even selected where he wants his country's crude to go: China. Chinese representatives have been hop scotching all over Latin America during the past few months attempting to pen trade and investment deals. For China, energy security is an acute issue.
The Persian Gulf states enjoy a near monopoly on exports to Asia, resulting in a stiff premium on supplies. Venezuela's heavy crude might be of inferior quality to the lighter, sweeter streams that come from the Middle East, but it does not have to steam past regional rivals Australia, India, Singapore or Vietnam to reach Shanghai.
The lower cost of Venezuelan crude -- not to mention the lack of a premium -- should also offset the higher transport cost of getting it across the Pacific. Venezuela is already in advanced negotiations with Panama to trim some of that transport cost. Panama possesses a pipeline -- the Petroterminales de Panama -- that transports crude from its Pacific to its Atlantic coast.
Chavez wants to reverse the flow so Venezuelan crude can reach the Pacific basin. The process is rather simple and cheap -- and with oil prices where they are Venezuela can afford it. Should an agreement be struck, Venezuelan cargos could be steaming to Asia by August. At maximum capacity the Petroterminales de Panama can handle 800,000 bpd.
The one hitch in the plan is that Venezuelan crude is so thick that very few Chinese refineries can run it at all. Refitting sufficient capacity to use the stuff could take up to two years. Currently, China could handle no more than 100,000 bpd according to sources in the US Department of Energy.
But even here Venezuela has a bridge to make things work out. Singapore currently has spare capacity of about 300,000 bpd which is capable of handling the Venezuelan crude, and the US West Coast has plenty of refineries that would be willing to take a few cargos to supplant or supplement -- Middle Eastern deliveries even if only on a temporary basis.
When Venezuelan crude oil hits the Pacific, Chavez will have his pick of potential customers -- even if the Chinese are not among them at first. That leaves only the pesky issue of CITGO, a front on which no moss is gathering. On Jan. 13, Chavez restructured the PdVSA board of directors and installed Bernard Mommer, until now PdVSA's UK director, in the new line-up. Mommer favours PdVSA selling all of its international holdings.
Add that PdVSA President Rafael Ramirez's first assignment for the new board was to completely review all of PdVSA's contracts and agreements with foreign firms, and it appears ground is being laid for a rolling Venezuelan disengagement from the United States.
Source: Stratfor
Analysis on the Venezuela-USA oil relationship
17-01-05 Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been ratcheting up the rhetoric over cutting off US markets from Venezuelan oil supplies during the past several weeks. On the surface the idea seems preposterous. Along with Mexico, Canada and Saudi Arabia, Venezuela has ranked among the top four US oil suppliers for decades and currently supplies approximately 11 % of US oil needs.
Located just across the Caribbean from the US Gulf Coast, it is ideally situated to supply the US market. Denying that in order to supply customers in Asia or Europe would cut deeply into Venezuela's profit margins.
However, Chavez's primary rationale is not economic, it is political. Opposition to the United States is an ideological fact for him, and he wants to reduce Venezuela's economic links to the superpower to his north -- even if it means a little less cash for his coffers.
Now, we do not take Chavez exactly at his word. We never expect him to stop all shipments to the United States, not out of love or kindness, but because the primary customer for Venezuelan crude in the United States is CITGO, a subsidiary of PdVSA, the state-owned Venezuelan oil company. Chavez might be many, many things, but he is not about to cut off supplies to one of his own companies -- or at least not before he sells it (although that is another issue we will get to in good time).
CITGO uses about 860,000 bpd to supply its refineries and approximately 700,000 bpd of that total comes from PdVSA. To fill domestic refinery needs, Venezuela keeps about another 1.3 mm bpd at home, of which some 900,000 bpd of product is shipped abroad with the remaining 400,000 bpd being used at home.
That leaves Venezuela with only about 600,000 bpd of additional crude exports to play with. In a global system where demand is at about 80 mm bpd, 600,000 bpd can be mopped up pretty quickly.
But Chavez has even selected where he wants his country's crude to go: China. Chinese representatives have been hop scotching all over Latin America during the past few months attempting to pen trade and investment deals. For China, energy security is an acute issue.
The Persian Gulf states enjoy a near monopoly on exports to Asia, resulting in a stiff premium on supplies. Venezuela's heavy crude might be of inferior quality to the lighter, sweeter streams that come from the Middle East, but it does not have to steam past regional rivals Australia, India, Singapore or Vietnam to reach Shanghai.
The lower cost of Venezuelan crude -- not to mention the lack of a premium -- should also offset the higher transport cost of getting it across the Pacific. Venezuela is already in advanced negotiations with Panama to trim some of that transport cost. Panama possesses a pipeline -- the Petroterminales de Panama -- that transports crude from its Pacific to its Atlantic coast.
Chavez wants to reverse the flow so Venezuelan crude can reach the Pacific basin. The process is rather simple and cheap -- and with oil prices where they are Venezuela can afford it. Should an agreement be struck, Venezuelan cargos could be steaming to Asia by August. At maximum capacity the Petroterminales de Panama can handle 800,000 bpd.
The one hitch in the plan is that Venezuelan crude is so thick that very few Chinese refineries can run it at all. Refitting sufficient capacity to use the stuff could take up to two years. Currently, China could handle no more than 100,000 bpd according to sources in the US Department of Energy.
But even here Venezuela has a bridge to make things work out. Singapore currently has spare capacity of about 300,000 bpd which is capable of handling the Venezuelan crude, and the US West Coast has plenty of refineries that would be willing to take a few cargos to supplant or supplement -- Middle Eastern deliveries even if only on a temporary basis.
When Venezuelan crude oil hits the Pacific, Chavez will have his pick of potential customers -- even if the Chinese are not among them at first. That leaves only the pesky issue of CITGO, a front on which no moss is gathering. On Jan. 13, Chavez restructured the PdVSA board of directors and installed Bernard Mommer, until now PdVSA's UK director, in the new line-up. Mommer favours PdVSA selling all of its international holdings.
Add that PdVSA President Rafael Ramirez's first assignment for the new board was to completely review all of PdVSA's contracts and agreements with foreign firms, and it appears ground is being laid for a rolling Venezuelan disengagement from the United States.
Source: Stratfor
Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections = Changes in Venezuela
Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections = News and TrendsThere is a change in the way things are done in Venezuela
by Simon Romero and Brian Ellsworth
26-01-05 Venezuela may be increasing tension in energy markets with decisions that are confounding international oil companies, but the government there says it is merely seeking more income and new markets for its oil.
Peter Hill, CEO of Harvest Natural Resources of Houston, which gets all its oil from Venezuela, has one view of the policies unfolding there. Harvest's stock lost a quarter of its value after the Venezuelan national oil company unexpectedly told it to suspend exploration efforts.
ConocoPhillips's plan to develop a new oil field in Venezuela was put on hold about two weeks ago, and Rafael Ramirez, the Venezuelan energy minister, said that the government would review its 33 operating agreements with oil companies from the 1990s to see if they still made sense for Venezuela. Those delays come as officials have held talks with government-run oil companies from China, Russia and Iran.
"I'm a businessman, and I don't like to get involved in politics," Hill, whose company has operated in Venezuela for more than a decade, said. "But there's been a demonstrable change in the way things are done in Venezuela."
In Venezuela, the view is somewhat different. The government of President Hugo Chavez has said it would negotiate its disputes with Harvest and ConocoPhillips to reach agreement on production and spending. But analysts add that at a time of high crude oil prices and a shift in attention toward China, Venezuela is also trying to exert greater control over its resources and expand its range of buyers, as well as getting more lucrative deals.
Access to some of the most coveted oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere is at stake, with Venezuela exporting about 1.2 mm bpd of oil to the United States, or nearly 15 % of American imports. But the overtures to the Chinese, Russians and Iranians have added to worries among private oil companies that Venezuelan policies toward them are becoming increasingly unpredictable.
Concern is also rising over the possibility that Venezuela may eventually divert shipments from the United States, which receives more than half of the country's total production. The Venezuelans say they still consider the United States their principal market, adding that only new production would be moved to China.
All this concern has been acutely felt in Houston in recent days. Shares in Harvest, which produces about 30,000 bpd of oil in Venezuela, have plunged almost 30 % since it said that Petroleos de Venezuela, the government-controlled oil company, had told it to effectively cut its production by one-third.
"I'm not able to read the mind of the Venezuelan government," said Hill, who added that officials from the Venezuelan Energy Ministry had signalled they were open to negotiations on Harvest's activities in the country. He said he did not know why the government oil company "would want to restrict investment and production."
"The interface for communication with the government is becoming much cloudier to read," Hill added.
Investors are focusing on the Venezuelan operations of ConocoPhillips, one of the largest international energy companies operating there, after its $ 480 mm plan to develop an oil field off the eastern coast was put on hold amid feuding with Petroleos de Venezuela over the project's terms. ConocoPhillips gets about 7 % of its worldwide production from Venezuela. Ramirez was quoted as saying that the government was close to an agreement with the company.
Paul Sankey, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, wrote in a note to investors that "we are extremely concerned about what seems to be an escalating situation in Venezuela." He recommended reducing holdings of ConocoPhillips shares. Sankey said that American companies in Venezuela, including ConocoPhillips, Harvest and ChevronTexaco were the "main potential losers from the unpredictable situation."
Higher oil prices, which increased the flow of hard currency to Venezuela's treasury, appear to have emboldened the dealings of Chavez's leftist government with foreign energy companies, as the rise in oil revenue offset the effects of declining production.
Output fell to an estimated 2.7 mm bpd from nearly 3.5 mm bpd in the late 1990s, after strife in the state oil company resulted in a purge of employees, many of them virulently anti-Chavez. Venezuela's output is about 400,000 bpd short of its OPEC production quota of 3.11 mm bpd, according to the International Energy Agency.
But even as Venezuelan oil production has declined over all, foreign companies have contributed more of the output, accounting for roughly 1.2 mm bpd a result of the opening of the Venezuelan energy industry to greater foreign investment by previous governments in the 1990s. With oil prices and demand high, Chavez appears to be seizing the moment to get more favourable contracts from the oil companies and greater control of his oil resources.
"I tend to believe that these disputes have to do the government wanting a bigger share of the pie," said Roger Tissot, director for markets and countries at PFC Energy, a consulting group in Washington. He added that "in the past, they have been notoriously clumsy in asking for it."
But there is growing concern that oil production in Venezuela, which has the largest reserves in Latin America, could decline further if exploration ventures with international companies were suspended. That, in turn, could restrict global energy supplies and push prices even higher, producing an even larger windfall for Chavez's government.
"This type of strategy is fine as long as oil remains high," said Antonio Szabo, a former executive at Petroleos de Venezuela, who now runs an energy and software consulting company in Houston. "But if prices retreat, they'll have grave difficulty in fulfilling the promises that are now being made."
by Simon Romero and Brian Ellsworth
26-01-05 Venezuela may be increasing tension in energy markets with decisions that are confounding international oil companies, but the government there says it is merely seeking more income and new markets for its oil.
Peter Hill, CEO of Harvest Natural Resources of Houston, which gets all its oil from Venezuela, has one view of the policies unfolding there. Harvest's stock lost a quarter of its value after the Venezuelan national oil company unexpectedly told it to suspend exploration efforts.
ConocoPhillips's plan to develop a new oil field in Venezuela was put on hold about two weeks ago, and Rafael Ramirez, the Venezuelan energy minister, said that the government would review its 33 operating agreements with oil companies from the 1990s to see if they still made sense for Venezuela. Those delays come as officials have held talks with government-run oil companies from China, Russia and Iran.
"I'm a businessman, and I don't like to get involved in politics," Hill, whose company has operated in Venezuela for more than a decade, said. "But there's been a demonstrable change in the way things are done in Venezuela."
In Venezuela, the view is somewhat different. The government of President Hugo Chavez has said it would negotiate its disputes with Harvest and ConocoPhillips to reach agreement on production and spending. But analysts add that at a time of high crude oil prices and a shift in attention toward China, Venezuela is also trying to exert greater control over its resources and expand its range of buyers, as well as getting more lucrative deals.
Access to some of the most coveted oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere is at stake, with Venezuela exporting about 1.2 mm bpd of oil to the United States, or nearly 15 % of American imports. But the overtures to the Chinese, Russians and Iranians have added to worries among private oil companies that Venezuelan policies toward them are becoming increasingly unpredictable.
Concern is also rising over the possibility that Venezuela may eventually divert shipments from the United States, which receives more than half of the country's total production. The Venezuelans say they still consider the United States their principal market, adding that only new production would be moved to China.
All this concern has been acutely felt in Houston in recent days. Shares in Harvest, which produces about 30,000 bpd of oil in Venezuela, have plunged almost 30 % since it said that Petroleos de Venezuela, the government-controlled oil company, had told it to effectively cut its production by one-third.
"I'm not able to read the mind of the Venezuelan government," said Hill, who added that officials from the Venezuelan Energy Ministry had signalled they were open to negotiations on Harvest's activities in the country. He said he did not know why the government oil company "would want to restrict investment and production."
"The interface for communication with the government is becoming much cloudier to read," Hill added.
Investors are focusing on the Venezuelan operations of ConocoPhillips, one of the largest international energy companies operating there, after its $ 480 mm plan to develop an oil field off the eastern coast was put on hold amid feuding with Petroleos de Venezuela over the project's terms. ConocoPhillips gets about 7 % of its worldwide production from Venezuela. Ramirez was quoted as saying that the government was close to an agreement with the company.
Paul Sankey, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, wrote in a note to investors that "we are extremely concerned about what seems to be an escalating situation in Venezuela." He recommended reducing holdings of ConocoPhillips shares. Sankey said that American companies in Venezuela, including ConocoPhillips, Harvest and ChevronTexaco were the "main potential losers from the unpredictable situation."
Higher oil prices, which increased the flow of hard currency to Venezuela's treasury, appear to have emboldened the dealings of Chavez's leftist government with foreign energy companies, as the rise in oil revenue offset the effects of declining production.
Output fell to an estimated 2.7 mm bpd from nearly 3.5 mm bpd in the late 1990s, after strife in the state oil company resulted in a purge of employees, many of them virulently anti-Chavez. Venezuela's output is about 400,000 bpd short of its OPEC production quota of 3.11 mm bpd, according to the International Energy Agency.
But even as Venezuelan oil production has declined over all, foreign companies have contributed more of the output, accounting for roughly 1.2 mm bpd a result of the opening of the Venezuelan energy industry to greater foreign investment by previous governments in the 1990s. With oil prices and demand high, Chavez appears to be seizing the moment to get more favourable contracts from the oil companies and greater control of his oil resources.
"I tend to believe that these disputes have to do the government wanting a bigger share of the pie," said Roger Tissot, director for markets and countries at PFC Energy, a consulting group in Washington. He added that "in the past, they have been notoriously clumsy in asking for it."
But there is growing concern that oil production in Venezuela, which has the largest reserves in Latin America, could decline further if exploration ventures with international companies were suspended. That, in turn, could restrict global energy supplies and push prices even higher, producing an even larger windfall for Chavez's government.
"This type of strategy is fine as long as oil remains high," said Antonio Szabo, a former executive at Petroleos de Venezuela, who now runs an energy and software consulting company in Houston. "But if prices retreat, they'll have grave difficulty in fulfilling the promises that are now being made."
Weblog: No Justice for 'Murdered' Missionary Roni Bowers and Daughter - Christianity Today Magazine
Weblog: No Justice for 'Murdered' Missionary Roni Bowers and Daughter - Christianity Today Magazine
Justice Department calls off criminal investigation into 2001 Peru shooting
The New York Times reported Sunday that the U.S. government won't pursue action against Central Intelligence Agency officers regarding the April 2001 downing of a plane carrying American missionaries. Association of Baptists for World Evangelism missionary Veronica Bowers and her 7-month-old daughter, Charity, were killed as the Peruvian Air Force, guided and supervised by the CIA, shot the plane repeatedly. James Bowers and his son survived, and pilot Kevin Donaldson was injured
"The Justice Department's decision ended an inquiry that current and former government officials say was the most serious to focus on the official conduct of CIA officers since the Iran-contra affair in the late 1980's," Times reporters Douglas Jehl and David Johnston wrote. The article continues:
More broadly, the inquiry had been seen within the CIA as a message that employees could be held accountable for operations that go awry, at a time when officers at the agency are coming under scrutiny in other areas, like the interrogation and detention of terror suspects. …
The criminal investigation focused on whether the officials lied in closed-door testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee and to their CIA superiors about events surrounding the shooting down of the missionaries' plane, a Justice Department official said.
Roni Bowers's parents say there's a bigger problem than lying here. "They came up behind and shot her in the back with no warning," John Luttig told the Associated Press. "To me, that's murder."
Gloria Luttig says the government "hushed up" the investigation. "I'd like to know what's at the bottom of this and why it happened," she said. "From what I understand, the Americans didn't understand the Peruvians, the Peruvians couldn't understand the Americans. Well, how come? Why?"
The Luttigs are calling their congressional representative to ask that investigations continue.
Weblog really wishes that the video of the shootdown was still online, since it puts the lie to the U.S. government's repeated claims that language differences weren't the problem. Six-year-old Sesame Street watchers demonstrate better knowledge of Spanish than the Americans: "No b-r-r-r-r-r" is not a proper translation of "Do not shoot the plane." Missionary pilot Donaldson, on the other land, spoke in perfect Spanish when he screamed into the radio, "They're killing us!"
But perhaps the most damning statement the CIA team made wasn't in Spanish, and wasn't directed at the Peruvian Air Force plane—it was in plain English, one crew member to another. "I think we're making a mistake but … "
Not "they're making a mistake." We, the American CIA guys paid to go down to Peru to spot drug planes, are making a mistake. "But … " But we're going to approve this shooting, even though the procedures for identifying drug planes and safeguards against shooting innocent people haven't been followed. It came down to this: "Are you sure it's a bandito?" one of the Americans asked the Peruvians. "Okay, if you're sure."
Seconds later, Roni and Charity Bowers were dead, and Donaldson was shot in the leg, desperately trying to save his other two passengers as his plane fell out of the sky. (If anyone knows were the video can be found online, please contact Weblog.)
So what happened to the CIA workers? One might think that killing innocent Americans — missionaries, for crying out loud — might tarnish one's record. The New York Times reports that "the CIA officers who were the subjects of the investigation … [are] now serving at a senior level within the CIA. … Those who faced potential charges included at least one former CIA station chief in Lima, Peru's capital, at least one former chief of the aviation mission assigned to a base in Peru, and at least one official who had been based at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va."
Senior CIA officials have been pushing the Justice Department for years to halt the investigation. "A criminal investigation is something that breeds a risk-averse culture at CIA," an unnamed Bush administration official explained to The New York Times.
Interesting. Seems like the CIA could use a little risk aversion. And having CIA workers break the law and approve the killing of overseas missionaries for no good reason—and then get promoted instead of disciplined or prosecuted—just might breed an unhealthy culture in the U.S., don't you think?
Justice Department calls off criminal investigation into 2001 Peru shooting
The New York Times reported Sunday that the U.S. government won't pursue action against Central Intelligence Agency officers regarding the April 2001 downing of a plane carrying American missionaries. Association of Baptists for World Evangelism missionary Veronica Bowers and her 7-month-old daughter, Charity, were killed as the Peruvian Air Force, guided and supervised by the CIA, shot the plane repeatedly. James Bowers and his son survived, and pilot Kevin Donaldson was injured
"The Justice Department's decision ended an inquiry that current and former government officials say was the most serious to focus on the official conduct of CIA officers since the Iran-contra affair in the late 1980's," Times reporters Douglas Jehl and David Johnston wrote. The article continues:
More broadly, the inquiry had been seen within the CIA as a message that employees could be held accountable for operations that go awry, at a time when officers at the agency are coming under scrutiny in other areas, like the interrogation and detention of terror suspects. …
The criminal investigation focused on whether the officials lied in closed-door testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee and to their CIA superiors about events surrounding the shooting down of the missionaries' plane, a Justice Department official said.
Roni Bowers's parents say there's a bigger problem than lying here. "They came up behind and shot her in the back with no warning," John Luttig told the Associated Press. "To me, that's murder."
Gloria Luttig says the government "hushed up" the investigation. "I'd like to know what's at the bottom of this and why it happened," she said. "From what I understand, the Americans didn't understand the Peruvians, the Peruvians couldn't understand the Americans. Well, how come? Why?"
The Luttigs are calling their congressional representative to ask that investigations continue.
Weblog really wishes that the video of the shootdown was still online, since it puts the lie to the U.S. government's repeated claims that language differences weren't the problem. Six-year-old Sesame Street watchers demonstrate better knowledge of Spanish than the Americans: "No b-r-r-r-r-r" is not a proper translation of "Do not shoot the plane." Missionary pilot Donaldson, on the other land, spoke in perfect Spanish when he screamed into the radio, "They're killing us!"
But perhaps the most damning statement the CIA team made wasn't in Spanish, and wasn't directed at the Peruvian Air Force plane—it was in plain English, one crew member to another. "I think we're making a mistake but … "
Not "they're making a mistake." We, the American CIA guys paid to go down to Peru to spot drug planes, are making a mistake. "But … " But we're going to approve this shooting, even though the procedures for identifying drug planes and safeguards against shooting innocent people haven't been followed. It came down to this: "Are you sure it's a bandito?" one of the Americans asked the Peruvians. "Okay, if you're sure."
Seconds later, Roni and Charity Bowers were dead, and Donaldson was shot in the leg, desperately trying to save his other two passengers as his plane fell out of the sky. (If anyone knows were the video can be found online, please contact Weblog.)
So what happened to the CIA workers? One might think that killing innocent Americans — missionaries, for crying out loud — might tarnish one's record. The New York Times reports that "the CIA officers who were the subjects of the investigation … [are] now serving at a senior level within the CIA. … Those who faced potential charges included at least one former CIA station chief in Lima, Peru's capital, at least one former chief of the aviation mission assigned to a base in Peru, and at least one official who had been based at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va."
Senior CIA officials have been pushing the Justice Department for years to halt the investigation. "A criminal investigation is something that breeds a risk-averse culture at CIA," an unnamed Bush administration official explained to The New York Times.
Interesting. Seems like the CIA could use a little risk aversion. And having CIA workers break the law and approve the killing of overseas missionaries for no good reason—and then get promoted instead of disciplined or prosecuted—just might breed an unhealthy culture in the U.S., don't you think?
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Les Jones: Democrats Were for Social Security Reform Before They Were Against It
Les Jones: Democrats Were for Social Security Reform Before They Were Against ItDemocrats Were for Social Security Reform Before They Were Against It
So the Democrats are opposing Bush's proposed partial privatization of Social Security as part of an effort to save it in the long run. That's fine, but if it's such a bad idea then why did so many Democrats previously support some variation of privatization or investment in the private sector?
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Press Release: “Durbin Said Due To The Increasing Number Of ‘Baby Boomers’ Reaching Retirement Age, Social Security Will Be Unable To Pay Out Full Benefits … But The Sooner Congress Acts To Avert This Crisis The Easier And Less Painful It Will Be.” (Sen. Dick Durbin, “Reforming Social Security,” Press Release, 9/15/98)
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “Fixing Social Security Is An Urgent Priority. It Ought To Be At The Top Of Both Parties’ Agendas.” (Sen. Byron Dorgan, “Fixing Social Security Must Top Both Parties’ Agendas,” Roll Call, 12/6/99)
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “The Potential [Social Security] Crisis Should Be Viewed As An Enormous Success, Because It Means That We Are Living Longer And Healthier Lives.” (Betty Mills, Op-Ed, “What Would You Do About Social Security?” Bismarck Tribune, 8/5/98)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND): “I Was At The Social Security Summit At The White House, Along With 40 Of My Colleagues, Republicans And Democrats. And There Was Virtual Unanimity Of Opinion That We Simply Have To Get A Higher Return From The Social Security Investments.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 1/20/99)
House Members: Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI): “People Can See, I Think, A [Social Security] Crisis Where There Immediate Family Is Affected Even If Not Immediately … This Is Something That Affects Almost Everybody’s Immediate Family.” (Richard A. Ryan, “Social Security Reform Stalls,” The Detroit News, 2/2/02)
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): “I Am One Democrat That Truly Believes That Democrats Will Not Benefit By Doing Nothing On Social Security.” (Rep. Charles Rangel, Press Conference, 1/21/99)
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA): “I Am An Advocate For Investing A Portion Of The Surplus In The Private Sector …” (Rep. Edward J. Markey, Committee On Commerce, U.S. House Of Representatives, Testimony, 2/25/99)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): “[I]t’s A Way Of Getting More Money – A Higher Return On The Trust Fund, And Is A Prudent And Good Thing To Do.” (Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Press Conference, 1/21/99)
Former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO): “Why Should Social Security Recipients Be Disadvantaged By Not Getting To Be Able To Have Higher Returns Out Of The Stock Market?” (Rep. Dick Gephardt, Press Conference, 1/21/99)
Clinton: President Clinton: “[Investing] Will Earn A Higher Return And Keep Social Security Sound For 55 Years.” (President Bill Clinton, State Of The Union, 1/19/99)
President Clinton: “[W]hat I Believe We Should Do Is To Invest A Modest Amount Of This In The Private Sector, The Way Every Other Retirement Plan Does. The Arizona State Retirement Plan Does; Every Municipal Retirement Plan Does; Every Private Plan Does.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To The Citizens Of Tucson On Medicare And Social Security, Tucson, AZ, 2/25/99)
President Clinton: “[E]ven After You Take Account Of The Stock Market Going Down And Maybe Staying Down For A Few Years, Shouldn’t We Consider Investing Some Of This Money, Because, Otherwise, We’ll Have To Either Cut Benefits Or Raise Taxes To Cover Them, If We Can’t Raise The Rate Of Return.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks Via Satellite To The Regional Congressional Social Security Forums, Albuquerque, NM, 7/27/98)
Bill Clinton in 2002:
When I left office, there was enough money to keep Social Security going till 2053, enough money to keep Medicare going tail 2027, through half the life of the baby boomers. I don't know what the latest numbers are going to show but they won't be good. If we don't modify the tax cut to have more tax cuts now but we reinstate fiscal responsibility over the long run, we're going to be in real trouble there. So, what's our option? If you don't like privatizing Social Security and I don't like it very much, but you want to do something to try to increase the rate of return, what are your options? Well one thing you could do is to give people one or two percent of the payroll tax, with the same options that Federal employees have with their retirement accounts; where you have three mutual funds that almost always perform as well or better than the market and a fourth option to buy government bonds, so you get the guaranteed social security return and a hundred percent safety just like you have with Social Security.
FDR in 1935 via James Taranto:
In an address to Congress on January 17, 1935, President Roosevelt foresaw the need to move beyond the pay-as-you-go financing of the current Social Security system. "For perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions," the president allowed. But after that, he explained, it would be necessary to move to what he called "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." In other words, his call for the establishment of Social Security directly anticipated today's reform agenda: "It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans," FDR explained.
"What Roosevelt was talking about is the need to update Social Security sometime around 1965 with what today we would call personal accounts," says one top GOP member of the Ways and Means Committee. "By my reckoning we are only about 40 years late in addressing his concerns on how [to] make Social Security solvent."
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) in 1999:
Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector.
Posted by lesjones | TrackBack
So the Democrats are opposing Bush's proposed partial privatization of Social Security as part of an effort to save it in the long run. That's fine, but if it's such a bad idea then why did so many Democrats previously support some variation of privatization or investment in the private sector?
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Press Release: “Durbin Said Due To The Increasing Number Of ‘Baby Boomers’ Reaching Retirement Age, Social Security Will Be Unable To Pay Out Full Benefits … But The Sooner Congress Acts To Avert This Crisis The Easier And Less Painful It Will Be.” (Sen. Dick Durbin, “Reforming Social Security,” Press Release, 9/15/98)
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “Fixing Social Security Is An Urgent Priority. It Ought To Be At The Top Of Both Parties’ Agendas.” (Sen. Byron Dorgan, “Fixing Social Security Must Top Both Parties’ Agendas,” Roll Call, 12/6/99)
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “The Potential [Social Security] Crisis Should Be Viewed As An Enormous Success, Because It Means That We Are Living Longer And Healthier Lives.” (Betty Mills, Op-Ed, “What Would You Do About Social Security?” Bismarck Tribune, 8/5/98)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND): “I Was At The Social Security Summit At The White House, Along With 40 Of My Colleagues, Republicans And Democrats. And There Was Virtual Unanimity Of Opinion That We Simply Have To Get A Higher Return From The Social Security Investments.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 1/20/99)
House Members: Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI): “People Can See, I Think, A [Social Security] Crisis Where There Immediate Family Is Affected Even If Not Immediately … This Is Something That Affects Almost Everybody’s Immediate Family.” (Richard A. Ryan, “Social Security Reform Stalls,” The Detroit News, 2/2/02)
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): “I Am One Democrat That Truly Believes That Democrats Will Not Benefit By Doing Nothing On Social Security.” (Rep. Charles Rangel, Press Conference, 1/21/99)
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA): “I Am An Advocate For Investing A Portion Of The Surplus In The Private Sector …” (Rep. Edward J. Markey, Committee On Commerce, U.S. House Of Representatives, Testimony, 2/25/99)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): “[I]t’s A Way Of Getting More Money – A Higher Return On The Trust Fund, And Is A Prudent And Good Thing To Do.” (Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Press Conference, 1/21/99)
Former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO): “Why Should Social Security Recipients Be Disadvantaged By Not Getting To Be Able To Have Higher Returns Out Of The Stock Market?” (Rep. Dick Gephardt, Press Conference, 1/21/99)
Clinton: President Clinton: “[Investing] Will Earn A Higher Return And Keep Social Security Sound For 55 Years.” (President Bill Clinton, State Of The Union, 1/19/99)
President Clinton: “[W]hat I Believe We Should Do Is To Invest A Modest Amount Of This In The Private Sector, The Way Every Other Retirement Plan Does. The Arizona State Retirement Plan Does; Every Municipal Retirement Plan Does; Every Private Plan Does.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To The Citizens Of Tucson On Medicare And Social Security, Tucson, AZ, 2/25/99)
President Clinton: “[E]ven After You Take Account Of The Stock Market Going Down And Maybe Staying Down For A Few Years, Shouldn’t We Consider Investing Some Of This Money, Because, Otherwise, We’ll Have To Either Cut Benefits Or Raise Taxes To Cover Them, If We Can’t Raise The Rate Of Return.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks Via Satellite To The Regional Congressional Social Security Forums, Albuquerque, NM, 7/27/98)
Bill Clinton in 2002:
When I left office, there was enough money to keep Social Security going till 2053, enough money to keep Medicare going tail 2027, through half the life of the baby boomers. I don't know what the latest numbers are going to show but they won't be good. If we don't modify the tax cut to have more tax cuts now but we reinstate fiscal responsibility over the long run, we're going to be in real trouble there. So, what's our option? If you don't like privatizing Social Security and I don't like it very much, but you want to do something to try to increase the rate of return, what are your options? Well one thing you could do is to give people one or two percent of the payroll tax, with the same options that Federal employees have with their retirement accounts; where you have three mutual funds that almost always perform as well or better than the market and a fourth option to buy government bonds, so you get the guaranteed social security return and a hundred percent safety just like you have with Social Security.
FDR in 1935 via James Taranto:
In an address to Congress on January 17, 1935, President Roosevelt foresaw the need to move beyond the pay-as-you-go financing of the current Social Security system. "For perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions," the president allowed. But after that, he explained, it would be necessary to move to what he called "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." In other words, his call for the establishment of Social Security directly anticipated today's reform agenda: "It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans," FDR explained.
"What Roosevelt was talking about is the need to update Social Security sometime around 1965 with what today we would call personal accounts," says one top GOP member of the Ways and Means Committee. "By my reckoning we are only about 40 years late in addressing his concerns on how [to] make Social Security solvent."
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) in 1999:
Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector.
Posted by lesjones | TrackBack
A Western Heart
A Western HeartWednesday, February 09, 2005
Why we went to Iraq
by Dan
[ Permalink ]
Comment (0) || Trackback (0)
It wasn't about oil. It wasn't about Halliburton contracts. It wasn't to bring democracy, US style to the Middle East. It was to ensure that the Ba'ath Party of Iraq understood it's obligations as part of the international community. Obligations it had ignored since getting it's ass kicked six ways from Sunday in 1991. Remember the final months leading up to this Gulf War? No? Remember the Blix report?
Let's look at the head of UNMOVIC, Dr Hans Blixs' comments when he presented information to the UN Security Council on Monday, 23rd January 2003. Specifically, I would like to highlight the points raised by Blix was the main reason a coalition of countries moved into Iraq to guarantee compliance and ensure that the WMD inspection process was completed, without influence or prevarication by the Iraqi authorities.
"I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons. The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.
Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
I would now like to turn to the so-called air force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi air force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her by Iraq minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I'm encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at the storage depot, 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.
Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate.
During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and has set up a committee of investigation. Since then, it has reported that it has found four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Haji. I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of ... a mustard [gas] precursor.
While addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter which I reported on 19th of December last year concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at al-Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.
I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.
As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December 2002 declaration Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.
In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.
I turn, Mr. President, now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program or data on the consumption of the missiles.
There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years, presented by Iraq in the declaration as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.
Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named Al-Samud II and a solid propellant missile called Al-Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to arrange in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers, with the Al-Samud II being tested to a maximum of 183 kilometers and the Al-Fatah to 161 kilometers. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi armed forces, even though it is stated that they're still undergoing development.
The Al-Samud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.
During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum of 150 kilometers. These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 kilometers are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the meantime, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.
In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. They had been used in the production of solid fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers.
Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import which has been taking place during the last two years of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost among these is import of 300 rockets engines which may be used for the Al-Samud II.
Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes; that is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq; that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions."
Need some more (rocket) fuel for thought?
"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side which claims that research staff sometimes may bring papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."
So let's have a quick summary of Iraq's efforts to clear their good name, and lift UN sanctions against them.
1. Information from Iraq relating to large quantities of the nerve agent VX,which may or may not have been weaponised was inaccurate, with the inspection agency believing that one of the deadliest toxins known to man, was being prepared for a method of delivery as part of a military weapon. Precursor chemicals used to create the toxin have yet to be accounted for.
2. Some 6500 chemical weapons remain unaccounted for from the war between Iran and Iraq in the 80's. These weapons are believed to hold up to 1000 tonnes of toxic chemical warheads.
3. Chemical processing equipment previously destroyed by UNSCOM was repaired and replaced to restart a chemical refining process. Under contravention of previous UN Resolutions.
4. No evidence to the destruction or location of some 8500 litres of anthrax, a highly toxic biological warfare agent. But hey, they said it was destroyed, so that should be good enough, right? Not to mention strong evidence indicating a far higher amount of material produced than they declared. It's not like the Iraqi government to LIE about anything.
5. Didn't declare some 650 kilos of bacterial growth medium. The culture required to grow anthrax spores. Oops, forgot. By the way, this makes about 5000 litres of concentrated anthrax.
6. A missile programme designed to produce missiles with ranges in excess of that allowed under UN Resolution, with propellant, guidance system and rocket motor research continuing to vastly extend the range of these missiles. Once again, what were they thinking? Oh, that's right, the UN were watching. No probs then, full steam ahead. Increased missile diameters, with larger payload capabilities and longer ranges. The importation of 300 rocket motors for the Al-Samud rocket. All illegal.
7. The finding of a large amount of material relating to the enrichment of uranium at a scientist's private home. Because that's where I'd keep my nuclear secrets. In the lounge or on the kitchen table.
So, of course, after 12 years, we should have kept the inspections going. Apparently. That's right, IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE OIL! Morons.
Why we went to Iraq
by Dan
[ Permalink ]
Comment (0) || Trackback (0)
It wasn't about oil. It wasn't about Halliburton contracts. It wasn't to bring democracy, US style to the Middle East. It was to ensure that the Ba'ath Party of Iraq understood it's obligations as part of the international community. Obligations it had ignored since getting it's ass kicked six ways from Sunday in 1991. Remember the final months leading up to this Gulf War? No? Remember the Blix report?
Let's look at the head of UNMOVIC, Dr Hans Blixs' comments when he presented information to the UN Security Council on Monday, 23rd January 2003. Specifically, I would like to highlight the points raised by Blix was the main reason a coalition of countries moved into Iraq to guarantee compliance and ensure that the WMD inspection process was completed, without influence or prevarication by the Iraqi authorities.
"I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons. The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.
Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
I would now like to turn to the so-called air force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi air force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her by Iraq minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I'm encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at the storage depot, 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.
Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate.
During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and has set up a committee of investigation. Since then, it has reported that it has found four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Haji. I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of ... a mustard [gas] precursor.
While addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter which I reported on 19th of December last year concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at al-Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.
I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.
As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December 2002 declaration Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.
In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.
I turn, Mr. President, now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program or data on the consumption of the missiles.
There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years, presented by Iraq in the declaration as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.
Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named Al-Samud II and a solid propellant missile called Al-Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to arrange in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers, with the Al-Samud II being tested to a maximum of 183 kilometers and the Al-Fatah to 161 kilometers. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi armed forces, even though it is stated that they're still undergoing development.
The Al-Samud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.
During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum of 150 kilometers. These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 kilometers are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the meantime, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.
In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. They had been used in the production of solid fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers.
Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import which has been taking place during the last two years of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost among these is import of 300 rockets engines which may be used for the Al-Samud II.
Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes; that is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq; that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions."
Need some more (rocket) fuel for thought?
"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side which claims that research staff sometimes may bring papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."
So let's have a quick summary of Iraq's efforts to clear their good name, and lift UN sanctions against them.
1. Information from Iraq relating to large quantities of the nerve agent VX,which may or may not have been weaponised was inaccurate, with the inspection agency believing that one of the deadliest toxins known to man, was being prepared for a method of delivery as part of a military weapon. Precursor chemicals used to create the toxin have yet to be accounted for.
2. Some 6500 chemical weapons remain unaccounted for from the war between Iran and Iraq in the 80's. These weapons are believed to hold up to 1000 tonnes of toxic chemical warheads.
3. Chemical processing equipment previously destroyed by UNSCOM was repaired and replaced to restart a chemical refining process. Under contravention of previous UN Resolutions.
4. No evidence to the destruction or location of some 8500 litres of anthrax, a highly toxic biological warfare agent. But hey, they said it was destroyed, so that should be good enough, right? Not to mention strong evidence indicating a far higher amount of material produced than they declared. It's not like the Iraqi government to LIE about anything.
5. Didn't declare some 650 kilos of bacterial growth medium. The culture required to grow anthrax spores. Oops, forgot. By the way, this makes about 5000 litres of concentrated anthrax.
6. A missile programme designed to produce missiles with ranges in excess of that allowed under UN Resolution, with propellant, guidance system and rocket motor research continuing to vastly extend the range of these missiles. Once again, what were they thinking? Oh, that's right, the UN were watching. No probs then, full steam ahead. Increased missile diameters, with larger payload capabilities and longer ranges. The importation of 300 rocket motors for the Al-Samud rocket. All illegal.
7. The finding of a large amount of material relating to the enrichment of uranium at a scientist's private home. Because that's where I'd keep my nuclear secrets. In the lounge or on the kitchen table.
So, of course, after 12 years, we should have kept the inspections going. Apparently. That's right, IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE OIL! Morons.
Power Line: A Race Against Time-Well Put
Power Line: A Race Against TimeSteyn's latest struck me forcibly:
I prefer to speak of "liberty" or, as Bush says, "freedom", or, as neither of us is quite bold enough to put it, capitalism - free market, property rights, law of contract, etc. That's why Hong Kong is freer than Liberia, if less "democratic". If I had six or seven centuries to work on things, I wouldn't do it this way in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the "war on terror" is more accurately a race against time - to unwreck the Middle East before its toxins wreck South Asia, West Africa, and eventually Europe. The doom-mongers can mock Bush all they want. But they're spending so much time doing so, they've left themselves woefully uninformed on some of the fascinating subtleties of Iraqi and Afghan politics that his Administration turns out to have been rather canny about.
I prefer to speak of "liberty" or, as Bush says, "freedom", or, as neither of us is quite bold enough to put it, capitalism - free market, property rights, law of contract, etc. That's why Hong Kong is freer than Liberia, if less "democratic". If I had six or seven centuries to work on things, I wouldn't do it this way in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the "war on terror" is more accurately a race against time - to unwreck the Middle East before its toxins wreck South Asia, West Africa, and eventually Europe. The doom-mongers can mock Bush all they want. But they're spending so much time doing so, they've left themselves woefully uninformed on some of the fascinating subtleties of Iraqi and Afghan politics that his Administration turns out to have been rather canny about.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Power Line Givs statistics on Bushs' Popularity
Power Line: "Bush has already transformed the American electorate. On Election Day, John Kerry won 16 percent more votes than Al Gore did in 2000. George W. Bush won 23 percent more votes than he had in 2000. This is comparable to Franklin Roosevelt's 22 percent gain in popular votes between 1932 and 1936. FDR created a New Deal majority that hadn't existed before. Bush may have done something similar for his party.
Bush carried 31 states that elect 62 of the 100 senators. He carried approximately 250 congressional districts, to about 185 for Kerry (the final counts aren't in). Bill Clinton was re-elected with 49 percent of the vote in times of apparent peace and apparent prosperity -- the most favorable posture in which to run. George W. Bush was re-elected with 51 percent of the vote in times not of apparent peace and apparent prosperity. Clinton's 49 percent in retrospect looks like a ceiling for his party. Bush's 51 percent may be more in the nature of a floor."
Bush carried 31 states that elect 62 of the 100 senators. He carried approximately 250 congressional districts, to about 185 for Kerry (the final counts aren't in). Bill Clinton was re-elected with 49 percent of the vote in times of apparent peace and apparent prosperity -- the most favorable posture in which to run. George W. Bush was re-elected with 51 percent of the vote in times not of apparent peace and apparent prosperity. Clinton's 49 percent in retrospect looks like a ceiling for his party. Bush's 51 percent may be more in the nature of a floor."
Monday, February 07, 2005
Power Line: The Democrats as they really are
Power Line: The Democrats as they really areThe Democrats as they really are
Please don't miss this brilliant column by Noemie Emery in the Weekly Standard on the Democrats' week from hell. Focusing on the behavior of Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy (in a section I found priceless), Evan Bayh, and John Kerry, Emery finds all of the answers to the question Democrats have been asking since November -- why wonderful people such as they keep on losing. Here's what it comes down to:
With a few brave exceptions (a faction of one named Joe Lieberman), the Democrats split into two major camps: the wingnuts--Dean, Boxer, and Kennedy--who know what they think, which alas sets them at odds with the rest of the country; and the caucus of cowards--Bayh, Edwards, and Kerry--who believe in nothing so much as their own career prospects, and change their minds on the gravest of war and peace issues on the basis of what serves their ends. . . .
Republicans want to win wars and spread freedom; Democrats want to save their rear ends. Bush thinks freedom is better than terror and tyranny; Democrats think they themselves are better than Bush. In 2004, Bush made it clear he was willing to lose on the basis of his convictions--and won in spite or more likely because of this. Democrats had no convictions beyond the end goal of winning, and therefore quite properly lost. No party deserved to lose more than the Democrats did in these past two elections, and unless they make changes, they stand to lose many more.
At one level, it seems counter-intuitive that the Democrats would behave so badly so soon after again being chastised by the electorate and at a time when they allegedly are engaged in soul-searching. At another level, it isn't surprising at all. The Democrats don't have to face the voters again for two years, so they no longer feel the need to repress their ugliest sentiments, which defeat has made them feel all the more passionately.
Please don't miss this brilliant column by Noemie Emery in the Weekly Standard on the Democrats' week from hell. Focusing on the behavior of Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy (in a section I found priceless), Evan Bayh, and John Kerry, Emery finds all of the answers to the question Democrats have been asking since November -- why wonderful people such as they keep on losing. Here's what it comes down to:
With a few brave exceptions (a faction of one named Joe Lieberman), the Democrats split into two major camps: the wingnuts--Dean, Boxer, and Kennedy--who know what they think, which alas sets them at odds with the rest of the country; and the caucus of cowards--Bayh, Edwards, and Kerry--who believe in nothing so much as their own career prospects, and change their minds on the gravest of war and peace issues on the basis of what serves their ends. . . .
Republicans want to win wars and spread freedom; Democrats want to save their rear ends. Bush thinks freedom is better than terror and tyranny; Democrats think they themselves are better than Bush. In 2004, Bush made it clear he was willing to lose on the basis of his convictions--and won in spite or more likely because of this. Democrats had no convictions beyond the end goal of winning, and therefore quite properly lost. No party deserved to lose more than the Democrats did in these past two elections, and unless they make changes, they stand to lose many more.
At one level, it seems counter-intuitive that the Democrats would behave so badly so soon after again being chastised by the electorate and at a time when they allegedly are engaged in soul-searching. At another level, it isn't surprising at all. The Democrats don't have to face the voters again for two years, so they no longer feel the need to repress their ugliest sentiments, which defeat has made them feel all the more passionately.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Andrew Olmsted dot com: One Small Step
Andrew Olmsted dot com: One Small Step------We often forget that in our own history, only about one in three colonists really wanted to leave England and become our own nation. It was the passion and courage of that small band of Americans that saw us through to independence and our current system of government.
The Adventures of Chester: The Blogosphere is Moving on Up
The Adventures of Chester: The Blogosphere is Moving on Up
The Blogosphere is Moving on Up
In today's Current News Service, also known as "The Early Bird," (accessible to active and reserve members of DoD) there appears amongst the regular news and opinion pieces from the major dailies, this solitary post from Alaa, an Iraqi blogger, who authors The Mesopotamian:
Greetings Friends,
I bow in respect and awe to the men and women of our people who, armed only with faith and hope are going to the polls under the very real threats of being blown to pieces. These are the real braves; not the miserable creatures of hate who are attacking one of the noblest things that has ever happened to us. Have you ever seen anything like this? Iraq will be O.K. with so many brave people, it will certainly O.K.; I can say no more just now; I am just filled with pride and moved beyond words. People are turning up not only under the present threat to polling stations but also under future threats to themselves and their families; yet they are coming, and keep coming. Behold the Iraqi people; now you know their true metal. We shall never forget the meanness of these bas…s. After this is over there will be no let up, they must be wiped out. It is our duty and the duty of every decent human to make sure this vermin is no more and that no more innocent decent people are victimized.
My condolences to the Great American people for the tragic recent losses of soldiers. The blood of Iraqis and Americans is being shed on the soil of Mesopotamia; a baptism with blood. A baptism of a lasting friendship and alliance, for many years to come, through thick and thin, we shall never forget the brave soldiers fallen while defending our freedom and future.
This is a very hurried message, while we are witnessing something quite extraordinary. I myself have voted and so did members of my family. Thank God for giving us the chance.
Salaam for now
This is great news for the blogosphere. Seems like a great idea for the Early Bird to cover blogger opinion. Interesting that they chose an Iraqi for the first. Alaa is a good blogger. Who else will they cover?
A withdrawal of some earlier criticism of the Early Bird, back in November, from this post might even be in order:
The Early Bird has made two changes:
1. The Main edition is now available 7 days a week.
2. The Supplemental edition has been scrapped completely.
While making the Main edition available on weekends is nice, I think scrapping the Supplement is a mistake. The Main edition is filled with stories from the major newspapers -- NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles, etc. These papers make up around 60-70% of the content of the Main edition. The Supplement on the other hand always had stories from local papers, foreign papers, and not just papers, but magazines and journals as well. The Supplement also carried stories that were behind-the-scenes and more in-depth, as opposed to the headline-grabbing stuff you see in the Main edition. The result is that the stories in the Main edition are nearly always told from the same angle or reporting slant, whereas those in the Supplement were varied and much more interesting (I once read a translated interview with Donald Rumsfeld from the French press in the Supplement -- very enlightening). The bottom line is that the Supplement was an outstanding repository of open-source news about defense issues, whereas the Main edition is just a wave-top view of current headlines, with all of the predictable left-media spin.
I know this is irrelevant to many of my readers, but you never know who in the Pentagon might read my blog. Maybe they'll change their minds.
Last week, by the way, one of Wretchard's posts made it into RealClearPolitics. The blending of blogging and traditional media continues afoot . . .
Posted by Chester at 02:07 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
January 31, 2005
The Latest from George Friedman -- "The Three Power Game"
In his latest article, George Friedman asks:
First, once Iraq holds elections, what will Iran's policy be toward Iraq's new Shiite government? Second, since the Shiite-Sunni split is fundamental to the Islamic world, how will the United States manage and manipulate that divide?
He answers thus:
For Iran, the best outcome of the war would be a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. The second best outcome would be chaos in Iraq. Both provide Iran with what it needs: a relatively secure frontier and an opportunity to shape events to the west. The third -- and least acceptable -- outcome would be a neutral Iraq. Neutrality is highly changeable.
There seems to be a fourth possible -- and worst for Iran -- outcome: a stable, US-friendly regime in Iraq.
Friedman has organized Iran's outcomes into these categories because of his take on Iran's strategic goals:
The Saudis cannot afford chaos in Iraq or for the road from Iran to be wide open. They will increase their dependence on the United States and will be forced to do whatever they can to reduce the rebellion in the Sunni region. A united Iraq under a Shiite-dominated coalition government will secure Iran's western frontiers, but will deny it the opportunity to dominate the region. A divided Iraq will give Iran secure borders, an opportunity for domination and serious responses from Arab states. It will drive the Arabs into the Americans' arms. Things could get dicey fast for the Iranians. The United States is letting them know -- via the convenient conduit of Seymour Hersh and The New Yorker magazine -- that it is ready to push back hard on Iran. U.S. President George W. Bush directly warned the Iranians on Jan. 26 to stay out of the Iraqi elections. The Iranians are signaling back that they are a nuclear power -- which is not true yet.
The Iranians have a fundamental strategic decision to make. They can work with the United States and secure their interests. They can undermine the United States and go for the big prize: domination of the Persian Gulf. The first is low risk, the second incredibly high risk.
Looking at the flip side of this logic, what are the fundamental strategic decisions for the US to make? Friedman notes:
Behind this all there is a complex three-power game. There is the United States, in a war with factions of the Sunni.
This much is true. The Iraqi terrorist insurgency is largely Sunni. But is the war on terrorism restricted solely to Sunnis? Is the Bush administration pursuing a policy of detente with Iran? The Iranians are Shi'ite, and their Pasdaran has long supported Hizballah (Party of God -- also Shi'ites). Hizballah are certainly war on terror material . . . does it seem wise to think that the US will discriminate against threats based on their religious origin? Don't Bush's latest remarks in his inaugural imply that whatever his choices with Iran, he would prefer it were a more fully-functioning democracy?
The US is engaged in a game of long-term modernization and alliance construction in the Middle East. it is creating new nation and state-based centers of power to replace religious centers of power. The new centers are allied with the US: Afghanistan, a nation-state, replaces the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, which were ethnically and religiously-based. In Iraq, a Sunni and tribe-based power center is replaced with a Shi'ite and Kurd-dominated nation-state (it's a gamble, but can certainly succeed). Whereas the old power centers in the Islamic world looked like this:
1. Sunni Wahabbi dictatorship in Afghanistan
2. Sunni Wahabbi dictatorship in Saudi Arabia
3. Shi'ite clerical dictatorship in Iran
4. Ba'athist Sunni secular dictatorship in Iraq
5. Ba'athist Sunni secular dictatorship in Syria,
the new power centers are so:
1. Aghani-nation state.
2. Mixed ethnicity Iraqi nation-state.
3. Sunni Wahabbi terrorist insurgency in Sunni Triangle, Iraq
If the insurgency is defeated, no longer will the populations of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia see their world solely in terms of religious blocs. National blocs, mainly mixed-ethnicity nations, will have replaced them.
The goal of the Bush administration is to redefine the Middle East in terms of nation-states rather than religion. The key question is, how badly does a nuclear Iran muddle those long-term plans? This is why the question of whether the US sees itself as solely fighting the Sunnis is so important. If the US also sees itself as wishing to influence modernizing change with the Shi'ite portions of the Middle East as well, then a nuclear Iran could scuttle those plans entirely.
The strategic choices vis a vis Iran then become:
1. Let Iran keep its current state of security and influence in order to stabilize Iraq, the goal being that a non-religiously defined Iraq will spark Iran not to religiously define itself. Iran may shortly become a nuclear power. This is low-risk, low-reward.
2. Pressure Iran to keep its influence out of Iraq, and to end its nuclear weapons program. The outcome would be a stable Iraq, and a non-nuclear Iran ready for its regime to be destabilized in the future. This is low-risk, medium reward.
3. Attempt the destruction of the Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to stop the possibility of a nuclear Iran from interfering with long-term democratization and the goal of redefining the Middle East in terms of nations rather than religions. This is high-risk, medium/high reward. The very act of military action in Iran could cause a backlash from those portions of its society which would find themselves in the vanguard of any democratic movement. It has been widely noted that the Iranian nuclear weapons program is seen as valuable to the regime even by those who detest it, because their nationality is stronger than their democratic desire.
4. Attempt the destruction of the Iranian nuclear weapons program and the replacement of the Iranian regime in order not to allow a nuclear Iran to interfere with long term democratization and the goal of redefining the Middle East in terms of nations rather than religions. In fact, to speed up the democratization and redefinition. This is very high risk, very high reward.
The US cannot allow Iran's sphere of influence to increase, giving Iran larger influence internally in Iraq and significantly destabilizing the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.
It seems that a nuclear Iran is a serious setback to regional strategic goals for the United States and US statements have indicated that senior decisionmakers feel as such.
What now?
The Blogosphere is Moving on Up
In today's Current News Service, also known as "The Early Bird," (accessible to active and reserve members of DoD) there appears amongst the regular news and opinion pieces from the major dailies, this solitary post from Alaa, an Iraqi blogger, who authors The Mesopotamian:
Greetings Friends,
I bow in respect and awe to the men and women of our people who, armed only with faith and hope are going to the polls under the very real threats of being blown to pieces. These are the real braves; not the miserable creatures of hate who are attacking one of the noblest things that has ever happened to us. Have you ever seen anything like this? Iraq will be O.K. with so many brave people, it will certainly O.K.; I can say no more just now; I am just filled with pride and moved beyond words. People are turning up not only under the present threat to polling stations but also under future threats to themselves and their families; yet they are coming, and keep coming. Behold the Iraqi people; now you know their true metal. We shall never forget the meanness of these bas…s. After this is over there will be no let up, they must be wiped out. It is our duty and the duty of every decent human to make sure this vermin is no more and that no more innocent decent people are victimized.
My condolences to the Great American people for the tragic recent losses of soldiers. The blood of Iraqis and Americans is being shed on the soil of Mesopotamia; a baptism with blood. A baptism of a lasting friendship and alliance, for many years to come, through thick and thin, we shall never forget the brave soldiers fallen while defending our freedom and future.
This is a very hurried message, while we are witnessing something quite extraordinary. I myself have voted and so did members of my family. Thank God for giving us the chance.
Salaam for now
This is great news for the blogosphere. Seems like a great idea for the Early Bird to cover blogger opinion. Interesting that they chose an Iraqi for the first. Alaa is a good blogger. Who else will they cover?
A withdrawal of some earlier criticism of the Early Bird, back in November, from this post might even be in order:
The Early Bird has made two changes:
1. The Main edition is now available 7 days a week.
2. The Supplemental edition has been scrapped completely.
While making the Main edition available on weekends is nice, I think scrapping the Supplement is a mistake. The Main edition is filled with stories from the major newspapers -- NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles, etc. These papers make up around 60-70% of the content of the Main edition. The Supplement on the other hand always had stories from local papers, foreign papers, and not just papers, but magazines and journals as well. The Supplement also carried stories that were behind-the-scenes and more in-depth, as opposed to the headline-grabbing stuff you see in the Main edition. The result is that the stories in the Main edition are nearly always told from the same angle or reporting slant, whereas those in the Supplement were varied and much more interesting (I once read a translated interview with Donald Rumsfeld from the French press in the Supplement -- very enlightening). The bottom line is that the Supplement was an outstanding repository of open-source news about defense issues, whereas the Main edition is just a wave-top view of current headlines, with all of the predictable left-media spin.
I know this is irrelevant to many of my readers, but you never know who in the Pentagon might read my blog. Maybe they'll change their minds.
Last week, by the way, one of Wretchard's posts made it into RealClearPolitics. The blending of blogging and traditional media continues afoot . . .
Posted by Chester at 02:07 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article
January 31, 2005
The Latest from George Friedman -- "The Three Power Game"
In his latest article, George Friedman asks:
First, once Iraq holds elections, what will Iran's policy be toward Iraq's new Shiite government? Second, since the Shiite-Sunni split is fundamental to the Islamic world, how will the United States manage and manipulate that divide?
He answers thus:
For Iran, the best outcome of the war would be a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad. The second best outcome would be chaos in Iraq. Both provide Iran with what it needs: a relatively secure frontier and an opportunity to shape events to the west. The third -- and least acceptable -- outcome would be a neutral Iraq. Neutrality is highly changeable.
There seems to be a fourth possible -- and worst for Iran -- outcome: a stable, US-friendly regime in Iraq.
Friedman has organized Iran's outcomes into these categories because of his take on Iran's strategic goals:
The Saudis cannot afford chaos in Iraq or for the road from Iran to be wide open. They will increase their dependence on the United States and will be forced to do whatever they can to reduce the rebellion in the Sunni region. A united Iraq under a Shiite-dominated coalition government will secure Iran's western frontiers, but will deny it the opportunity to dominate the region. A divided Iraq will give Iran secure borders, an opportunity for domination and serious responses from Arab states. It will drive the Arabs into the Americans' arms. Things could get dicey fast for the Iranians. The United States is letting them know -- via the convenient conduit of Seymour Hersh and The New Yorker magazine -- that it is ready to push back hard on Iran. U.S. President George W. Bush directly warned the Iranians on Jan. 26 to stay out of the Iraqi elections. The Iranians are signaling back that they are a nuclear power -- which is not true yet.
The Iranians have a fundamental strategic decision to make. They can work with the United States and secure their interests. They can undermine the United States and go for the big prize: domination of the Persian Gulf. The first is low risk, the second incredibly high risk.
Looking at the flip side of this logic, what are the fundamental strategic decisions for the US to make? Friedman notes:
Behind this all there is a complex three-power game. There is the United States, in a war with factions of the Sunni.
This much is true. The Iraqi terrorist insurgency is largely Sunni. But is the war on terrorism restricted solely to Sunnis? Is the Bush administration pursuing a policy of detente with Iran? The Iranians are Shi'ite, and their Pasdaran has long supported Hizballah (Party of God -- also Shi'ites). Hizballah are certainly war on terror material . . . does it seem wise to think that the US will discriminate against threats based on their religious origin? Don't Bush's latest remarks in his inaugural imply that whatever his choices with Iran, he would prefer it were a more fully-functioning democracy?
The US is engaged in a game of long-term modernization and alliance construction in the Middle East. it is creating new nation and state-based centers of power to replace religious centers of power. The new centers are allied with the US: Afghanistan, a nation-state, replaces the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, which were ethnically and religiously-based. In Iraq, a Sunni and tribe-based power center is replaced with a Shi'ite and Kurd-dominated nation-state (it's a gamble, but can certainly succeed). Whereas the old power centers in the Islamic world looked like this:
1. Sunni Wahabbi dictatorship in Afghanistan
2. Sunni Wahabbi dictatorship in Saudi Arabia
3. Shi'ite clerical dictatorship in Iran
4. Ba'athist Sunni secular dictatorship in Iraq
5. Ba'athist Sunni secular dictatorship in Syria,
the new power centers are so:
1. Aghani-nation state.
2. Mixed ethnicity Iraqi nation-state.
3. Sunni Wahabbi terrorist insurgency in Sunni Triangle, Iraq
If the insurgency is defeated, no longer will the populations of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia see their world solely in terms of religious blocs. National blocs, mainly mixed-ethnicity nations, will have replaced them.
The goal of the Bush administration is to redefine the Middle East in terms of nation-states rather than religion. The key question is, how badly does a nuclear Iran muddle those long-term plans? This is why the question of whether the US sees itself as solely fighting the Sunnis is so important. If the US also sees itself as wishing to influence modernizing change with the Shi'ite portions of the Middle East as well, then a nuclear Iran could scuttle those plans entirely.
The strategic choices vis a vis Iran then become:
1. Let Iran keep its current state of security and influence in order to stabilize Iraq, the goal being that a non-religiously defined Iraq will spark Iran not to religiously define itself. Iran may shortly become a nuclear power. This is low-risk, low-reward.
2. Pressure Iran to keep its influence out of Iraq, and to end its nuclear weapons program. The outcome would be a stable Iraq, and a non-nuclear Iran ready for its regime to be destabilized in the future. This is low-risk, medium reward.
3. Attempt the destruction of the Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to stop the possibility of a nuclear Iran from interfering with long-term democratization and the goal of redefining the Middle East in terms of nations rather than religions. This is high-risk, medium/high reward. The very act of military action in Iran could cause a backlash from those portions of its society which would find themselves in the vanguard of any democratic movement. It has been widely noted that the Iranian nuclear weapons program is seen as valuable to the regime even by those who detest it, because their nationality is stronger than their democratic desire.
4. Attempt the destruction of the Iranian nuclear weapons program and the replacement of the Iranian regime in order not to allow a nuclear Iran to interfere with long term democratization and the goal of redefining the Middle East in terms of nations rather than religions. In fact, to speed up the democratization and redefinition. This is very high risk, very high reward.
The US cannot allow Iran's sphere of influence to increase, giving Iran larger influence internally in Iraq and significantly destabilizing the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.
It seems that a nuclear Iran is a serious setback to regional strategic goals for the United States and US statements have indicated that senior decisionmakers feel as such.
What now?
Monday, January 31, 2005
Frontpage interview of Author
FP: Dr. Schweikart, welcome to Frontpage Interview. It is a pleasure to have you here.
Schweikart: Thanks, Jamie. I only wish Mike could be here with us, but he's busy promoting the book on the West Coast.
FP: What inspired you to write a patriot’s history of America?
Schweikart: It began years ago when I was teaching U.S. history and found a numbing similarity in all the U.S. history textbooks: they all seemed heavily tilted to the left. One of the first things that really convinced me to write a survey was a chart on debt and deficits in the then-Bailey and Kennedy book, "The American Pageant," dealing with the Reagan years. The upshot was that federal debt and deficits just went off the screen under Reagan, and the authors had two charts to emphasize this--in case the students missed it. But I then noticed that their dollars were not in "real dollars," and so I re-calculated the charts in real dollars as a share of GNP and found that they not only were wrong, they were so seriously distorted as to be meaningless. The worst deficits in American history, as a share of GNP, occurred under FDR, not Reagan, and the national debt levels under Reagan in real dollars as a share of GNP were about where they were under Kennedy.
So I decided then to begin writing a U.S. history survey---and was already in the process of writing "The Entrepreneurial Adventure" for Harcourt, which is a history of American business. But I had some gaps in my knowledge and areas of emphasis, so I contacted Mike Allen, whom I had met before at the Western History Assoc. meeting, and we hit it off. Not only did our areas of emphasis compliment each other, but our interpretations and world view on the "big questions" were quite sympatico. It was a great match-up. We also agreed on the marketing strategy of making an "end run" around the textbook companies (and faculty committees) by going the "trade" route, and got a terrific publisher who really believes in the book in Penguin/Sentinel.
FP: How do you think your book will do in academia? Will it be included in the curriculum of any courses? What do you think can be done to improve the intellectual balance and diversity in academia?
Schweikart: We not only think it will do well, we are counting on it. Already people from Duquesne and Hillsdale had adopted it, as have a half-dozen instructors from junior colleges and smaller colleges. This, in fact, is where we will get great sales---in those schools where the uber-leftists do not dominate what the non-tenure track and part-timers can use. As a sidebar, it’s funny that in many schools, as you well know, the teaching of the “core” history classes, including Western Civ (if they still allow that to be taught) and U.S. History is foisted off on part-timers or non-tenure track people. My experience is that many of these teachers, though certainly not a majority, are conservatives. They come from the ranks of business people who just like history; conservatives who were blacklisted in “mainstream” academia; lawyers; housewives; and retired military people. We think the book will have a huge appeal to them.
But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In March, Mike and I will have a booth provided by Penguin/Sentinel at the Missouri Valley History conference and the “buzz” is that there is great excitement over Patriot’s History. My personal experience is that many teachers have been waiting a long time for a book like this. Then we have the homeschoolers. I can’t tell you how many e-mail questions I get on website chat threads about whether this book is appropriate for homeschoolers, and the answer is yes. Homeschoolers as a rule are ahead of their public-school counterparts, and the book is perfect for a Junior or Senior homeschooler. I should add, though, that Patriot’s History does not have the typical “boilerplate” of a “textbook,” what with “study questions” and “review topics.” But it has a hefty notes/sources section. Maybe in the second edition we can add a few maps and charts. Still, students just don’t read most of that stuff. When I teach a freshman course, I often have to begin with “How to Read a History Book.” The study habits are that bad out there.
As to your second question, Jamie, I’m less optimistic. The academy is unique in the social and economic culture of the United States, in that it is essentially immune from the market forces that discipline every other activity. I highly recommend a book by my fellow Ohioan, Richard Vedder, Going Broke By Degree, on this topic. But here’s what we have: the faculty (aided and abetted by leftist administrations) sets the intellectual agenda. Trustees cannot control them, parents cannot control them, and even the students---who are less willing to put up with left-wing demagougery---really can’t control them. In the first place, faculty have an iron grip on hiring. No conservative can even get close to a final three cut-down in a search. Mike and I are rare, rare exceptions, and there are a few. But you’ve seen the numbers. In most universities it’s 10:1 liberal to conservative.
Worse, there is no competition, because the mind-set of those at the top convinces them that all of their competitors have the same views they do, so they steadily drift further left. Vedder argues that on-line universities, like the University of Phoenix, will eventually provide an important alternative. I don’t know. One central aspect of college life is the social interactions on a campus, and the electronic campus will never significantly replace that, any more than homeschooling can replace traditional schools.
However, I can’t completely lose hope. In my lifetime, I’ve seen something occur that I would have thought impossible---the demise of the MainstreamMedia (MSM) and the rise of “alternative” or “conservative” voices with almost as much power and influence, including the Internet and sites such as Frontpagemagazine.com . Twenty-five years ago, who would have predicted that the “big three” would be in a news ratings free-fall, or that a radio host like Rush Limbaugh would have as much influence over a large part of the country as the New York Times? So given that it happened in the media, anything’s possible. But right now, I don’t see educational reform on the horizon. I hope I’m wrong.
FP: What do you think motivates many Americans to loathe their own country?
Schweikart: I think this has its origins in several underlying factors. One is, liberals hate capitalism because it's been my experience that they just don't understand it. Most haven't read Adam Smith and certainly don't get that "self interest" is not selfishness. So right off the bat, any country that is primarily capitalist is "evil."
Second, they rightly recognize (but usually won't admit) the fact that Americans are blessed by God, and that as a nation we have honored Him, and therefore can be blessed by Him. They hate that about us---that we are, for all of our sin and rebellion, still pretty much a Christian nation. Liberals hate God-talk, whether it comes from an Orthodox Jew or a "fundamentalist" Christian (by which they mean any Christian who practices what he or she preaches!) They want to rely solely on themselves, which is the ultimate rebellion against God. Yet deep inside, they know this is wrong, and it eats at them. Jesus encountered the "rich young ruler" who "went away sad" because he would not do what Jesus told him to do, with the implication being that his sadness came because he knew what was the right thing to do, but his ego got in the way. Liberals hate that little voice that keeps telling them, "There is a God, and you're not him." It makes them angry people.
Third, they loathe the notion that America has a special role in the world---a GOOD role---and to them the notion that any one country is "better" than another is anathema. So they get themselves in this remarkable pickle: they rail against "oppression" and "violations" of "human rights," yet hate the only country in the world capable of doing anything about it. More important, since most of the time, the only way to deal with tyrannies is to defeat them militarily, liberals are even more exorcised because they can't stand the use of military force.
FP: What do you think of many segments of the Left now cheering for radical Islam? Tom Hayden and Michael Moore have clearly come out supporting the Islamist enemy. This is bizarre, as our totalitarian enemy extinguishes all rights that are supposedly at the heart of leftist values. What gives here?
Schweikart: It is entirely predictable. Years ago, I took history courses from Robert Loewenberg, who has gone on to head up the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in Jerusalem. He even wrote a paper about how the “pacifist” Quakers were supporting the PLO---this was in the 1970s. These radicals always supported the Soviets and their slug-like apprentices, and I think we on the right assumed that it was because they had so much in common ideologically with communism. But perhaps an even more important factor was that the Soviets were anti-American. Perhaps it is that these people so hate America, and the concept of what this nation stands for, that they would gleefully align with anyone who opposes us.
That’s why I think the modern so-called “left” in fact greatly resembles the Nazis: they are anti-religious (unless it is their state, secular religion of “man” or Gaia); they are anti-Semitic; they hate freedom; and they are ruthless in their speech and behavior codes.
When it gets right down to it, both the Islamofascists and the modern Moore-ish left are terrified of the freedom of ideas. As a Christian, I’m convinced in the rightness of my ideas and that they will win out without force. It’s interesting that new research, which we cite in Patriot’s History, shows that the more competition there is in religion, the better the so-called “fundamentalist” denominations do. I don’t know if that applies to Orthodox Jewry---that wasn’t included in the study---but from my perspective, if all ideas are able to be expressed, the best ideas will always win. This doesn’t sit well with the Left and the Islamofascists. Many Muslim countries strictly prohibit missionaries and evangelizing. I don’t know if it’s still the case, but 20 years ago contractors working in Saudi Arabia were told they could not bring Bibles, crosses, Stars of David, or many other religions items that challenged Islam.
Well, if you think about the Left’s “enemies list,” God is at the top, and especially Jesus. A generic “god” is ok for now, but of course, they want to get rid of that concept too. I think, then, they see the Judeo-Christian God as the central threat to everything they do, and don’t take Allah as much of a threat at all. Therefore, the Islamic nations aren’t a problem in their book.
Oh, and one more thing: even if they were a problem, the Left is stuck because actually doing something about them is going to require military force, pure and simple, and the Left hates the use of military power for whatever purpose.
FP: What is it that makes America a beacon of liberty?
Schweikart: America remains a shining city on the hill because, despite steady erosion in some cases, we are a nation that celebrates individuals---individual freedom, individual initiative, and even individual failure. We tolerate failure more than any country in the world, and everyone learns from failure. We rejoice in cultural differences, but unlike many Euros, we insist that at some point you become "American." I know many people think this is unravelling, especially with Hispanic immigration. But it's interesting that in 1910 there were more daily German-language newspapers in the U.S. than there are Spanish-language newspapers today; that in the late 1900s it took about three generations before the majority of the language in the home of an immigrant was English, whereas today it's closer to two generations.
The United States, among all nations, also remains a beacon of liberty because we are a nation of LAW. We still respect, for the most part, the right to property. Citizens, unlike most places in the world, can be armed. We uphold, in most cases, sanctity of contract. And so on. It isn't just that we have unfettered liberty in America, but that we have a structure of law that generates a climate of responsibility to go along with it.
FP: Do you think the Bush administration did the right thing by liberating Iraq?
Schweikart: Absolutely. After 9/11, Bush faced up to a threat that, frankly, his own father and Bill Clinton ignored: Islamofascism. This was a very tough call. It would have been so easy to topple the Taliban and declare victory, then, two, three, or ten years later have a bio weapon go off in Chicago or have a dirty bomb make Manhattan unliveable for the next fifteen years. Instead, Bush did what a leader needs to do. He saw the threat and acted, not merely for short term results, but for long-term stability. This is something Woodrow Wilson didn't do with the communist revolution in Russia. And we note in the book that even though FDR was almost alone in seeing the Nazi and Japanese threats for what they were, he never used his own political capital to mobilize the country to face them. But Bush did.
Almost everyone knew that to effectively deal with the islamofascist threat, after Afghanistan we needed to take on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, in no particular order and with a variety of methods. Bush chose the most obvious, I think, and, in a sense, the easiest. But we still are going to have to change the governments in Iran, Syria, and possibly Saudi Arabia, and Khaddafi wisely decided he'd rather rule as a prince without his weapons than sit in a jail as a one-time dictator.
Of course, the issue has been the WMDs, and I would remind everyone that as we geared up to go into Iraq, France and Germany said Saddam had WMDs; Britain said he had WMDs; Russia said he had WMDs (and also said that he provided support for 9/11); all of NATO said he had WMDs; Iran said he had WMDs; Israel said he had WMDs; Australia said he had WMDs; the King of Jordan and the president of Egypt BOTH told Tommy Franks that Saddam had WMDs; the UN said he had them; and lastly the CIA said he had them. Saddam himself easily could have proven he didn't, but chose not to. Now, my question is, why does only the CIA and Bush get blamed, when every darn country in the world, most of them using independent sources of intelligence, came to the same conclusion?
My own thought is that the weapons likely were there, and were moved. During the war, we found 140 JETS buried in the desert for 10 years that we didn't know about. If Saddam could hide 140 jets, how easy would it be to hide some drums of VX or other chem/bio weapons? His own army had chem/bio suits en masse. The bottom line is, Bush would have been a fool if he had not taken the WMD threat seriously and de-throned Saddam in light of the 9/11 attacks.
This is the defining issue of our day. Yes, Bush has made some mistakes by sighing Campaign Finance Reform and allowing that monstrosity of a prescription drug bill to pass. But overall these are very minor issues compared to what I believe is our very survival, and he has been a great leader on this defining issue of the time.
FP: If you were asked for your advice by the Bush administration on the next steps in fighting the terror war, what would you recommend?
Schweikart: First, finish pacifying Iraq. This will not be a short-term thing. Since 1899, the U.S. or western nations have fought something like eleven major anti-guerrilla or anit-”insurgency” campaigns, including the Philippine insurrection, Malaya, and Vietnam. The established government or the West won eight of those. Almost all of them took a minimum of five years to win. In other words, victory is nearly assured, but patience is an absolute necessity.
Second, make plans to foment a revolt in Iran. We should already be slipping agents inside Iran and destabilizing that government. Once we are satisfied with the situation in Iraq, lower the boom. I don’t think Iran will require direct military intervention, but it may need some special forces and a well-placed precision-guided-weapon or two.
Third, get it set in our minds now that this isn’t over until we deal with Syria. At that point, with a democratized Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran in place, who knows what would develop. I suspect the Saudis would see the writing on the wall, but you never know.
Finally, but certainly this could be done right now, tighten our borders. Illegal immigration is going to be the issue of the 2008 election, in my opinion. The fact that She-Who-Mus-Not-Be-Named has already made noises about this shows that the Dems are not totally blind. Of course, the Democratic Party cannot propose any serious immigration reform, because that would finish it as a party. So the key will be the Republican contenders. But sooner or later, someone must step up and say “enough.” We cannot allow millions of illegals to keep coming into this country---it is, above all, a security threat.
FP: What is the future of America?
Schweikart: Right now, the future looks incredibly bright. The increasing conservatism of youth, the growing awareness of a need for spiritual things, and the continued growth of the economy all are very positive signs. The “Greatest Generation” is going to die out and with them, the entitlement mentality of the New Deal will die too. Most of the students I speak to are upset about Social Security---and they tend to not get upset about anything. But they easily see the injustice of that program. More and more, they see the inherent destructiveness of “anti-poverty” programs, and while they don’t lack compassion, they do have common sense, and know that having babies without fathers just ain’t gonna work! The aforementioned revolution in the media is a spectacle to behold, and with it, the phenomenal success of the Passion of the Christ suggests that even Hollywood is losing its grip on our culture.
Heck, merely the appearance of books like A Patriot’s History, Slander, Radical Son, and Bias reflects the loss of control over the intellectual discussion in the United States that once was completely in the hands of the Left. But there are still major hurdles remaining. I’ve mentioned the university system. Hollywood and the music industry still have far too much influence over all citizens---not just the young. Rap is particularly destructive---and, in my view, boring. (This from a former rock drummer who opened major concerts back in the 1970s!). There is a lot yet to do, and evil never takes a holiday.
FP: Dr. Schweikart, thank you. It was a pleasure to have you here. We hope to see you again soon.
Schweikart: Thanks very much. I love FPM and am honored that you guys took the time to discuss our book. It's a long war, and I hope this is one of many small victories we experience.
[Get A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart for just $29.95 in the FrontPage Bookstore.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
