Belly of the Beast

Why I Voted for Obama Today

2008-11-04T14:42:00.002-06:00

I found out I was gay during a sunny weekend afternoon in my early teenage years. I was watching the women’s final at Wimbledon and it will come as no surprise to most of you that Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova were duking it out for the cup. I had been a tennis fan for what is a long time at that age… about a year. I was infatuated with it, watching as much of it as I could, buying tennis magazine subscriptions with my allowance and even reading Martina’s autobiography.

That sunny weekend afternoon, as I sat on the couch absorbed in the Wimbledon final, my mother briefly stopped her chores to watch with me and at some point she mentioned to me that Martina was gay.

And that was when I knew it. My light bulb flared brightly… it was as if the clouds has parted and the sun’s rays shined brightly enough to cut through the fog.

I was gay, too. I finally had a little understanding. This was why I always felt so different. This was why I wasn’t interested in all the boys like my other girlfriends were. This was why I’d rather have my nose stuck in a book reading about fairy tale lands rather than hang out with the gaggle of girls and whisper about who was the cutest boy in our class.

It wasn’t much to go on and I had much, much more understanding to find in the years to come but for a brief moment on that early weekend afternoon, I at last had a name for it.

It should have been a happy moment and for me, it was. But even at that age I knew instinctually that this wasn’t “normal”. Being different in my town and in my school wasn’t hip like it is now. You wore the clothes everyone else wore and you went to the places everyone else went and you said the things everyone else said. Being different wasn’t a good thing when I was growing up.

So I kept it to myself for a long time. I read anything I could get my hands on, lurking quietly in the “Gay and Lesbian” section of Bookstop. I recall even today how agonizing it was to take a book from that section to the cashier. I would actually break out in a sweat and my stomach would knot up as I wondered if they would call my mom or grandma over to approve my “questionable choice” in reading material.

I discovered Rita Mae Brown and read everything I could get my hands on. I watched every movie I could watch that had anything remotely to do with being gay… “Personal Best” comes to mind. All this I tried to do quietly and in secret. I wanted… needed, craved… information about who I was but I also wanted to be “normal” like everyone else. There was a battle raging inside of me and no one to talk to about it.

In high school I developed a huge crush on [Barbara Callaway]. She was the Homecoming Queen, head cheerleader, MVP in volleyball. She was beautiful and smart and popular. Think back to your first big high school crush. Remember the raging hormones? The agonizing emotions? The all-consuming obsession of it all? I experienced all of that, too… I thought I was in love. Yet for me it was different. It wasn’t as if I could walk up to Barbara and ask her to the next football game. It wasn’t like we could ever DATE like normal people. My feelings for Barbara were wrong, I kept thinking, and I shouldn’t be having them. I couldn’t give in to these emotions and I fought them. I became angry and would lash out at teachers, at my family. I had no outlet, no one to turn to.

And finally, one day, I could no longer keep it all inside. I told a friend of mine, Melinda and Melinda eventually told Barbara and my world came crashing down around me. I recall one afternoon after school… I went into my mother and my step-father’s bedroom, took out his hand gun from the wardrobe where he kept it and stared straight down the barrel of the gun. I didn’t know if the gun was loaded but I wanted to know if I was capable of killing myself if things got too bad at school. I actually wrote about it in my journalism class when we had to write a descriptive paragraph. I wrote my paragraph about looking down the barrel of a gun.

Eventually I learned to seek out those who were more accepting of me. Unfortunately those people tended to be unhealthy for me in every other way. I quit school, left home and became embroiled in a world of alcohol and drugs for many years.

I often wonder how different my life might have been had I been free to be myself. If I had been able to freely talk about being gay. If I had not been so terrified of being different. I think I wouldn’t have been so angry. I think I would have stayed in school, at the very least. Perhaps I would have gone to college. Perhaps I wouldn’t have tried so hard to get out of the small town I grew up in. Perhaps I would not have felt so isolated, so fucking alone. I sometimes wonder at the fact that I’m still alive. Or not in prison.

These days I am comfortable with who I am. I have learned to accept myself and my differences and even appreciate it on some levels. But even now, I sometimes find myself in a situation where being myself doesn’t seem to be an option. I never felt comfortable coming out at Oil & Gas-R-Us and I was miserable there. Even in this day and age in America, I am unable to be myself without fear of reprisal in many places and situations.

Because of this I have always had a natural affinity to minorities, to the underdogs of the country. Because of this I will not vote Republican because Republicans want to keep it this way. Because of this I sometimes find myself hurt and angry at friends and family who vote for the party that thinks it’s ok to grow up the way I grew up. I tell myself that mine is not the only issue and I should not judge them.

But I do. I do judge them. I love them anyway, but it still hurts.

I want kids like me to grow up in a better atmosphere. I want them to have someone to talk to. I want them feel free to be who they are. I want them to be able to understand, talk it out with someone, accept and move on to more important things like college, career, family. I don’t want them to search for acceptance in bars.

I want America to be their country, too.

This is why I voted for Obama today.

Second Annual Brigid in Cyberspace Poetry Reading

2007-02-02T17:21:00.000-06:00

In honor of the second annual blogger poetry reading I submit the following Haiku:

Knowledge

Gift to our children

Not freedom or great wealth, but

Thought to the future

And because I am feeling incredibly generous, I also pass on this poem which appeals to me on several different levels:

Dead Woman

Pablo Neruda

If suddenly you do not exist,
if suddenly you no longer live,
I shall live on.

I do not dare,
I do not dare to write it,
if you die.

I shall live on.

For where a man has no voice,
there, my voice.

Where blacks are beaten,
I cannot be dead.
When my brothers go to prison
I shall go with them.

When victory,
not my victory,
but the great victory comes,
even though I am mute I must speak;
I shall see it come even though I am blind.

No, forgive me.
If you no longer live,
if you, beloved, my love,
if you have died,
all the leaves will fall in my breast,
it will rain on my soul night and day,
the snow will burn my heart,
I shall walk with frost and fire and death and snow,
my feet will want to walk to where you are sleeping, but
I shall stay alive,
because above all things you wanted me indomitable,
and, my love, because you know that I am not only a man
but all mankind.

Oversight - Never Saw THAT Coming

2007-01-07T19:20:00.000-06:00

Today's Houston Chronicle has an interesting story (reprinted from the NYTimes) arguing how hard the US worked to delay the Saddam Hussein hanging. In fact, if all you read was the headline - US fought for hours to put off hanging; Baghdad deaf to arguments to delay Saddam execution - you'd think, well, we tried to do the right thing. Reading through the article, however, one finds things are not always what they seem. Go figure.

On Thursday, before the dawn Friday hanging, US military officials, lead by Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner, head of Task Force 134, the detainee unit, and embassy personnel, in the person of Margaret Scobey, head of the embassy's political section (WTF), were negociating with Iraqi officials on the timing of the handover. PM al-Maliki wanted the former dictator turned over immediately, while the Americans favored a delay, to allow for time to carry out the execution with international support. When al-Maliki persisted, Gardner demanded letters from the PM, President Talibani, and the presiding judge, affirming the legality of the execution.

All clear up to this point - the Shiite Iraqi government wanted desperately to execute the Sunni badman on the morning of the Sunni eid (one of their holiest days). The US wanted to wait for more politically correct timing. The Iraqis won because they played their trump card, "The Iraqis said that the tribunal's own statute, drafted by the Americans, placed its rulings beyond review." Got that? We really wanted to stop them, or at least organize it as some highly dignified photo-of, but we couldn't because in setting up their government for them, we gave the Iraqis the power to execute without oversight. How ironic is that?

Interestingly enough, after reading this crock of shiite, it struck me that I had been meaning to comment on oversight in this country. The guys over at TPMMuckraker have done a wonderful job chronicling how much oversight and review the Bush administration has managed to eradicate from our government. Give it a read and wonder what fiascos are being kept from the American people and why we continue to trust them to carry out the garbage, let alone conduct the business of the country. Oversight, we don't need no stinking oversite.

National Co-dependent Nightmare

2007-01-03T18:06:00.000-06:00

So the next big thing on the Iraq War front (stc says blithely, like she hasn't been awol for several months) is the mindless and irrational notion of a "sustained surge", because escalation didn't sound sexy enough. And because this new message was met with the derision it deserves, we have been called upon to accept the need for "sacrifice" as if the majority of us don't already understand the nature of the sacrifices made by those who have served and died, are still over there, and those who look certain to be called into Bush's War over the next two years. Those of us who knew this debacle was a mistake to begin with know, the American people who voted out the Republican do-nothing congress know, hell, the entire world knows the sacrifices being made in Iraq, except for the very ignorant, misguided and evil men who took us there to begin with.

In his White House Briefing, Dan Froomkin asks, "Where is the outrage?" of the American people who are having their wishes ignored and their soldiers put in harm's way on a fool's errand with no objective or hope of success. He points us to Keith Olbermann's most recent Special Comment (via C&L and well worth a listen) who calls out W with these preminiscent words, "First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush. Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego."

Froomkin also points out Jane Smiley at Huffington Post, who posits the very real observation and resultant question,

"People always comment on how stubborn George W. Bush is, or how stupid he is,
or how ignorant he is, but what they don't comment on is how selfish he is.
Clearly, the face that is being saved in this probable "surge" is his face, and
that's how he wants it... {The Bush Administration} were indifferent to
everything about the war except George W. Bush's mood. When his mood was good,
they told him some nice things about Iraq, and when his mood was bad, they kept
the bad news from him so his mood wouldn't get worse. Remember how the former
British Ambassador was warned by Condi Rice as he went into a meeting with Bush,
"Don't make him angry"? One thing I have always wondered about Bush, that I
wonder even more now, is what is the source of his power over these people, that
come hell (Iraq) or high water (Katrina), they do what he wants? Does he throw
things? Does he hold his breath and turn red in the face, so that they worry
he'll have a stroke? Does he hit people? Does he shout, "Off with his head!"?
Does he send high level dissenters to Gitmo? (I wish he would, so that they
could come to experience and understand conditions there). Do they just defer to
him because of the office of the Presidency? (No one did that with Bill
Clinton). Why would anyone feel allegiance to George W. Bush? It's a mystery,
and it's a mystery that is killing people every day."

Finally, Froomkin shares the wisdom of an anonymous reader who suggests,

"Obviously we will have to change course, but he's not going to be the guy to do
it. He will then maintain that someone else 'lost' Iraq because they didn't have
the courage and determination to stick it out. As with everything in his life,
from his National Guard service to his serial failures in business and life in
general, it's all about him - not the country, not the job, not our reputation
in the world or our hard won and universally admired heritage of concern for
basic human rights. He's not trying to save this country or Iraq, he's trying to
save himself and his 'place in history'. He's completely wrong of course, but
given his history of privilege and never having to suffer the consequences of
his long record of bad decisions, it does kind of make sense. We assume that,
like most Presidents, he connects his self-image with actual success or failure
in the real world. I increasingly am drawn to the conclusion that, regardless of
the facts on the ground, he will consider himself a success as long as he never
admits that his ill-fated adventure in Iraq can't succeed."

I post all these links both because they are excellent in and of themselves, but also because they tend to coincide with and confirm something I have supposed for many years, that George W. Bush is seriously mentally ill. I've talked in the past about how "dry drunk" W missed several of the most important of the 12 steps, including a fearless moral inventory, amends, and regular critical self-review. This allows him to claim to have overcome alcohol abuse, while never really admitting he had a problem to begin with, and it is in this very episode that we find the blackhole that lies in the midst of Bush's psyche.

Wikipedia describes Personality Disorders as

"characterized by long-lasting rigid patterns of thought and
actions...Personality disorders are seen by the American Psychiatric Association
as an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly
from the expectations of the culture of the individual who exhibits it. These
patterns are inflexible and pervasive across many situations. The onset of the
pattern can be traced back at least to the beginning of adulthood. To be
diagnosed as a personality disorder, a behavioral pattern must cause significant
distress or impairment in personal, social, and/or occupational situations."

Moreover, "Narcissistic Personality Disorder is characterized by extreme focus on oneself, and is a maladaptive, rigid, and persistent condition that may cause significant distress and functional impairment...At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis (as with many DSM diagnoses, they must form a pervasive pattern; for example, a person who shows these criteria only in one or two relationships or situations would not properly be diagnosed with NPD): 1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (he's The Decider); 2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love (Iraq); 3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people (believes God speaks to/through him); 4) requires excessive admiration ("Don't make him angry?"); 5) strong sense of entitlement (oh, Lord, don't get me started on this one); 6) takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends (the American people, the soldiers who have died in Iraq); 7) lacks empathy (Iraq, Katrina, tax cuts, healthcare, surge); 8) is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her (I'm going back to The Decider on this one, petulant reactions to anyone whom he believes is stealing his thunder; 9) arrogant affect (in psychiatric speak, affect means mood, see Jane Smiley's comments above, it's all about him). I make that nine out of nine.

Add to the mix this general definition - Narcissism is a psychological disorder resulting from a person’s belief that he or she is not flawed in a way that makes the person fallible to others (see Bush's alcoholism), and the tendency for narcissists to surround themselves with co-narcissists who feel responsible for, accept blame readily for another, are eager to please another, defer to another's opinions, and fear being considered selfish if they act assertively (Condi, Harriett, Laura, many Cabinet members, Generals, etc).

Bush is a full-blown Narcissist in a high degree of dysfunction, and if he were anyone else in the world, would be under psychaitric care, not trusted to make major decisions, unemployable, you name it. But because he was born a Bush (and this is most likely the key to his disorder, his well-established dysfunctional relationship with his parents), he has never had to suffer the consequesnces of his actions and has risen to the most powerful position in the world functionally disabled. And before you discount this premise as fanciful, possible, but trivial, remember that this very disability is primarily responsible for the deaths of 3000+ American servicemen and women, somewhere in the nature of half a million Iraqis, not to mention the aftermath of Katrina and many, many other domestic troubles. And because we as a country have tacitly allowed this behavior to control our lives for six and counting long years, we are all co-dependent in this long national nightmare.

Thanks Quasar

2006-09-22T20:33:00.000-05:00

The comments are where it's at in the blogosphere. In response to this post, A Tale of Two Stories, reader quasar made the point that subjects like child abuse serve a deeper purpose in schools. It may very well open the door to discussions that benefit the millions of victims who otherwise choose to remain silent. On this point I agree completely, and would like to welcome and thank quasar for joining the discussion.

While I did not fully touch on the topic in the original post, this was the Headmistress' stand in backing her teacher on the subject of Brokeback Mountain. She was quite eloquent and forthright in explaining the mission statement of her school and their curriculum. As Lucy Nazro explains, "...And I led by explaining what it means to be an Episcopal school. We're a school where emphasis is on reason and open inquiry, on inclusiveness, not exclusiveness. An Episcopal school is basically modeled on love. I think the word Christian has been captured,' she continues. 'Maybe in some people's minds a Christian school would not teach Brokeback Mountain. In my mind, being Christian is in how you treat people. I think it's important to open up the world like Kimberly does. What we're hoping will happen is kids will learn about the world, its hurt and its brokenness, and then go out and try to make it a better place."

It was in enviroment that Kimberly Hurd chose to teach both Brokeback Mountain and God of Small Things. And I can see why: if I were a teacher, I would want to teach there; if I were a student, I would want to learn there; as a parent, I would want my children to learn from that kind of school. Which is why my very personal reaction to the second story in this tale came as such a shock.

At this point I must update some information on God of Small Things. Bubba and others, who have actually read the book (I must, must, must make time to read it myself) inform me that the child abuse mentioned is a small part of the overall story. There is also a scene of incest that some might controversial. In all, this was a book with a very strong message, as one must accept Brokeback to be as well.

The question then is, are these books appropriate reading materials for high school students? As Lucy Nazro asked, "Is it the right book for that age of student? Does it fit within the year's curriculum? Will it move students to the next skills level?" Her answers were yes, yes, yes, in both cases. In talking to many others who have read both books and are similar grade level educators, the answer has been mixed.

Without being too oblique, I have my own reasons for finally accepting my own judgment. Yes, students today face far more challenging topics in their every day lives. They live in the day of AIDS, Colombine, pharm parties and cigars. The idea that anything shocks kids today is laughable. Being forced to TALK about these things can't be bad. On the other hand, some subjects may be personally taboo for some students, and a good teacher would make it his/her business to find out why, and help them resolve their problem.

As dear Lucy says, "Life's a whole lot easier when it's black and white. The Episcopal Church deals with grays. And that makes some people uncomfortable." This should go for teachers too. Education is not one size fits all and there are millions of other books to read.

The Path to Deception

2006-09-08T19:31:00.000-05:00

There's a lot of hoopla over ABC/Disney's upcoming docudrama, The Path to 9/11. Personally, I think it's still a little too fresh on my mind so I won't be watching it, just as I didn't go see the movie The World Trade Center. Flight 93 was difficult enough to watch. I guess I'm a little sick of those who have been using 9/11 for financial and/or political gain. It seems that anytime someone invokes the 9/11 tragedy these days it's to make some sort of political point. I know I know... that's the way the cookie crumbles in this brave new world where money and political power are the new Gods. But still.

For me, 9/11 represents the end of America as we knew it. It was the beginning and the end of so much. I look back on the prosperity of the 90's and I remember how it felt to say "The President is da bomb" in a phone conversation and not wonder if someone in some dark, dank bunker somewhere was making a note of it. I remember what it was like to fill my gas tank up for $15 and take a few college courses for a couple hundred bucks. I remember that America still had the right to say "shame on you" to countries who tortured and indefinitely jailed their people. I remember a less cynical country where conservatives and liberals could have a lively debate at the corner pub and buy each other a beer at the end of it. I remember an America that went to war only as a last resort and a time when terrorism, WMD's, Iraq and wiretapping were not part of the public discourse.

We are certainly not that America any longer and I not only mourn for the lives of those lost on 9/11 but for my country... a country which quickly lost its way in the confusion and complexities of a post 9/11 world.

So I won't be watching the docudrama. And I'm glad because from what I am hearing, it's a load of crappola anyway. When Bill O'Reilly agrees with Democrats, you know something's rotten in the District of Columbia.

For one thing, the miniseries cost forty million dollars but no one seems to know who paid for it. It will be run without commercials so there are no ad sponsors. And no one seems to be coming forward and saying "It's me... I paid for it." For another thing, ABC sent out 900 copies but not a one went to the people portrayed in the dramatisized scenes, or in fact to any liberals or progressives at all. The pre-released versions went to conservative journalists and even a few right-wing bloggers. The film supposedly slams the Clinton adminstration... Bill himself, Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright... but none were given copies even after they asked nicely. All three have said that from what they've heard, the way the events are portrayed in the docudrama are not only a little off, but complete fabrications. Prominent historians have written ABC and Disney to ask them to please refrain from airing the show because they are concerned about the airing of a ficticious docudrama that misleads the American people about one of the most dramatic events in our history. Even conservatives are weighing in:

"Ok, we’re talking about the run up to 9-11 and this movie that they’re re-cutting now and they should because it puts words in the mouth of real people, actors playing real people that they didn’t say and its wrong." [O’Reilly radio show, 9/8/06] - Bill O'Reilly

"I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes, important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit them, I think they should edit them." [MSNBC, 9/6/06] - Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center

"If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that." [CNN, 9/7/06]- Richard Miniter, conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror”

"Look, “The Path to 9/11″ is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen." [CNN, 9/8/06] - Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator

"When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account." [Fox, 9/8/06] - Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor

In light of ABC and Disney's docudrama and in light of the recent events involving the New York Times and the illegal NSA wiretaps (executive editor Bill Keller knew about the illegal NSA wiretaps before the 2004 elections but he sat on the story because... well, because the GOP asked him to)... in light of all of these revelations, can we please put the "liberal media" myth to rest now? Thanks.

A Tale of Two Stories

2006-08-29T20:08:00.000-05:00

There was a very interesting article in the Sept. issue of Texas Monthly called "The Good Book and the Bad Book" by John Spong. In it he tells the story of St. Andrew's Episcopal School in Austin, Texas, and the fallout from one teacher's decision to have her senior literature class read Brokeback Mountain by Annie Proulx. The article is behind the veil at texasmonthly.com and too long to reprint here, but it is very well-written and thought-provoking. So much so, I have been driven to post again after quite a long absence.

The tale begins when teacher Kimberly Horne decided to present Brokeback Mountain in her senior English class in 2001-2002. At the time a little known magazine article that had been included in some anthologies, the story proved an instructive example of language and tone, abstract and specific, alienation and acceptance, just the sort of material teachers look for in pushing their seniors to the next level in preparation for college.

There was little or no controversy over the book until four years later, just about the time the movie came out. Suddenly, certain parents did not want their children exposed to this book. One large donor to the school's building fund withdrew their 3 million dollar pledge after the school's Head decided to back her teacher and the school's curriculum. The donor, Kate McNair, explains, "We assumed this was a Christian school, and these kinds of materials would not be handed to our children. We're not a bunch of homophobes, we just don't want our children reading smut...snip...I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. That is my faith. But we came to find out this was not a Christian school. It is Episcopal. And shame on me for not knowing what the Episcopal Church has gone through the past few years. If they took the word 'Christian' out of their mission statement, that would be different. But they won't. And they messed with us."

Now, never mind the way McNair denigrates Christians who do not happen to to agree with her on the inerrancy of the Bible. Even though we happen to outnumber her 3:1, we aren't Real Christians. Thinking about that would make me mad, and I don't want to go there right now. Also, don't imagine the ramifications of her ilk getting a hold of the school's science curriculum, but it would be a lot like Kansas', Toto. The thing to remember is that these are 17 & 18 year old college-bound young adults who presumably have the free will to read or see whatever they choose and ask yourself if this is the most graphic, objectionable thing they have experienced this year? If the students are old enough to choose to read or view sexual or violent content their parents disapprove of, shouldn't the school give them the tools to evaluate it?

Spong ends this tale with the words of the author and the teacher. Brokeback Mountain ends, "There was some open spaces between what he knew and what he tried to believe, but nothing could be done about it, and if you can't fix it you've got to stand it." Horne believe this is the most powerful line of the story. She pushes the students to ask themselves what is broken, the characters or the world they live in. Horne explains," Someone in this book is presumably hit upside the head with a tire iron and killed. I don't worry that any of the students are going to grow up and hit anyone with a tire iron. But I think we can break each other in smaller ways. So if we live in a broken world, what part do we play in it?"

Unfortunately, within Good Book/Bad Book, there is another story to be told, about another family, another assignment, another controversy. And this one has me troubled because as much as I disagree with the banning of books, I think that on some subjects we should give students to right to choose.

The year of the Brokeback rebellion, Rachel Bowling was a student in Kimberly Horne's senior English class. While Rachel's parents were not impressed with the teacher's choice of the Proulx novel for their daughter, they as a family had decided to wait until the end of the year and see if the other parents were successful in removing it from the reading list. Long before that time came however, Horne assigned the novel The God of Small Things, which includes a very graphic, detailed account of child abuse, and to this the Bowlings said no.

Now to disclose my dirty little secret. I do not believe that graphic, detailed accounts of child abuse should be required reading for high school students. I don't think graphic, detailed accounts of child abuse should be required reading for anyone. There are things I simply cannot read, no matter what the provocation, and child abuse is one of them. I know of people who have been to war, who cannot read or watch coverage of Iraq. I know of people who were in New York on 9/11 and cannot watch the new Oliver Stone movie, World Trade Center.

As adults we pick and choose the things we can and can't deal with. Should we be less careful of our children's needs and feelings? Should they not be accorded the same rights as the rest of us to refrain from studying something that might make them literally sick to think about. A student who has experienced abuse, or lost a parent in war or tragedy, could be additionally traumatized by being forced to study that which damaged them to begin with. Where do we draw the line between enlightenment and injury?

I have no definitive answer to the questions I've posed here, but I do have a thought. Education is not about teaching what to think, but how to think. If a student can explain for themselves why a certain topic is not within their comfort zone, shouldn't they be allowed to find a suitable replacement that is? At the end of the day the system should fit the students and not the other way around. Books themselves are not good or bad in a moral sense but depend on their circumstances and situation. As parents and educators it is our job to fix the problem so that students aren't broken in the process.

At Taxpayer Expense

2006-06-28T22:27:00.000-05:00

A flyer came in the mail today, 12x16 on 60lb paper. In big lettering across the top it says, "Hurricane Preparedness Update" and in the center a full color, smiling photo of incumbent Congressman Michael McCaul TX-10. Also included are addresses and phone numbers to the various offices Mr. McCaul keeps around the state, plus his DC digs and an invitation to visit his website. On the back is a helpful checklist of supplies needed in case a hurricane hits, evacuation suggestions, and emergency contact numbers.

On the whole it is a very neatly laid out collection of information, similar to the ones found in the Houston Chronicle, local grocery stores, and any number of places online. What makes this one extra special is that Congressman McCaul makes sure we know he is "Working to Provide Relief and Protection" for the people in his district, and that it came delivered to my home, "prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense."

What annoys me about this is not that Congressman McCaul's flyer is somewhat of a redundant waste of taxpayer money. It's just a drop of piss in the ocean of waste our government squanders everyday, in Iraq, the Medicaid prescription fraud and interest on ever increasing deficit. Nor do I begrudge McCaul the benefit of his incumbency, by using disaster preparedness as a campaign platform from which to engender recognition for his name and likeness in voters. The thing practically screams vote for me, your congressman, because I care (but it doesn't, because that would be illegal).

No, what really pisses me off is that he is allowed to use taxpayer money to campaign for himself in the guise of providing "pertinent information and a checklist to help you prepare for an emergency and respond to a natural disaster," while the candidate I support lacks the resources to do likewise in any meaningful way. McCaul is a multi-millionaire with an equal-figured warchest. He could afford to send out this mailing on his own dime if he really believed it would benefit the people in District 10, but then, doing things that would make a difference isn't McCaul's way.

If Ted Ankrum could get himself elected to congress, he would show how much he cares about this district by voting to bring our service men and women home from the travesty that is Iraq. He could show how he cares about our seniors, by voting to save Social Security and pass a real comprehensive national healthcare plan. And he would work to reduce our dependence of foreign oil, plan for alternative energies and reduce the pollutants that are causing global warming and therefore the trend toward more and more horrific hurricanes.

But Ted doesn't have the platform or the resources to tell people these things quite the same way the heavily-funded incumbent congressman can. So while McCaul continues to vote for bills that leave us more and more vulnerable overseas and at home, he sends home messages of hope with a sincere grin, hefty cardstock and very readable typeface. And we continue to pay for this shit.

Net Neutrality or Bust

2006-06-17T20:20:00.000-05:00

First let me say I am sorry this has been such a long time coming. I cannot believe my last post was nearly a month ago. I would like to blame the end of the school year or my daughter's 18th b-day, which both took a lot of my time, but mostly I have been taking a break and reading (damn you bubba for giving me such good books for my birthday). But I feel it has been time well spent because I have recharged my engines and hope to be more productive in days to come.

The good news is that I have finally managed to come to an opinion in favor of Net Neutrality, thanks to Molly Ivins and strangely enough, The New Republic Online. Molly made me remember we cannot trust our corporate-sponsored government to do what is right for consumers, and TNR managed to write the most concise opinion on why Net Neutrality is important. Follow the link to read the entire article, but I reprint the most important bits:

"Content providers from Google and Amazon to Daily Kos and TNR Online currently pay Web-hosting companies to put their content on the Internet. Consumers then access that content via Internet service providers, such as Comcast and Verizon. Under the new FCC guidelines, those companies will be able to charge content providers a fee to deliver their content to consumers and, in particular, an additional surcharge to deliver their content to consumers more quickly--that is, they will be able to create a faster toll lane on the information superhighway. If they want, the telecoms can favor their own services and penalize competitors--for instance, voice over Internet protocol companies like Vonage--by denying them faster service. They can even charge lucrative fees to companies for exclusive access to the fast lane at the expense of their competitors, giving, for example, L.L. Bean an advantage over Lands' End. And, by making the fast lane prohibitively expensive, they can force start-up ventures and noncommercial providers (like blogs) onto the bumpy dirt roads of the Internet"...snip

"Most important, as Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig has argued, the Internet is not only a tool for economic growth, it is also a public commons for the exchange of ideas. It is where Americans can not only search for the best deal on a new digital camera, but also debate the country's future. Unlike the telephone, it is a medium in which thousands, even millions, of people can participate in the same discussion at the same time. Unlike television, it is interactive. But it can't function optimally if content is prioritized or filtered by telecom companies. Allowing companies to levy a toll on information providers is not just a blow to consumer choice--it's a blow to democracy."

I've started to think of it like shopping. There are many ways to get to your favorite store. You can walk or ride your bike for a very low price, but it takes a long time (like dial-up). You can choose to drive there, which is quicker, but cost gas and you must have a car (like DSL or cable). But what if you found that when you got to the store it cost to get in, or you had to wait in line, not because the store wanted it that way, but because the gas companies or the highway construction companies wanted to make more money off your transportation costs. You've already paid them for their services, through taxes and gas and car payments, but they want to take a bite from both ends, for their initial service and for what you do with it too.

Sounds crazy right, but that is the nutshell argument. And they say, well we can't build more better roads if we don't have this money. But you've seen the toll roads going up all over town, so you know they have figured out how to make consumers pay more for faster service. To make things even more frightening, your favorite store ends up having to close down because there was never a particularly good road built to it, but the new Walmart down the street got priority treatment somehow and has taken all its business, because it is sooooooo easy to get to, has lots of parking and cheap stuff too, if not what you really wanted in the first place.

Welcome to the internet without Net Neutrality. Consumers lose all the way around, on cost and choice, while the telecos find ways to boost earnings at our expense. My main man Russ Feingold has seen the parallels to what has been happening in the radio and concert areas as well. Wonder why you haven't heard the Dixie Chicks new song on the radio? What if Walmart decided to stop selling their CD too? Then it was unavailable on the internet. Welcome to dissent free America. We have lost the power to control so much in this country, lets not let the internet be next. Support Net Neutrality!

Net Neutrality

2006-05-28T20:19:00.000-05:00

This is one of thos post that asks for information rather than giving it. I have done as much research on the topic as I feel approprate and I still don't see the big picture. Please someone, enlighten me. And be gentle.

So, What's the Point of College?

2006-05-25T14:44:00.000-05:00

On the surface this is one of those "who cares" stories. It seems the president's personal aide, a long time family friend and college dropout, has been admitted to Harvard Business School, despite his lack of sheepskin. The thought is that four years babysitting the WH dogs, making PB & J's and giving W a two minute warning before speeches is fairly equal to four years of undergraduate studies. An "A" in cronyism gets you into the Ivy League everytime.

I've long believed that Universities are more interested in what kind of alumni you will make than how you will perform as a student. HBS obviously realize this kid has the right connections to make him "their" kind of alumni, so the decision is win/win for them. Others have pointed out that four years in the White House must be a learning experience like none other. For those who have seen West Wing, picture the lessons Charlie has learned from Jeb Bartlett. The problem here is, W is not a Jeb Bartlett, history wonk and philosopher. Nor is he a Bill Clinton, Rhodes Scholar. He's not even a Ronald Reagan or a George I. As we have seen from the results of his presidency, W is a former "C" student, failed CEO president, who disdains intellectualism, lacks inquisitiveness and presides over the most dissent free administration in decades. What could this kid have possibly learned from that?

Going to college is about a lot of things - growing up and becoming independent, meeting new people and new ways of thinking, studying a variety of subjects and diversifying your knowledge, but most of all, it is about challenge. Challenging yourself and what you know, challenging your parents and what they have taught you, challenging your professors and classmates until you are blue in the face and loaded for bear. Blake Gottesman, the young man in question, has quite possibly managed to grow into adulthood over the last four years, and he has certainly met quite a few people, but as for the most important lessons of a college education, his time in the Bush WH has been a miserable failure, of that we can be sure.

The unfortunate and lasting outcome of this action by Harvard is another generation of bad business school grads let loose on a nation besieged by corporate corruption. Yes, they have been graduating useless students for decades; just look at the president. But wouldn't it be nice if actual hard work and educational achievement were rewarded over cronyism and elitism. But then again, like government contracts and executive salaries, things in America just don't work that way.

Politics and Sacrifice

2006-05-16T22:15:00.000-05:00

This is one of those topics I have been wanting to write about for some time, but never found the hook. Pontificating on politics is easy, but talk about sacrifice, who does that anymore? We live in a society that reveres athleticism, glamour, celebrity, wealth and many other not-so-worthy attributes. Sacrifice, civic responsibility, altruism are so like, last century.

Also, the subject always veers in religion and a tirade against those bible-thumping, self-serving pimps to big business like Tom DeLay and W, who preach a personal relationship with Jesus, but act in the antithesis of his teachings, and the so-called religious right, who pay lip-service to Christianity, but are actually more interested in forcing their self-centered moralism on the rest of America and the world. For some reason sacrifice is not one of their talking points.

It was, however, the center focus of last night's Katy Area Democrats meeting from both speakers, Barbara Ann Radnofsky and Chris Bell. Radnofsky is the Democratic nominee for US senate, running against Kay Bailey Hutchison R-TX, and Chris Bell is the Democratic nominee for Texas Governor, running against Governor Goodhair (Rick Perry), Carole Keeton (McClellan Rylander) Strayhorn, and Kinky Friedman. Both candidates invoked the age old concepts of public good, responsible citizenship, and yes, sacrifice. Coincidence, I think not; more likely a convergence of good politics and good policy. Is this part of Howard Dean's 50 state program? I certainly hope so.

Ms. Radnofsky spoke quite candidly of her grandfather and father's service in WW I & II. She reminded us of the sacrifices asked of all Americans during these times of crises, and she asked, "After 9/11, what sacrifice was asked of you? Go shopping!" People lined up outside blood banks after the terrorist attacks because they wanted to give of themselves, but were told go spend money instead. What a waste of human potential.

Bell pointed out what a good job the Republicans have done since Bush was enthroned in 2000, of calling everyone who disagrees with them "out of the mainstream." Question Iraq, warrantless wiretaps or deficit spending and you are "out there." Mention global warming, the healthcare crisis or the failing middle class, and you are "one of the fanatical left." His plan is to call for a "new mainstream," one that combines the people's outrage at what has happened in this country in the last six years with a call for sacrifice that Americans should willingly give.

Americans want to be safe from terrorism, but they should also want to be free from a government bent on destroying the constitution in the process. Americans should know that energy independence and alternative sources of power will improve our national security, our economy and our world from global warming. Americans should want the country to be prosperous, but not at the expense of the middle class who pay most the bills, the elderly who have already given so much, or our children, who are our future. Americans should demand leaders who deal honestly with these and all other issues of the day.

It is not pessimistic, fanatical or outside the mainstream to want to confront the difficult issues that lay ahead and be willing to work hard, to sacrifice, to overcome obstacles and achieve greatness again. It is the earliest known American Value and one that still exists today. Chris Bell and Barbara Ann Radnofsky know this, and they deserve our respect, our money and our vote.

Technorati tags:
Texas Politics
Chris Bell
Barbara Radnofsky
Katy
Houston

Ethanol - OK to drink but don't put it in your car

2006-05-14T13:47:00.000-05:00

Complete following phrase:

Ethanol is to Energy Solutions as Pork is to …...

A. Food
B. Offending Muslims
C. Happy Farmers
D. Barrel Politics
E. All of the Above

The answer of course is E – all of the above.

Without going into detail about my answer let me tell you where am I going with this. All over the news lately I have seen Talking Heads going on about the wonderful prospects of ethanol to replace oil. This is just complete BS. There is considerable debate as to whether corn-based ethanol is actually energy positive – meaning that it puts out more energy as a fuel than was used to create it. Assuming for the time being that it is, its EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) is generally assumed to be low (1.3??), and considerable fossil fuel is required to make ethanol.

Here are some facts about corn based ethanol from my good friend Engineer-Poet:

Can ethanol from corn or other grain replace gasoline?

Answer: Almost certainly not, for several reasons.
There isn't enough grain. The best process we have makes about 2.66 gallons of ethanol from a bushel of corn (maize). The 2004 maize harvest was about 11.8 billion bushels; if all of it was used for ethanol, it could make a maximum of 31.4 billion gallons of ethanol (with energy equivalent to about 22 billion gallons of gasoline). US gasoline consumption in 2003 was roughly 134 billion gallons, or more than 6 times the amount which can be replaced by ethanol production from corn. Total US motor fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel fuel) is approximately 200 billion gallons per year.

Ethanol requires too much other fuel to produce it. A gallon of ethanol (84,200 BTU) consumes about 33,000 BTU of heat in the distillation process alone. Some of this heat comes from coal or cogenerators, but most distillers burn natural gas or LPG. LPG is a petroleum byproduct, and natural gas supplies are tight and getting tighter. Ethanol producers are competing with people who need to heat their homes. The energy losses of the ethanol process make it more efficient to burn the grain for heat, and use the LPG or natural gas as motor fuel (source).

The 33,000 BTU’s to make a gallon of ethanol discussed above does not include any of the energy required to plant, fertilize, grow, harvest, and transport the corn to the factory to make ethanol. A number of serious scientists are convinced that if all this required energy is properly accounted for, corn-based ethanol uses up more energy than it gives back.

How could this be? Dan Rather was waxing eloquently on "60 Minutes" the other day about the wonders of corn-derived ethanol. And on the other end of the Talking Head Spectrum, my hero, Bill O’Reilly (O’Lielly) told me that Brazil was energy self-sufficient due to its investments in sugarcane-derived ethanol. Who is telling the truth here?

Well first of all, you know that if Bill O’Reilly is hawking this, something must smelling fishy. Although Brazil has had a relatively successful program promoting ethanol, it has had an even more successful program exploring for oil and gas. Consequently, their oil production has reached a level where they are close to being energy independent. Ethanol helps in this regard, but the main engine for their energy success has been deepwater oil exploration and development in the Campos Basin.

So in the end what do we have?

Ethanol is to Energy as Pork is to Food. True – but man cannot live on pork alone.

Ethanol does at least present the appearance that we are trying to break free of dependence on Middle East oil – Disappointing the Saudis (Muslims).

Ethanol, as a subsidized source of profit for mid-western corn farmers certainly makes them happy.

But primarily the promotion of corn-based ethanol is designed to shore up political support in some of the mid-western swing states. Corn is best used for food, not running cars down the freeway. We have to come up with better solution, one that actually is good for the whole country.

Technorati tags:
Peak Oil
ethanol
alternative energy

United 93

2006-05-09T18:12:00.000-05:00

I hadn’t planned on seeing United 93 because I didn’t like the idea of someone making a profit off the deaths of the people on that plane. But Saturday night rolled around and having nothing better to do, my friends and I went to the theater. And geez… is Hollywood having a dry spell. Not much out there right now. So my friends convinced me to see United 93.

First of all, let me say how hard it was to watch it. I’m not an overly emotional kind of person and the only two movies I’ve ever cried in were “Mask” and “Steel Magnolias” (you know the scene too… when Sally Field loses it in the graveyard). I shed one or two itsy bitsy tears in United 93. I couldn’t help it. The movie brought back everything… all the emotion, the utter helplessness and the fear. September 11th was the day Americans finally realized that we, too, are vulnerable. It was the day we all ceased to become black or white or Republican or Democrat… we were all Americans that day. Just Americans. From the white woman who patted my hand through the Wendy’s drive-thru window to the Middle-Eastern gentleman at the convenience store who had tears in his eyes as he watched his small television in the store. We came together that day and we bought flags and proudly displayed them in our cars and outside our homes. I remember eating dinner in Red Lobster on Thursday of that week and everyone left the restaurant at 7pm and walked into the parking lot. 75 or so strangers held hands and prayed for those who had died. I’ll never forget that day as long as I live.

So yeah… it was hard to watch and all the emotion came flooding back.

Another friend of mine said… “I didn't want to come out of this movie feeling warm and fuzzy about our stupid President and full of hate for Muslims.” And you don’t get that from the movie. In fact, the movie stays about as far away from a political statement as you can get. If you walked into the movie as a supporter or a detractor of the war in Iraq, you’ll probably walk out the same way. There is mention of the President a few times in the movie when the military is trying to find him so they can get orders on the ROE (Rules of Engagement). As plane after plane was reported hijacked and air traffic controllers tried to get 4500 or 5000 planes grounded and international flights turned around, our military did not know if they could engage because the planes were civilian. Only the President could make that decision and as it turned out, he eventually did give the order to shoot down the planes but military leaders did not pass this order on to the pilots for fear of there being an accidental shooting… there were still many, many planes in the air trying to land. But other than that, there was no mention of anything or anyone political at all. The movie was straight forward and told the facts as we know them.

The actors and actresses were unknowns and not your normal Hollywood types by any means. You or I could have been in this movie. That adds a touch of realism to the whole thing. The whole movie is almost like a documentary and follows the people that were on United 93 from the moment they got to the airport and into the plane until the moment the plane goes down in a field in Pennsylvania.

Where it gets a little sketchy for me is at the end. We don’t really know if the passengers made it into cockpit before the plane crashed or if the pilots were killed. The movie speculates at the end and I don’t care for the fact that many people will probably walk away from this movie thinking that the end of the movie is actually fact, when in actuality we don’t know what happened up there and probably never will. Despite the speculation, however, the movie is well done and stays true to the facts up until the very end when facts simply must give way to our most educated guesses.

At the end, the packed theater was completely silent. There was no clapping, no shuffling of popcorn bags and sodas, no crying… nothing. No one stood up immediately to leave. After several minutes people slowly begin to file out of the theater. There were many tear-streaked faces and I know if I had seen my own face it would have looked dazed and shocked, just like it did on September 11th. For all of its simple, understated qualities, this is a powerful movie that packs a punch. I don’t know if it’s “too soon” or not, but I know that the movie will elicit a very strong reaction for anyone that lived through that day.

I was driving to work on September 11th, when the first plane hit. By the time I got to work and turned on my small desktop television, the second plane had hit and the rumors were already starting to spread. I remember Peter Jennings telling people not to panic… not to believe everything they were hearing. Instead of the media’s usual habit of playing up the smallest drama or tragedy, all our news reporters were doing their best to keep the country as calm as they could. Anyway… I remember very clearly, Jennings said at one point … “America will never be the same.”

You were right, Peter… you were right.

The whining begins in earnest

2006-05-06T18:26:00.000-05:00

Is anyone besides me tired of all this bitching about the price of gasoline? Am I the only person on the planet that thinks that gasoline is a ridiculous bargain at 3.00/gallon? Consider the following:

Name another substance that can propel a 1 ton piece of steel down the highway at the speed of 60 mph for a mile for as little as $.06. I can guarantee you the $0.06 worth of food won’t move one person a mile down the road, much less a ton of people.

Or here is another analogy [stolen from The Oil Drum]. How much would you be willing to pay for a year’s worth of hard manual labor from 1 adult male in good shape? On one hand, the current market place suggests that in the US you would be unlikely to be able to buy this labor for less than $10,000 (assuming you were exploiting illegal immigrants) and probably not less than $25,000. However, if we remember our physics, we can estimate how much work can be done from the energy in a barrel of crude oil. Moreover, we can calculate that the energy in 1 barrel of oil has the capacity to be roughly translated into the equivalent of one year of hard manual labor. So since we know how much our society values a barrel of oil ($65 - $75), we now know that we have been drastically overpaying for a year of manual labor - either that or we have been drastically undervaluing crude oil.

The problem isn’t the price of oil. The problem is that we have built our whole society around the unsustainable premise of having ridiculously cheap oil forever. Up until now the price of oil has been based upon the cost to find it, get it out of the ground, and deliver it to consumers. However, it’s no longer a buyer’s market. The watch phrase now is “what the market will bear”. And we know that “addicts” will bear quite a burden to satisfy their craving.

Technorati tags
Peak Oil
gas price
oil price

Vote No - to Katy Bond Proposal

2006-05-04T22:16:00.000-05:00

It has taken me some time to digest the multitude of information available on the Katy ISD bond proposal and come to some informed, logical conclusion. My knee-jerk reaction is to vote for the thing, supposing that our school board, superintendent and bond committee know more about the needs of the district than I do. Growth must be met, schools must be built; it should be as simple as that. I don't like the idea that existing schools should be burdened with over-crowding and its adherent problems, when a simple solution is available. Vote yes, problem solved. Unfortunately, here is why I am voting no.

I have felt for some time that the Katy ISD School Board is too closed to outsiders. Oft repeated is that no incumbent has lost an election in more than a decade. That being said, I do not think that I can support either of the two candidates running for seats in this election. Both seem to have an agenda I cannot totally buy into. Last year I supported AJ Duranni, who was not elected, but I hope in the future more men and women like him vie for seats. We need trustees who have the school children, and not private motives, at heart.

My problem with the bond proposal has to do with its lack of focus on existing schools - $261.5 million for new projects and technology, with only 20% available for older schools. The district proposal makes a point of explaining why they are shifting the expenditures from operating budget to debt driven. The Robin Hood recapture plan takes money from the former, but not the latter. Think of it like your income tax; what you pay in interest you take off you taxes. Bonds are not subject to recapture, therefore, any money spent profits our district. It is a good plan, but one Katy ISD is not using to support its current schools and students.

While the bond proposal does a good job of identifing the subject of growth, it undervalues the need for capital expenditures for existing, older schools. Buildings are like homes, they are assests that need to be upkept, or they are of no value. The children in these schools deserve to be counted more than those anticipated in the future. While there is a need to plan for growth, there is a greater need to service those who already live and go to school in this district.

It should also be recognized that new home buyers shop districts as well as neighborhoods. No matter what developers say, a quick trip around the area will tell prospective buyers that this is a district that will spend money on new schools, without a thought to older ones. Prudent buyers will not be fooled into thinking it won't happen to them. In the end, more monies must be spent on existing schools before new ones are built. As much as technology and infrastructure are important, so are clean, healthy classrooms in which to learn.

Debt financing-phobes should not worry as the district is only redirecting money to pay for capital expenses. What should really be on every voters mind is the state of our students and our schools. Vote No on the bond proposal, and ask the school board to make your student his first priority.

Candidate Fails Partisanship Test - Updated

2006-04-25T10:51:00.000-05:00

This is another one of those local issues that may not interest anyone outside my zip code, but a recent Letter to the Editor in a local paper, The Katy Courier, caught my attention, not for the strength of its argument, which it lacks, but because it raises an issue the letter's author needs to consider. Let's see if he will listen.

In a none too surprising turn of events, our rapidly growing school district, Katy ISD, has put forth another bond proposal - to raise money for new schools to keep up with growth, improve existing schools, technology upgrades and the like. In the six years I've lived here, this has become a yearly event. There is no debate that the district is growing and these needs must be addressed. There is, however, growing concern around town for the amount of debt being accrued, the need for new schools vs. Possibly shifting enrollment to underutilized ones, and a deeper question about the way the district, school board and developers work together so seamlessly.

The author of the afore mentioned letter is a fairly well-known critic of the district and current candidate for the school board. He is: a member of a watchdog group that looks closely into school spending and its effect on homeowners (especially those without children in the district); has fought the Katy Zero Tolerance program that sends a high number of children to alternative school for relatively minor infractions; and filed a lawsuit last year against the district after it was shown administrative officials, in violation of state law, used school computers to send out e-mails to teachers districtwide asking them to please vote for incumbents to keep the board a happy place. All in all, Fred Hink is a man with whom I have much more in common than the subject of this post would suggest.

My problem is actually two fold. First, Mr. Hink's letter did him no credit in the way it was written or for the points it tried to make. It was petty and mean-spirited when it did not need to be in order to get its point across and then failed to make the points the author claimed to address, but headed off on a tangent that is the basis of my chief complaint. At this point I would link to the letter, but I do not subscribe to the paper in question and so it is behind the wall for me. If you are reading this, would like to read the letter in its entirety and don't mind subscribing to the Katy Courier, you can google them. For everybody else, let me see if I can set the stage for tonight's debate.

On April 18th Katy school superintendent Leonard Merrell was invited to speak to a civic group about the upcoming bond election. The Katy Courier covered the event and raved about Merrell's presentation and the great turnout for the event, without ever noting that it was the monthly meeting of the Katy Area Democrats. This angered Mr. Hink and to be fair, I agree it should have been mentioned by the paper. And Mr. Hink would be well within his rights to ask whether the superintendent had been invited to speak at a Republican gathering, or more pointedly, to invite him to speak with the Katy Citizen Watchdog$. Mr. Hink did none of these things. Instead he went on a rant about the "thinly veiled 'factual forums' (that) are presented using district personnel to lay out the 'facts' and members of a political action committee - funded largely by contractors and other businesses that would gain if the bond passes - take over and rally the troops to 'vote smart, vote yes'." He goes on the rail at the poor attendance at the events he had been to and lambast the fact that the largest group Dr. Merrell had spoken to was the KAD. He says:

"I find it interesting that the largest crowd to date to hear the promotion of this bond was at the Democratic meeting. Republicans, by and large, have not been turning out for these events because we are conservative and believe that any use of tax money must be done responsibly. We want new schools but we want them to be cost effective so more money is put back into the classrooms for teachers, not for marble tile."

The Katy Area Democrats are not a political action committee funded by contractors and other businesses that would gain by the bond passing. KAD are, by and large, community members who have a vested interest in the bond issue and Katy schools because they are homeowners, just like Mr. Hink. The PAC that is pushing "Vote Smart, Vote Yes" may very well be funded by contractors etc., but they are much more likely to be backed by those of Republican leanings than Democratic. The group Mr. Hink himself represents, Katy Citizens Watchdog$, have formed a PAC and are raising money to fight the bond effort. Dr. Merrell was invited to speak at the KAD meeting to do exactly what the article stated, present people in the community with the information. No vote on endorsement was taken because it was just an informative meeting.

But the greatest misjustice Mr. Hink made was not in confusing or obfusticating the KAD and the agenda-driven PACs, but by trying to politicize the school board issue along partisan lines. Because schools boards are local bodies, addressing the needs of neighborhoods and communities and effecting the lives and education of children, they have traditionally been kept out of largely political elections and away from partisanship. By trying to turn event into an us vs them contest puts our children at risk of being caught in the middle of bickering that has little to do with education.

Was the Katy Courier wrong in not being transparent about the location of the event at which Dr. Merrell spoke? Yes, they should try harder. Was Mr. Hink guilty of confusing the issue and then trying to politicize it to the detriment of the district's children? Yes as well. Schools and education are issues that all should be concerned about and no one, liberal, conservative, progressive or libertarian would advocate marble tile over better teacher pay, clean healthy schools, and quality education for all. Mr. Hink does himself and his agenda a disservice by suggesting so. Stick to the issues that raise valid points for people to consider and leave the garbage where it belongs.

UPDATE - After hearing from Mr. Hink, there are two corrections that need addressing. First, Mr. Hink did not file a lawsuit against the district, but filed complaints with the Texas Ethics Commission on the matter. I apologize for my mistake. Also, Mr. Hink feels I somewhat mischaracterized Katy Citizens Watchdog$. He states they are primarily families WITH children in the district. Having read that his child(ren) do not attend district schools, I guessed that was true of the group as a whole. Goes to show what happens when you assume.

Mr. Hink included a letter that does a much better job of explaining his positions. It is too long to post here in its entirety, but if you are interested in finding out more about Fred Hink and his campaign, it can be found at FredHink.com.

Ted Wins!!!

2006-04-11T23:17:00.000-05:00

With 100% of precincts reporting, Ted Ankrum has won the runnoff for the Democratic nomination in TX-10 by a huge margin, 71% to 29% for challenger Paul Foreman. Congrats Ted and roll on November.

Vote for Ted Ankrum - TX 10

2006-04-04T20:28:00.000-05:00

It is early voting for the runoff elections here in Texas from April 3-7, with election day April 11. Several very good liberal and progressive candidates are on the ballot and need every vote available to represent the party in the general election. These include Barbara Ann Radnofsky running for US Senate, Benjamin Z. Grant for lieutenant Governor and Ted Ankrum for US congressional seat TX-10. Voting is expected to be light and therefore, every vote really could make the difference.

Here is a personal admission - I did not vote in the primary. My reasoning was a principled one; I had planned to sign Kinky Friedman's petition to be on the ballot as an independent candidate for Governor. I make no secret of my distaste for the political system in America, which I see as inequitable and corrupt. So I am always willing to support a viable independent, and the only way to do that in Texas is to not vote in the primary. Kinky has just started getting to specifics on his plans were he to win, and while I like what I see. Problem is, as it turns out, I am not going to sign the petition. Ted Ankrum needs my vote more. I knew it back in the primary, but held off, hoping he would win outright without me, and then I could have things both ways. Wishful thinking and maybe the very reason the state legislature set the law up the way they did. Sure keeps independents off the ballots in Texas, but that is another post.

I am going to the polls tomorrow, taking my husband and daughter with me, so we can all vote for Ted. Because he is the best candidate for the Democrats and the best choice for Texas. If you want to know why I'm so convinced, just read these Q&A's from Capitol Annex. It's all you'll really need to know.

Ted Ankrum TX 10

Life Without DeLay

2006-04-03T21:47:00.000-05:00

Nothing prepared me for the news today that Tom DeLay has decided to pull out of the race to keep his congressional seat. I knew the guy was the slimeball of the century and dirty up to his rug, but sleazoids like him always seem to stay the course, like the cockroaches he used to pretend to kill, back when he was the bugman.

Tomorrow's headlines will read that he withdrew to spend more time with his family, to keep them out of the news as his upcoming date with the Texas state court system gets closer. But we all know the real reason; federal prosecutors finally connected all the dots and plan to charge him with failure to act like a human being. Its about time.

The bugman is dead.

Good

Narco-terrorism: Are We Fighting Terra Next Door?

2006-03-22T19:35:00.000-06:00

First a freak storm drove us from our favorite anchorage and back into the slip the other night. Then poor reception led to the the Fox show Cops being the only clear thing on the tube that dark and stormy night. I'd never seen it and was sure I never would again, when a segment caught my eye.

Recently the DEA found several large tunnels leading from Mexico to the United States near Tijuana. These tunnels had standing headroom, lights and ventilation (better than some of the boats I've owned). Who they belong to is still a mystery, but what they had been used for was certain, at least to the officers showing them. They were considered too large and professionally done for human traffickers, traffickers in human beings. These tunnels must be the work of narco-terrorists, dun dun dun.

At first I thought there must be some strange joke I missed having never seen the show before. Then I pondered the cruelty of humans being smuggled in dangerously hot container carriers while drugs received kid glove treatment in first class accommodations. But finally I realized the officer's tone bespoke the true meaning behind his words. Narco-terrorist, not drug dealers or traffickers, but terrorists on the border, and when we find them, whoa will they be in trouble.

Recent additions to the Patriot Act make the "manufacture, sale, possession with the intent to sell Schedule I and II drugs, or conspiracy to do any of the above "narco-terrorism" if it "directly or indirectly, aids, or provides support, resources or anything of value to: (a) a foreign terrorist organization; or (b) any person or group involved in the planning, preparation for, or carrying out of a terrorist offense." Terrorist do not receive due process. They can be held without charges, lawyer or cause. They need not be tried for years, can be beaten and abused, and of course fall into that category of Americans who can be spied against without warrant. The reason the DEA officer was so certain the tunnel was used by narco-terrorists was because that put them into a who new category our government has created to deal with people they just don't think deserve human rights.

Don't get me wrong, this is not some call for drugs to be legalized or softer penalties for addicts. I may believe in both those things, but this is not that post. In addition, trafficking is bad, be it in humans, drugs or arms; but people have been smuggling for centuries. Piracy, the slave trade and bootlegging are precursors to today's drug trade and all are vastly different in causual effect from terrorism. Likewise, the actions needed to curtail drug smuggling are very different from those needed to combat global terrorism.

This administration is too dogmatic and reckless. They react to every situation with the same arrogant abandon, without thought to the consequences of their actions. My fear is the administration may be fighting a war on our border in the same way they are fighting one overseas and treating even more people to the inhumane and unconstitutional abuses faced by those deemed enemy combatants. I fear the sound in that DEA officer's voice.

yeah, what digby sez

2006-03-20T11:43:00.000-06:00

I'm sure I've said this before, but one of the best writers on the internets is digby of Hullabaloo. Whatever I'm thinking, however I'm feeling, whenever I plan to write something about the current state of affairs in this country and around the world, digby thought it first, felt it deeper, wrote it better than me.

Rather than giving me some sort of complex, it makes me feel oddly better. I wrote about how the silence of the Democratic Party Leaders gave me blogger laryngitis, digby says Don't Make Trouble. While we both bemoan the "conventional wisdom" that causes congressional dems to fear decision itself, digby points to the biggest problem facing progressives today,

If the Democrats lose in November, I'm sure she'll(Eleanor Clift) find
plenty of reasons to blame Democrats, but it won't occur to her that the reason
people didn't vote for the D's was because the party listened to people
like her and campaigned like a herd of neutered animals instead of listening to
their hearts, their minds, their constituents and their leaders who were
prepared to take a stand for what we believe in. No, they'll blame the
"extremists" who want a safety net and a sane terrorism policy --- and leaders
who defend the constitution. It couldn't possibly be that their tired, stale
reflexive passivity is to blame when half the base fails to turn out
because they just. have. no. hope.

Makes you feel kinda special inside, a little sick, yet vindicated, like, so I'm not the only one...

Blogger Laryngitis

2006-03-16T22:50:00.000-06:00

I lost my voice. Not my opinions mind you, but the drive to share them online. Somewhere between the revelation of domestic spying and the UAE ports deal, exasperation with the whole climate of stupidity in this country rendered me speechless. I began avoiding the internets and traditional news less I hear something else that might shake my already tenuous grasp on reality inalterably. Then from left field came the news that the New York Theater Workshop had postponed (read cancelled) the run of the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, and viola, it all came rushing back. Verbal virulent bird flu, and I hope it infects you all.

When last I left you, our regent prince had chosen to ignore the prevailing laws of this land and eavesdrop on American citizens without benefit of warrant, claiming Devine Right of Kings, or some other such nonsense. In the meantime, the Democratic response has been fear and loathing to hold the administration accountable. Russ Feingold tried to introduce a censure measure, only to be betrayed by a majority of his party brethren. While censure may not have been the most effective remedy available, in loo of the congressional oversite demanded by the situation, it was a start.

The UAE ports deal started as another case of administration overslight, too much sucking up to corporate demands, not enough insite into possible catastrophic conclusions. The leftblogosphere raised a ruckus, and next thing you know, it is the cause celebre for every GOP idiot seeking reelection. Was the deal a real problem? We will never know, because instead of actually investigating the issue, it was given away to Halliburton to deal with, same as Iraqi reconstruction has been.

Has a pattern started to develop? Is the administration of the idiot prince to blame for the problems we are facing today, or is it the invisible shadow of the democratic minority, that runs and hides from controversy instead of facing it head on. For five plus years I have blamed the former, but in my quiet time, reflection has shown it to be the latter bunch of weasels. How do we expect to win back the country if we are too scared to take a stand on something we believe in?

Rachel Carrie was an American protester for Palestinian rights when she was killed, run down by an Israeli bulldozer in 2003. Her words and poems were turned into a play, well received by the London theatre crowd last year. Rather that being a political event, My Name is Rachel Corrie, was a vocal memoir of an idealistic American girl who wanted to effect a change in the world. The New York Theater Workshop first planned to run the show, then cowtowed to pro-Israel pressure and cancelled the play. Rather than engage in the discussion of the conflict between Israel and the Muslim world, they chose to ignore it. When our government chooses to silence debate, we know there is a problem. When the artistic community falls to political pressure, the problem is growing out of control.

My silence was not generated by the actions of an administration I have grown to hate, but by the inaction of a party I increasingly fear to follow. While our government has trampled on our first and fourth amendment rights, the very people entrusted to fight their actions have allowed the intrusion, and the most vocal segments of the left are following suit.The greatest threat to democracy is not terrorism, but silence. I'm glad I have my voice back and plan to use it. I hope you do the same.

Get Out and Vote - Ted Ankrum TX-10

2006-02-21T22:28:00.000-06:00

The 2006 mid-term election season has begun. In Texas today through March 7th are primary elections for a number of important races including Democratic challengers for Governor, US Senator, US House, State Senate and House, as well as numerous local seats. Early voting runs from 2/21/06 - 3/4/06, with the regular election day 3/7/06. If the way the country is being run and the direction of its future is at all important to you, Get Out and Vote!

Ted Ankrum wants to be the US Congressman from TX-10, a gerrymandered district created by Tom DeLay for the 2004 elections, which runs from Central Austin to NW Houston. Two years ago no Democrat wanted to run in this district against Michael McCaul (R), a multi-millionaire hand-picked by DeLay and supported by big-budget corporate backers. In his first term McCaul has found no DeLay-backed bill he didn't like (including the Patriot Act). He has proven steadfast in his accountability to the political machine that got him elected, but noticeably AWOL to the people of TX-10.

To run against McCaul in the fall, first Ted must win in the Democratic primary against three hopeful, yet less qualified opponents. A contested primary is good training for the general election and an excellent sign for the future of the Democratic party in Texas, yet it is a drain of time and resources, especially if a runoff is necessary (to win a candidate must receive 50% +1 vote). Here is why Ted deserves to win.

Ted Ankrum is a four-tour Vietnam vet who worked his way up from enlisted man to retire as a Navy Captain. As a second career Ted worked in all levels of government, including NASA, nuclear regulator commission, the energy department and as a diplomat in Australia. These varied experiences afford him keen knowledge in: foreign policy including the conduct of war and transition to peace; energy policy and alternatives to fossil fuels; and options for America's healthcare needs, just to name a few. At a time when he could be RVing around the country enjoying his retirement, Ted has decided to stand up for his country once again. Ted has the endorsement of the Austin -American Statesman, many local Democratic organizations, and Belly of the Beast.

If you are against our continued mistaken mission in Iraq, vote for Ted. If you believe that the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have acted recklessly, repeatedly, on the economy, healthcare and the Patriot Act, vote for Ted. If you think there needs to be a major change in the way American Government is being handled, mishandled, by those presently in power, vote for Ted.

If you are reading this post, do not live in this district or even this state, but you agree with Ted and the America for which he stands, you can still support him and other courageous candidates like him by following these links to the Progressive Patriots Fund and to the Fighting Dems. Find a candidate and Get Out and Vote. Oh yeah, and they could use your financial support too.

Name Redux

2006-02-15T14:14:00.000-06:00

As an update to my post dated 1/30/06, Trouble Lies More Than Name Deep, the owners of Houston's new MLS franchise have decided to change the team name. Addressing concerns from primarily the Mexican-American community, Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) have let it be known they will announce a new team identity, including name and logo, by Tuesday, February, 21, 2006. Alternates include Lonestar, Generals, Toros, Apollos and Mustangs.

Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Sylvia Garcia and others have been calling for a name change since the Houston 1836 moniker was announced. While the official reasoning for the name was the founding of Houston, to most Texans, Mexican-American and otherwise, it is known as the year of the Alamo and defeat of Santa Anna at San Jacinto. The 1836 jersey included a silhouette of Sam Houston on horseback, further confusing the issue.

Cheers to AEG for acknowledging the importance of Hispanic community acceptance of the new team to its long term success. Now let's hope these "roses by any other name" will play sweet come game time, and give all Houston something else to cheer about.

Teaching the Edjumacation President

2006-02-13T22:24:00.000-06:00

There are any number of things I would enjoy seeing the traditional media use to hold the administration's feet to the fire. Where is Osama? How are things going in NOLA? Aren't tax cuts for the wealthy a pre-9/11 mindset too? We read about these problems in the blogosphere, but a majority of people still get their news from sources that do not cover anything deeper than the soundbite du jour (Cheney's Got a Gun; making Duck and Cover relevant to a post-9/11 world).

My pet ignored issue is Bush's record on education. When W campaigned as a compassionate conservative, a keystone of his stance was to leave no child behind educationally. In signing the act into law in January 2003, the president committed to a fifty percent increase in federal assistance to bring failing schools to acceptable levels. Since that time, while demands on districts have skyrocketed due to NCLB testing requirements, funding has dropped to levels below that from when President Clinton left office.

Furthermore, a recent Harvard study shows that for this administration, it is not what you know, but who you know that counts. Wealthier, more well-connected states have no problem finding loop-holes or receiving waivers to NCLB demands, while poorer ones are left under-funded and out-of-luck. Not that gulf coast residents would be surprised by this finding, just looking at the disparity of treatment between Mississippi and Louisiana in disaster relief.

In his SOTU address, Bush made a push for education funding in the maths & sciences, seeing that as the future of jobs in the United States, now it has outsourced all manufacturing and tech-service overseas. It is difficult to take Bush's commitment to science seriously though, given he: believes "intelligent design" should be taught in the nation's classrooms; has eliminated federal funding for the most promising medical tech opportunity, stem cell research; and actively tries to stifle research and communication by national scientists studying global warming.

Combine W's dismal credibility on the subject with the lack of follow-through in funding anything he proposes (NCLB, Iraq, Katrina) and add the current budget cuts to Pell grants and Perkins loans needed by lower income students to afford college. There results a zero percent chance that education in general, and the sciences in particular, will receive the attention from government it deserves. You'd hope the national media would keep such a universal issue in its regular rotation of talking points, but edjumacation just doesn't have the ring to it Quailgate does.

Bulls**t Pulpit

2006-02-01T15:49:00.000-06:00

Cruising the blogosphere in the aftermath of the SOTU address, I was amazed by the number of progressive bloggers who did not bother to watch W speak. They read the transcript, maybe watched a few excerpts for color, but as one they claimed no desire to watch the prez lie to the American people on national television. Personally, I love watching the speech, if only to thrill my children by screaming and throwing things at the boob (tube).

What a speech it was, too. So many lies, so little time. Bush started with, and peppered throughout, a call for bipartisanship and civility in government and across America. This, of course, is some cosmic joke invented in the small of the night by WH speech writers, high on koolaid and giggling like hyenas. Very Rovian actually for the people who invented swiftboating to call for civility in a national speech. And it is the GOP who defined partisanship when they pushed to impeach a president for lying about a sexual affair, but chose to ignore this president's continued lying and lawbreaking on matters of national security.

On the issue of Iraq and the Middle East, I'd suggest reading Juan Cole, who does a fine job of refuting the administration's claims of success in the region. Cole points out Bush's hubris in claiming self-rule for Iraqis when his administration continues to make all decisions, backed by American armed forces. This was how Syria allowed Lebanon "democracy" for 25 years, though as Cole shows, there had been true representative government in the area for quite some time, independent of American intervention. He also identifies the fallacy inherent to Bush's highlighting democratic movements around the rest of the Middle East, as they are all rebukes to American influence in the region.

For a bit of reality on Bush's domestic policies (what few of them there were), Brad DeLong quotes MaxSpeaks who quotes someone else, but the conclusion for all three is the same. The country can not afford any domestic advances because of uncontrolled spending by the GOP majority. Any claims to the contrary are...lies. While claiming to support education, his budget has cut student loans and spending to pay for NCLB requirements. His ridiculous call for competitiveness in maths and sciences is belied by his ongoing support for ID and, in a fine coincidence of juxtaposition, his call to curtail biotech research in the same speech. Read Pharyngula for an explanation of what the edjumacation president was asking for when he called for a ban on embryonic experimentation.

The biggest whopper of the evening was the president's decrying America's addiction to foreign oil and his call to reduce dependence by 2025. Bubba will have to supply us with an analysis of the proposal, not that it will ever amount to anything. Even W's own people jumped in to say he didn't really mean what he claimed so forcefully during the SOTU. It is an odd thing when you get right down to it. This speech is the most vetted the president will give all year. The lies he tells are there for a carefully constructed reason and traditionally fall into the category of spin. When the administration's own people jump to correct something the prez says, like in this case and in the yellow cake uranium story, there is more to the lie than just falsehood. I wonder what it will be this time?

Trouble Lies More Than Name Deep

2006-01-30T13:00:00.000-06:00

For those who don't live in Texas or follow soccer, the San Jose Earthquake recently relocated to the area and have been renamed Houston 1836, ostenably to honor the year the city was founded. In yesterday's Houston Chronicle, U of H professor Raul A. Ramos wrote of his and other Mexican-American's disappointment with the name, given its not so coincidental relationship to the Texan vs. Mexican War for Independance.

For transparency purposes, let me say that I absolutely hate the name and doubt very much it was the community consensus team owners would have us believe. While there was a poll of sorts to choose which name online voters preferred, the length of time needed to, get the publicity machine up and moving, supposedly conduct market and focus group research, and print the team logo on assorted banners, souvenirs and collectables, belies a previously chosen moniker.

When I heard the name had been chosen, I was not surprised and truthfully put it out of my mind. I know people who support the Texans as a franchise while not particularly likings the name or current manifestation of the team (good luck Coach Kubiak). It was not until I read Mr. Ramos' commentary that I realized there might be a bigger problem with the name, and truthfully, when I first read the piece, I thought he was making a mountain out of a molehill. Really, if this was the biggest worry facing the Mexican-American community, things must be going pretty well.

Then a funny thing happened; I could not stop thinking about the issue. With all the other things out the to worry about, write about, I was stuck on this one. And when that happens (as those who practice this bold exercise in futility called blogging say), you just start writing and see where it takes you. In this case, I started to think about my own ethnicity verses my gender. While I did not immediately understand the matter being Anglo, as a woman, his argument began to make more sense. Ramos says, "Naming the team 1836 smacks of nostalgia for a time when Mexican people were absent or atleast knew their place."

We live in a time where the government of this land is trying desperately to push our civil rights and liberties back fifty years. Today, the senate is voting to confirm the president's nominee for SCOTUS justice, Samuel Alito, a man who would empower our already power-mad executive branch to invade our privacy, vote to strip away my rights as a woman to make medical decisions concerning my own body, and who joined an alumni club who's stated goal was to limit the numbers of minorities on their school campus.

Maybe Professor Ramos is worried about the team name because he is afraid of what he already sees happening in this country. Soccer may not be as high profile as national government, but professional sports are big business these days. Being 40% of the population, Hispanics in Houston may just choose vote with their wallets and purses by not supporting a team, a name, an identity that is personally demeaning to them.

I'm not native American, but I wonder how I would feel about the Washington Redskins if I were. The anti-PC crowd suggests no one campaigns about the 76ers offending Anglo-Americans, but of course whites integrated as a culture after the American Revolution. It took nearly 200 years for other races and cultures (and genders) to be treated a better than second-class citizens in the land of their birth. Anything, that endangers the gains made in equality for all people, should fail, be it a sports team or a SCOTUS nominee.

I wonder how many Iraqis would buy the jersey of the next MLS expansion team, Baghdad 2003, with a smirking, flight-suited Bush peeking over a Mission Accomplished Banner.

Living in Sin

2006-01-25T22:46:00.000-06:00

This post, by Harold Meyerson of wapo.com certainly opens the Pandora's Box of what is wrong in this country. We are lead by a man who embodies the eighth deadly sin - incompetence. From the war on Iraq to Katrina and now the prescription drug disaster, each effort by this administration has been an exercise in corruption, confusion and cronyism.

Meyerson lays blame for Bush incompetence on two of the original deadly sins, greed and sloth. Certainly there is enough evidence to prove the former, but the latter seems incongruous. Even when on vacation, Bush seems to enjoy hard work and exercise. On the surface, lazy he is not. Deep down however, we all know differently. And there is reason to believe he has become firmly committed to all the cardinal sins over the years:

While at school, "Incurious George" paid too little attention to history and too much to partying. Although he claims to be a non-drinker, his previous gluttony seems to have never been satiated. He can never be too rich or too powerful.

As a businessman he wanted to succeed in business without really trying. When all around him people were making good on the promises of their lives, he was still a loser. And it was really unfair too, because he owned a baseball team, was born on third base, but he could never score. So he did something really surprising and became a politician.

After the tragic events of 9/11, W got mad. He vowed to get OBL, dead or alive, so he attacked Iraq. Even though every action he has made since then has been an unmitigated disaster, he claims no fault, admits no mistake.

Lust I don't want to even think about, although there is the whole, useless Condi, scary Karen, bestest Scotus-nominee-ever Harriet, trinity. And don't even get me started on his mother.

If this is any consolation, scripture lays out punishment for the first seven deadly sins:

Lust: Smothered in brimstone and fire
Gluttony: Force-fed rats, toads, and snakes
Greed: Boiled in oil
Sloth: Thrown into a snake pit
Wrath: Dismembered alive
Envy: Put in freezing water
Pride: Broken on the wheel

Hope was what remained after Pandora's Box was opened. If Bush's incompetence doesn't kill us all in the next three years, we may be lucky enough to see some of the above happen to those in the WH. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

Time for the Speech

2006-01-18T18:31:00.000-06:00

I love David E Kelly's Boston Legal. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to sit back with a glass of whiskey and a cigar and laugh my ass off for an hour. And before Boston Legal, there was The Practice. Not as funny and occasionally it took itself way too seriously, but when it hit, you remember it. My favorite speech of all time was given by ADA Richard Bay (the little nebbishy guy who was killed so startlingly at the end of season five) to Helen Gamble, man-eater:

Helen Gamble: I need it, Richard. Give it to me.
Richard Bay: What?
Helen Gamble: The speech. Why we do what we do.
Richard Bay: Oh, I am not really in the mood after...
Helen Gamble: PLEASE, Richard. I NEED it. Please give it to me. And don't just phone it in. Richard Bay: Helen...
Helen Gamble: Please! Can't you see how demoralized I am?
Richard Bay: OK. (takes a deep breath) There are heroes in this world. They're called District Attorneys. They don't get to have clients, people who smile at them at the end of the trial, who look them in the eye and say, "thank you." Nobody is there to appreciate the District Attorney, because we work for the state. And our gratitude comes only from knowing there's a tide out there. A tide the size of a tsunami coming out of a bottomless cesspool. A tide called crime, which, if left unchecked will rob every American of his freedom. A tide which strips individuals of the privilege of being able to, to walk down a dark street or take twenty dollars out of an ATM machine without fear of being mugged. All Congress does is talk, but it's the District Attorney who grabs his sword, who digs into the trenches and fights the fight. Who dogs justice day, after day, after day without thanks, without so much as a simple pat on the back. But we do it. We do it, we do it because we are the crusaders, the last frontier of American justice. Knowing that if a man cannot feel safe, he can never, never feel free.
Helen Gamble: Thank you.

In comments after my last post bubba pointed out the futility of contacting our senators in bright red Texas, like a few voices from the left would sway the opinions of KBH or Cornyn. Hell, given the view from here, in the Belly of the Beast, it feels futile to blog or even vote anymore. What would be the point? Given the amount of hypocrisy in America today, what is the point of even giving a damn about any of it?

Yet, it is in this dark blue hour of need that I think of Helen Gamble, demoralized because her opponents are better funded, have better publicity, and therefore have public opinion (though curiously not the law) on their side. And I think about how sometimes, we all need someone to give us the speech. So here goes:

bubba: I need it, stc. Give it to me.
stc: What?
bubba: The speech. Why we do what we do.
stc: Oh, I am not really in the mood after...
bubba: PLEASE, stc. I NEED it. Please give it to me. And don't just phone it in.
stc: bubba...
bubba: Please! Can't you see how demoralized I am?
stc: OK. (takes a deep breath) There are heroes in this world. They're called Progressives. They don't get to be Pundits, people who smile on Faux News and have others listen to them and say, " Ditto." Nobody is there to appreciate the Progressives, because we speak the truth and for what ever reason, they can't handle the truth. Our gratitude comes only from knowing there's a tide out there. A tide the size of a tsunami coming out of a bottomless cesspool. A tide called incompetence, fear and corruption, which, if left unchecked will rob every American of his freedom. A tide which strips individuals of the rights and privileges provided by our forefathers to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All Congress does is talk, but it's the Progressive who grabs his pen and his sword, who digs into the muckracking and the talking points, the illegal acts and the cronyism, and fights the fight. Who cries for justice day, after day, after day without thanks, without so much as a simple congressional hearing. But we do it. We do it, we do it because we are the crusaders, the last frontier of American justice. Knowing that if a man does not hear the truth, he may never again be free.
bubba: Thank you.

Alito Too Many Questions Left Unanswered

2006-01-12T16:56:00.000-06:00

I held off passing judgment on Samuel Alito until after the Senate confirmation hearings because I believe in giving people the right to speak for themselves and set the record straight. I'm sorry to report that after three days of testimony, I know less about Judge Alito than I did before. And that's not a good thing.

First, a few quick observations.

1. Alito first claimed he did not remember joining CAP (Concerned Alumni of Princeton), an all-white male group aimed at ending diversity at the school. Then he claimed he joined, but didn't really participate. Then he claimed he joined because he disapproved of the way the university treated the ROTC. I have yet to hear confirmation of CAP's involvement with the ROTC, outside Republican talking points. Was this a true statement, or yet more GOP fabrication. Without the ROTC connection, he is either a sexist and a racist or someone who would say and do anything to get the job he desired, neither one desirable in a SCOTUS nominee (and we know how the GOP likes to keep their stories plausible, if not legally accurate).

2. While the rigors of hours of testimony were agonizing for Senators and spectators, Alito seemed unflappable under pressure. This could be the result of a naturally calm, judicial demeanor, or an insiders knowledge that no matter how he was questioned by the Democrats, he would receive a free ride from Republicans (and the talking heads all said the Dems had predetermined votes, ha). The one person who did not seem to have been adequately prepared was Mrs. Alito (nee Bomgardner). When Lindsey Graham (R) Florida began to praise Judge Alito for his moral strength and spotless reputation, she began to cry and had to excuse herself. Pundits blamed mean-spirited Democratic questioning, lib bloggers cried GOP set-up, and the women of the View allowed emotional overload. My attention was lost in Sen. Graham's words, which seemed to be a new set of talking-points in preparation for Abramoff-related indictments to come. Crooks and Liars has the video.

3. Russ Feingold (my hero) has some interesting ideas about the people who prepped Judge Alito for his finals. Seems they are the same people who wrote the talking-points for the administration's warrantless spying. Do you think there may be some overlay of information deemed necessary by the administration? DK has the story.

Which brings me to my opinion of Judge Alito and his suitability for the SCOTUS position being vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor. I had a wonderful exposition all worked out in my head about how Alito failed to meet the burden placed before him, etc. and Georgia10 at DK beat me to the punch.

"The burden, from the start, was on Alito to counter his record as a
ideologue. Alito walked into that hearing room saddled with a record as one of
the most pro-government Republican judges in the nation. He walked into that
room with his objective memorialized in black and white: overturning Roe. He
walked into that room already having established his contempt for our system of
checks and balances.
The burden was on him to explain his record. And
he didn't. Because there's no explaining away the fact that he believes the
government can do whatever the hell it wants when it comes to stripping of our
rights. To succeed in these hearings, Alito had to counter record, and he
didn't."

Let your Senators know - Hell No Alito

Tough Love

2006-01-11T11:43:00.000-06:00

Parenting is one of the toughest jobs around. Just when you think you've got yourself a winner, all hell breaks loose. How would you deal with the bitter disappointment of broken trust?

Let's take the case of a typical family- father, mother, kid, let's make her a daughter. Growing up, she had good grades, nice friends, made good decisions. All the way through junior high she was fairly dependable, so at 16 she is rewarded with a drivers license and the keys to a car. She's your kid, you can trust her, right?

Within a few months, you notice she is not around much anymore. Letters and calls from school let you know she's not there as much either. You start to check the odometer and find mileage unaccounted for; she's really been getting around.

Even worse is the money deemed necessary to keep up her so called middle-class existence. Cell phones and I-pods and clothes, oh my. As parents you should discuss what to do about Connie, but instead, one side blindly affirms the girl's dire need for each and every purchase and chides the other for lack of trust- her grades are still good, she's never been in any real trouble, don't worry, be happy.

Then you find cigarette butts in her ashtray and beer cans in the trunk of her car. Now, you know full well that kids have been smoking and drinking for as long as there have been kids, beer and cigs (a fact your other-half glibly reminds you). But that was before it was proven how dangerous smoking can be, not to mention drunken driving. And besides, the laws have changed, what you've found is technically illegal for your daughter.

So you pluck up the courage to demand of your spouse a family meeting to address little angel's reckless behavior, and by the way, where is she? Out with Jack, is the response. Jack, you explode, Jack who was arrested last month for drug trafficking? Don't be silly, says other-half. Jack goes to church and his mother is on the PTA board. There's nothing wrong with Jack. It was all some mistake or misunderstanding.

So you wait alone for your little precious to drag her sorry ass in, looking not at all ashamed or apologetic. Rather than allowing the discussion to dissolve into a shouting match, you begin in a non-threatening manner. Where have you been? What have you been doing? Who have you been doing it with? Why did you decide to trash the advantages life gave you and bring shame and humiliation upon this house. Real low key stuff.

She smiles that 5k smile (same as your spouse's, you suddenly realize) and tells you she's done nothing wrong. Missing a little school is no big deal, neither is a road trip or four. It's just more expensive today than in the past, and besides, spending money is good for the economy. As for the beer and cigarettes, they aren't hers, she's never even tried them, but if they were, it's only technically illegal and everybody else does it. And don't worry, she tells you as she pats your hand, she's so not into Jack.

There you have it, the conundrum. This offspring, who you have been some 50% responsible for bringing into the world and nurturing for the past decade and a half, is purposely violating recognized rules of behavior, breaking the law, associating with dangerous criminals, and lying to your face about it. Your other half is off in some drug-induced fantasy land where no action is too vile to be ignored or defended. You are paying the bills and wondering how your life ever got to this point in time. What do you do?

Avoiding a Grim Fairy-tale Ending

2006-01-07T23:06:00.000-06:00

So many of the subjects I post about here are removed from my everyday life, that I was somewhat surprised when this topic emerged over the last few weeks. Since tales of stay-at-home moms are everywhere, it seemed appropriate to for this one to throw in her two cents. In case you've missed them, Slate's Jack Schafer, economist Heather Boushey, Linda Hirshman of American Prospect and David Brooks in the NYTimes have all weighed in on different sides of the issue. Ellen Goodman's piece in today's Chronicle sealed the deal for me. Note - I do not link the Brooks article because the Times is restricted, not because I think he is a misogynistic loser.

All of the sited articles relate to the question of women in and out of the workforce. Are they opting out of the professional world to marry and raise children, or are rumors to that effect just a result of bad statistics? Are women who stay home forsaking the hard-fought-for rights their feminist sisters bequeathed to them, or are they happier at home and more empowered by choosing to stay there?

Goodman's article relates the story of Terry Hekker, wife and mother of 40 years who wrote in the Times, circa 1978, of the joys of being a housewife, only to be given divorce papers on the occasion of her 40th anniversary. She shares now the hardships endured by a sixty-something woman facing the world alone and unprepared. Her first column became a book entitled Ever Since Adam and Eve; she jokes her next title will be Disregard First Book.

Hekker worries about women who choose to forgo work in deference to home and family. In an age where 50% of all marriages end in divorce, how many will be prepared to face the hardships that lie ahead? Goodman echoes and encourages this argument, calling Hekker's a cautionary tale. As much as I enjoy Goodman's writing and normally agree with her, this time I plead a different case.

What our fore-sisters laid down for us, from voting rights to reproductive rights, educational equity and employment protections, is the ability to choose. Rather than being the submissive hausfraus of Hekker's generation, we are women empowered to make decisions based on what is best for our individual situation and if circumstances change, as they so often do, to change, adapt, grow and move on.

Education and clear-thinking are key. Knowing your options, knowing you have options, makes my generation of women better prepared for life's eventualities. Women, as breadwinner or bread butterer, should know how to look after themselves; how to find a job, balance the books, look after their credit and their family, with or without a significant other. Men, other women or children are not the problem, passivity is. Be able and willing to create and recreate life, no matter what obstacle is thrown your way.

No one is promised a fairytale ending, and maybe the dream of one is the biggest hurdle we all have to face. Modern America tries to promises a kind of never-ending Disneyland, and real life is a little bit more like...the life we lead every day. Aim more for reality and less for make-believe. Success can be found on Wall Street and on Main Street and everywhere in between. The trick is knowing once you've found it.

A Father's Words

2006-01-03T10:52:00.000-06:00

A Life, Wasted
Let's Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed

By Paul E. Schroeder (Copied from Washington Post, Tuesday, January 3, 2006; Page A17)

Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, "Your son is a true American hero." Since then, two reactions to Augie's death have compounded the sadness.

At times like this, people say, "He died a hero." I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases "he died a hero" or "he died a patriot" or "he died for his country" rub raw.

"People think that if they say that, somehow it makes it okay that he died," our daughter, Amanda, has said. "He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn't make his death okay. I'm glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn't make it okay either."

The words "hero" and "patriot" focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war. The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don't appreciate the difference.

This leads to the second reaction. Since August we have witnessed growing opposition to the Iraq war, but it is often whispered, hands covering mouths, as if it is dangerous to speak too loudly. Others discuss the never-ending cycle of death in places such as Haditha in academic and sometimes clinical fashion, as in "the increasing lethality of improvised explosive devices."

Listen to the kinds of things that most Americans don't have to experience: The day Augie's unit returned from Iraq to Camp Lejeune, we received a box with his notebooks, DVDs and clothes from his locker in Iraq. The day his unit returned home to waiting families, we received the second urn of ashes. This lad of promise, of easy charm and readiness to help, whose highest high was saving someone using CPR as a first aid squad volunteer, came home in one coffin and two urns. We buried him in three places that he loved, a fitting irony, I suppose, but just as rough each time.

I am outraged at what I see as the cause of his death. For nearly three years, the Bush administration has pursued a policy that makes our troops sitting ducks. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that our policy is to "clear, hold and build" Iraqi towns, there aren't enough troops to do that.

In our last conversation, Augie complained that the cost in lives to clear insurgents was "less and less worth it," because Marines have to keep coming back to clear the same places. Marine commanders in the field say the same thing. Without sufficient troops, they can't hold the towns. Augie was killed on his fifth mission to clear Haditha.

At Augie's grave, the lieutenant colonel knelt in front of my wife and, with tears in his eyes, handed her the folded flag. He said the only thing he could say openly: "Your son was a true American hero." Perhaps. But I felt no glory, no honor. Doing your duty when you don't know whether you will see the end of the day is certainly heroic. But even more, being a hero comes from respecting your parents and all others, from helping your neighbors and strangers, from loving your spouse, your children, your neighbors and your enemies, from honesty and integrity, from knowing when to fight and when to walk away, and from understanding and respecting the differences among the people of the world.

Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?

I choose to honor our fallen hero by remembering who he was in life, not how he died. A picture of a smiling Augie in Iraq, sunglasses turned upside down, shows his essence -- a joyous kid who could use any prop to make others feel the same way.

Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.

But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.

This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.

The writer is managing director of a trade development firm in Cleveland.

I Spy and Other Games King George Likes to Play

2005-12-29T22:35:00.000-06:00

I have been meaning to post on this subject for several days now, but RL keeps getting in the way. Suffice to say that we, the editorial board here at BotB, are decidedly anti-spying. Not anti-information gathering for reasons of national security mind you, but against warrantless invasions of privacy without any guarantee of oversight to keep the administration honest. "Trust us," the president says. Here are three good reasons not to:

First, when in the five years this administration has been in office have they given us any reason to trust them? Even if you overlook the questions about the authenticity of the elections, Plamegate and...well a whole list of grievances too numerous to mention, the Bush presidency has failed the nation in their handling of the economy, national security and emergency preparedness (the deficit, Iraq and New Orleans). With this legacy, why would we trust them with our civil liberties?

Second, there is good reason to believe that a lack of information was not the major problem pre- 9/11 (or pre-Iraq or Katrina either). There was credible evidence that al Qaida planned to use planes to attack the US and that pilots were learning to fly planes but not land them. The Bush administration claims they were not able to bring all this information together in time to stop what happened and called for new ways to share between agencies, but the data was there. As was the information about New Orleans levees and the lack of WMD in Iraq. The administration simply could not, or did not, do enough with the information available. Why would we give them power to invade our privacy in order to gain more data that they have proven not to use in the first place?

Third, I give you this evaluation by Prof. Sandy Levinson (via Kos) about Bush's nominations to the SCOTUS, in light of the wiretap revelations. Judge Alito has been suspect by abortion groups from the beginning, based on things known about his previous opinions and writings, but it is his thoughts on executive powers that Levinson now ponders. There were other possible nominees with credentials equal to or surpassing Alito. What made him the choice of the administration? I wonder if the Meier nomination sheds any light on this question. Who better than someone devoted to the president to expand the powers so desired by W? When a substitution was needed, did Alito get the call because they felt he would be the one to vote most favorably to the issue of expanded executive powers. If you read nothing else, pay attention here:

". . . This makes it essential, obviously, that every member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee grill Judge Alito on his views of Article II, the
Commander-in-Chief Clause, and, for that matter, the Oath of Office, given that
University of Minnesota Law Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen reads the Oath to
license the President basically to do whatever he wishes so long as there is a
good faith belief that it is "defense" of the Constitution. Quoting Lincoln,
Paulsen argues that just as one can amputate a limb in order to save the life of
a person, so can a President in effect ignore any given part of the
Constitution, including, of course, any of the protections of the Bill of
Rights, in order to save the Nation. To put it mildly, this theory of the
"amputated Constitution" should give us all pause."

Trust must be earned. The Bush administration has done nothing but thumb their noses at the American people. By failing to live up to their promises, by lying in the face of revealed wrongdoing and by denying the legitimacy of the checks and balances provided in the Constitution, they have shown the country and the world the disdain they feel for the very democracy they pretend to advance. Ben Franklin said, "Those willing to sacrifice a little freedom for the sake of a little safety, deserve neither." I say if the emperor has no clothes, don't loan him any.

Senator Byrd - An American Hero

2005-12-18T14:13:00.000-06:00

I have been reading Losing America, Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency by Senator Robert Byrd. I was sent the book (without requesting it - autographed no less) when I contributed to his reelection campaign last summer. I contributed because, to my complete surprise, Senator Byrd is probably the person in the US Government who I admire the most these days. He is a national treasure who is a great example (much to my chagrin from previous positions I have taken) that term limits for Congressmen and Senators are a bad idea. He appears to be the only lawmaker in the US Senate who has the balls to consistently stand up and say that the doofus would-be Emperor, that we presumably elected to run the government, not only has no clothes, he also has no brains, no courage, and no heart. No wonder he lives in proverbial OZ. (God I hate that MF.)

The book starts with the following:

“It was a perfect day. The crisp early September morning held just a hint of Washington’s loveliest season, fall. …..

As I drove along the George Washington Parkway on my way to work, a slight traffic delay allowed me to pick up the car telephone to check in with a staffer at my state office in Charleston, West Virginia. I was surprised by an anxious note in her voice as she answered the phone. Before I could speak, she immediately wanted to know if I was in my car and if I had the radio on.

For me, that conversation began a day which would turn the life of our nation upside down and transform a lackluster, inarticulate, visionless president into a national and international leader, nearly unquestioned by the media or by members of either party. That day would spur Congress to hand over, for the foreseeable future, its constitutional power to declare war. It would eventually lead this nation to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. In consequence, that September morning would endanger cherished, constitutionally enshrined freedoms as had almost no other event in the life of our nation. It would also alter our nation’s foreign policy in profoundly disturbing ways.

But on this morning of September 11, 2001, there was yet no hint of all that”

The book goes on to describe the litany of ways that the current administration has taken power for itself at the expense of both Congress and the citizens of this country. He very eloquently verbalizes 90% of the thoughts I have been having about our government – including the increasing lack of discussion and debate we have in this country, especially about things that really matter, especially war. The political passiveness of the citizenry is the biggest danger we face in my opinion, and apparently Senator Byrd’s.

I highly recommend this book, not because it says things you haven’t read or heard before, but because Senator Byrd has involved in governing the US Government for 50 years, and has seen a lot of presidents, Democrats and Republicans up close. His observations in this book confirm your worst fears about the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress. The real question we should be asking ourselves is why does an 87-year-old man have more guts than the rest of the chicken shits in Congress?

He is running for re-election in 2006. I can't imagine that I would have ever in the past advocated for electing someone almost 90 years old. However, I am afraid that after he leaves the Senate there will be no voice left to decry the freedoms and rights we are so cavalierly handing over to the government.

The American Religion

2005-12-17T21:11:00.000-06:00

It seems I cannot escape the War on Christmas. Maybe because it's the season of giving, or it could be the location in which I live, but all around me people are agitated about the perceived sleight to this national holiday. At a school winter celebration the other day, moms were using it as a rallying cry, not to save their children from the ignoble fate of attending a party in December without actually acknowledging Jesus' birth, but as a stepping-off point for discussions on why teaching creationism in science isn't such a bad idea. While the connection is not lost on me, its implications brought me back here for a rant about going down that slippery slope.

Since I've posted on the subject before, I won't beleaguer the point that the original settlers came here to escape religious persecution, and that as a melting pot of different beliefs and the supposed model of democracy for the world, we owe it to Americans, past and present, to protect the freedoms of the minority in our country from the power of the majority. Yes Virginia, there will always be Christmas in America, the real fear is whether there will always be an America in which to celebrate it.

This essay by Harold Bloom speaks volumes on the subject. Bloom is both a teacher and a student of literature, and while he uses this motif to illustrate his topic, his main subject is the eveningtime of America. Are we nearing the end of the greatest period in our nation's history, inevitably moving backward from the advantages we have enjoyed for two centuries? Bloom points to the cushion of religion and ignorance for this trend. "...American people seem benumbed, unable to read, think, or remember, and thus fit subjects for a president who shares their limitations." Moral conservatives choose to believe rather than think.

Bloom wonders, "Sometimes I find myself wondering if the south belatedly has won the civil war, more than a century after its supposed defeat. The leaders of the Republican party are southern; even the Bushes, despite their Yale and Connecticut tradition, were careful to become Texans and Floridians. Politics, in the United States, perhaps never again can be separated from religion. When so many vote against their own palpable economic interests, and choose "values" instead, then an American malaise has replaced the American dream."

Worse, Bloom points out, is the inconsistency and moral backruptcy of American religion, "There is now a parody of the American Jesus, a kind of Republican CEO who disapproves of taxes, and who has widened the needle's eye so that camels and the wealthy pass readily into the Kingdom of Heaven. We have also an American holy spirit, the comforter of our burgeoning poor, who don't bother to vote. The American trinity pragmatically is completed by an imperial warrior God, trampling with shock and awe."

Wielding the sword of power in America today is the religious right. In the quest for sovereignty they endanger the education our children receive, the civil liberties we have always enjoyed, and the very notion of what it is to be free. Bloom quotes Huey Long, ironclad leader of Louisana politics from 1928-35, "Of course we have fascism in America only we call it democracy." Long might have been before his time philosophically speaking, for it is today that religious conservatives reframe the meaning of liberalism to equate to fascism. Newspeak makes all things possible.

To the parents who suggested teaching evolution in science class, I suggested a sermon on Darwin for their next Sunday service. No one was amused; my children may miss a lot of birthday parties. But they will know about evolution, and democracy, and the right to choose for themselves what it means to be free. Sad to say, it may not be in America

Happy Holidays

2005-12-15T23:41:00.000-06:00

I had promised myself I would not post on the subject of O'Reilly's War on Christmas, figuring that it was yet another diversion from topics that warranted discussion. Ellen Goodman made what I considered the definitive rebuttal, so nothing more need be said. Then I read this poem and knew it deserved posting, not only on merit, which it has in spades, but because I really like creative argument. Enjoy and Merry X-mas.

Washington, DC - Congressman John D. Dingell (MI-15) recited the following poem
on the floor of the US House of Representatives concerning House Resolution 579,
which expressed the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and
traditions of Christmas should be protected. Preserving Christmas has been a
frequent topic for conservative talk show hosts, including Fox News' Bill
O'Reilly:

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House
No bills were passed 'bout which Fox News could grouse;
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
So vacations in St. Barts soon would be near;
Katrina kids were nestled all snug in motel beds,
While visions of school and home danced in their heads;
In Iraq our soldiers needed supplies and a plan,
Plus nuclear weapons were being built in Iran;
Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell;
Americans feared we were on a fast track to...well;
Wait--- we need a distraction--- something divisive and wily;
A fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly
We can pretend that Christmas is under attack
Hold a vote to save it--- then pat ourselves on the back;
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger!
This time of year we see Christmas every where we go,
From churches, to homes, to schools, and yes, even Costco;
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy,
When this is the season to unite us with joy
At Christmas time we're taught to unite,
We don't need a made-up reason to fight
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter, and those right wing blogs;
You should just sit back, relax, have a few egg nogs!
'Tis the holiday season: enjoy it a pinch
With all our real problems, do we honestly need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues I say with delight,
A merry Christmas to all,
and to Bill O'Reilly, Happy Holidays.

Ted is definitely not dead

2005-12-13T19:36:00.000-06:00

OK Beasties, especially all you in Houston, Austin, and points in between, I am asking for your help. A friend of mine is running for Congress here in Tejas. His name is Ted Ankrum,and he has an uphill battle against the Republican machine here. He is running in one of those DeLay-mandered districts that were created in 2004 when five Democrats were redistricted out of their house seats. District 10 runs from west Houston to Austin, and the current incumbent is a typical Texas Republican and is deeply entrenched in the Republican Party here. His main sponsors seem to be Governor Goodhair (Rick Perry) and Senator Cornyn.

Ted is an extraordinarily-capable individual. He has been a top NASA executive, a senior EPA executive, a DOE official, and a diplomat (see his web site for more detail). He understands the current US energy situation and the risks of Peak Oil. He is someone who I can get totally behind, and I think stc would say the same thing. Please give him all the love (i.e. money) and publicity you can. I don’t know if he can win this district, but I sure know that Congress would be better with him as a member.

Technorati tags - Ted Ankrum
Peak Oil
Congress

Afghanistan - History Lesson Bush Should Have Learned

2005-12-03T20:45:00.000-06:00

Juan Cole posts a thoughtful study on the ramifications of the Iraqi Invasion at Truthdig. In it he covers the history of Saddam's war against the Shia in Iran, the First Gulf War, and the foreseeable events now unfolding. Summation - the eventual conclusion to the war will be an Iranian Shiite Theocracy in Iraq.

In comments, reader Tom Janzen suggests three possible reason for Bush's dogged insistence on the war. One, the existence of intelligence unknown to anyone outside the administration (now known to be a myth). Two, that there were political reasons not discloseable to the public (oil deals, empire building). Let's assume conspiracy theories are mythical as well. That leaves us with number three, "the Bush Administration simply did not know what it was doing, was so incompetent it had no way to assess or desire to understand the most probable outcome, and the decision was taken soley on unexamined ideological/religious grounds." (Forever more to be known, not as the Peter Principle, but the Katrina Complex).

It was at this point that I began to wonder about event from history which might have proven helpful to the administration, had they chosen to be so introspective, and one literally leapt out at me - the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. Let me start by saying I know and accept there are major differences between the two, most notably the recruiting, funding and training of anti-Soviet guerilla forces by the US, UK, Saudi and Pakistan. Although, as many of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida members are former mujahideen, maybe this isn't such a difference after all.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, they no doubt anticipated an easy victory and successful takeover of a country torn by years of tribal infighting (yes, major difference; Iraq had a strong dictator, but years of fighting Iran and the US had left him poor and desperate). Several years later the Soviets found themselves fighting a major insurgency, better armed than expected, more determined and growing. The Soviets controlled only Kabul, the capital, while 80% of the country was divided among tribal and guerilla interests. Ten years after they invaded, the Soviets were forced to withdraw amid mounting international pressure, the deaths of a million of Afganis and 15,000 Soviet troops, at the cost of millions, billions of Rubles. A succession of failed governments gave rise to the Taliban, that seized control in 1994, proclaimed Islamic law and provided a training ground for Islamic fundamentalist radicals under the leadership of Osama bin Laden.

After the events of 9-11, when it became clear that al Qaida was responsible and hiding in Afghanistan, the United States went to war against the Taliban and the terrorist they were shielding. It did not take a year for American troops to understand the difficulties faced by the Soviet army years before. While they were able to defeat the Taliban in Kabul and place a government in the capital, much of the country remains unstable and Osama bin Laden has never been captured.

Iraq is not Afghanistan, or Vietnam, or Hitler's Germany, but lessons learned in each of these instances (our misunderstanding of Arabs and Islam, misjudging the vested interests and abilities of local people, not fighting a war on two fronts) could have been invaluable to the administration before they invaded Iraq, had they any desire to learn them.

Sea Stories

2005-12-02T19:59:00.000-06:00

Ah, it's Friday night and all is fine in my little corner of the world. My nasty headcold has abated, the children have all managed to position themselves elsewhere, and Chron.com has linked to BotB (see here and here). The people at Chron.com are doing a great job of trying to publicize local bloggers. Let's all try to support them by visiting the site and suggesting others blogs for consideration.

As Friday is the traditional day for special interest blogging (or it is tonight), I thought I would entertain you all with this ditty I just made up. Actually, I've been meaning to write this for years now, and tonight, opportunity became the mother of invention. Enjoy...

An Englishman, a Frenchman and a German went out
For a leisurely moonlight sail.
The weather whipped up to a force ten blow,
And the boat tipped right to the rail.

The Englishman smiled in pure delight and said,
"What a great night to be at sea."
The Frenchman drank a few bottles of wine and said,
"Merde, I need a pee."

The German looked up and down the boat,
Then at the tempest swirling around.
As funny as this nautical tale might be,
No punchline has ever been found...

How would you end it?

Justice, American Style

2005-12-01T14:34:00.000-06:00

Moving from the politics of government to the politics of humanity...

999 - that's the number of inmates executed in the United States since the Supreme Court reaffirmed the death penalty in 1976. Texas, the big kahuna of lethal injection, has administered terminal justice to 355 people during this time. Like they say, everything is bigger in the Lone Star State.

I don't actually have a problem with the death penalty per se. However it seems to me we should exclude certain people from the pool of contenders, either by statute or by the trial and appeal process, and this is where the dispute begins. I say we should not be executing children, those with IQs under 80, or the innocent. The law of the land over the years has condoned all three.

Case in point - Ruben Cantu, 17 at the time, was arrested for the brutal robbery and murder of one man, in an act that left another severely injured. Identified by the survivor, he was put to death in 1993. Now, a decade later, new facts and witnesses have come to light, and it seems Ruben Cantu may have been wrongfully convicted and, oops, executed.

In his post Dead Wrong at Yellow Doggerel Democrat, Steve Bates provides several great links for more information on this case, other arguments against capital punishment (racist, ineffective deterrent, not cost effective) as well as to the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. As Steve says, its the only way to be really sure you're not killing the wrong guy.

Case in point - Joseph Cannon, 17 at the time, was convicted of the murder of Anne Walsh and sentenced to death, this despite a personal history of sexual abuse, mental illness and substance abuse to substantiate a claim of extreme mental incompetence. It took two attempts to execute Cannon; after his vein collapsed, he alerted officials the needle had popped out. It was replaced and Cannon's execution was completed.

Both boys were seventeen at the time of their alleged crimes, they were both poor, minorities, and badly represented by counsel. They were also both in Texas, where 61% of people agree with the death penalty, according to the TCADP. When given to option to choose life without the possibility of parole, 41% still vote death.

43% of Texans would choose life without parole instead of the death penalty. This sounds like a good start for the people at TCADP, who favor such sentences over capital punishment. But in the case of juveniles, is it still going too far? What are we saying about the value of justice when children as young as 13 can be sentenced to spend the remainder of their lives in prison for a variety of crimes far short of killing.

In The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole Human Rights Watch gives a glimpse into the lives of young offenders who will never know freedom, due to a choice they made well before they could truly appreciate the meaning of forever. Fourteen-year-old Stacy accompanied older cousins on a robbery. He left before any violence took place, did not know his cousin had grown frightened of leaving a witness and had murdered the victim, and had no previous record. He is serving life without parole for one bad choice.

We live in a violent world and our criminal justice system works to the best of it's ability, but it is as political as anything else in this country. Being born poor, dark and underrepresented in society means being at risk- less education, healthcare, jobs, more disease, drugs and crime. Our courts are filled with young people whose first crime was being born a have-not in America. Justice-thirsty voters empower tougher, stricter sentencing, without thought to the long term.

Like the War on Terror, justice in America is fought from a foundation of fear not fact. If there were more transparency to the root causes of our fears, we might be more willing and able to commit the time and resources needed to confront them successfully. Instead we have a society shrouded by our own willingness to stick a smiley face on everything and vote W four more years.

Democrat Reframes War on Terror and Other Unbelievable Tales

2005-11-30T22:44:00.001-06:00

Stop the presses, uh, internets. This just in...Russ Feingold, spoke to NPR today in response to the President's daring new Strategy to Win the War in Iraq. In one single sentence my new hero managed to pinpoint what has been missing from both the administration and the Democrats. Feingold reframes the debate back to its origins, that what we should be working towards is victory against Al Qaeda. He then goes on to remind us that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, but that the president has confused to two to a point where the endgame has been lost and along the way Iraq has become a requiting tool for terrorist worldwide. Step one to remedy this is to set up a realistic timetable for the world to see, how we plan to leave Iraq and reduce the threat our presence places on the region.

Be still my heart, did I just really quote a prominent national Democrat making positive remarks on a legitimate plan to bring real national security back to the forefront of public debate and make the world a safer place. When I asked for suggestions on winning the War of Words, cynicism reigned, anarchy ruled. Though, god knows, I really love an anarchist, what I was really hoping for was this very thing. No finger pointing or smear campaigns, enough of blame and whining (we already have Kerry for that). What we need in this country is a progressive voice of reason and courage, willing to speak the truth, even when it is unpopular, and vote his or her convictions. And guess what? He's running for President in 2008. Check him out and we'll talk later.

Hello. Anybody Home

2005-11-30T20:18:00.000-06:00

Now I know how a mother feels. You birth something, raise it up through adolescence, turn it over to the care of another supposed responsible party, then find out later that your baby has been neglected and is in some serious need of redemption and care.

STC - what do you have to say for yourself? Don't give me that business about your family's needs. What about "Belly of the Beast"'s needs? What about our loyal readers needs? Do you think THEY care about your 3 kids, dog, crazy motocycle-riding husband, and infirm parent(s)? (OK, maybe some of them care.)

Well, as they say, if you want something done you better do it yourself.

Ranting over!

If you haven't read Ted Rall this week, you really should. His article is called What Lost Iraq.

Sometimes Ted is too strident, even for me (and I am pretty strident). He's pretty far left, and offensive to a lot of people. However he commonly speaks the truth. Check him out.

How to WIn the War of Words

2005-11-19T21:13:00.000-06:00

A number of progressive sites are talking tonight about the political message sent by both parties. Republicans are seen as strong and decisive, Democrats are weak and reactive. Josh Marshall has posted an e-mail from a Republican reader who questions Democrats' ability to present a unified, timely response to an aggressive GOP attack, and his readers, and those at Kos, are weighing in on the issue. Here at BotB we have readers from across the political spectrum, and many of you have expressed opinions on the matter in comments. So I would like to open the question up to you. What does the Democratic party need to do to win in the next several elections?

As I see it, the GOP has a divided message. They speak to their Christian conservative base when it suites their purposes, but on issues they see as transcending that base, they reframe things to meet their needs. The Harriet Meirs nomination is an example where they misjudged the marketing strategy and tried to appeal to the wrong group. The war in Iraq has been a greater success for the administration overall. Social Security fell through the holes of their system, while tax cuts and homophobia have been spot on. One place where they have been most effective is disparaging the opposing party. Marked by strong, pointed derisive attacks, the Republicans have successfully made the Democratic party seem weak and indecisive.

Democrats, on the other hand , have played into GOP hands by behaving weak and indecisive. A perfect example is Howard Dean's campaign for the presidency in 2004. Dean had considerable power until the primary when he was framed as wild and out of control in a concession speech. Had the Democratic party tried to combat this maneuver by the GOP, the election might have turned out differently. In the recent actions by house and senate, Dems have had the opportunity to show true backbone, but never manage to capitalize on the opportunity.

Commenters at TPM and Kos seem to want the Dems to be as derisive and divisive as Republicans have been; a strong offense is better than a mediocre defense. Commenter here at BotB seem to have a different opinion. What I hear from you is that Dems should be strong, but most importantly, they should have a message. It is the message that has been missing in the party for the last dozen years.

So the question today is, what message should the Democratic party be sending and how should they frame and market that idea to the American people?

Did the Bush Administration run an Enron on Iraq?

2005-11-14T16:59:00.000-06:00

There have been several discussions in comments recently about assertions that the Bush administration purposely lied, misled and misinformed the American people and Congress in the run up to the Iraq War. In this article by Elizabeth De La Vega posted at The Nation, she makes a case for indicting and prosecuting the WH for Enron-like fraud.

De La Vega, a former Federal prosecutor with more than 20 years experience, draws some fascinating parallels between the crimes Ken Lay and his cohorts were vilified for and the actions of the Bush administration, which have resulted in the deaths of 2000 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis, not to mention a cost of $200+ billion.

I'm not so sure the country is ready for yet another round of impeachment hearings, and I have no way to gage the accuracy of the legal analysis. But De La Vega does a great job of recreating the timeline and delineating the lies and misrepresentations made by the executive branch in their thirst for war.

Let the discussion begin...

Partisanship

2005-11-11T19:55:00.000-06:00

This post is not as timely as I would like it to have been. I should have posted it on Wednesday after the elections. I guess better late than never.

When I was growing up I was constantly counciled by my parents and teachers to vote “for the best candidate” regardless of their party. For years I did this, and it made sense back in the 70’s and 80’s. Usually I would vote Democratic, but occasionally the Republican made more sense and was better qualified than the Democrat, and I would vote for the Republican. This was especially true for races on the bottom half of the voting ballot – judicial races, county clerk, school board, etc.

However, this practice, that made sense in 1975, does not work any longer. The Republicans have changed the rules. They have put party on a pedestal higher than everything else. They have put the Republican party ahead of their country, their state, their locality, and their school. The demand party fealty above personal ethics and morality.

No race is non-partisan to them - city council, judicial races, school board etc. Their strategy has been to capture the reins of power from the bottom up. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

That is why I can’t understand or abide New York City re-electing Michael Bloomberg as mayor. Here is a true Democratic stronghold and they elect a Republican mayor. This is a mayor who openly supports the Bush Adminstration. This is a mayor who invited the RNC to have their convention in this Democratic bastion and did everything he could to suppress government guaranteed free speech against the Administration and the Republican party. I say better to have a shitty mayor for a short period of time than to have to suffer this Rupugnicant Oligarchy for decades.

Democrats must vow not to vote for ANY Republicans. Do I agree with John McCain, Cristie Todd Whitman, Brent Scowcroft, and other thoughtful moderate Republicans? Yes, but as long as they support Bush, DeLay, Cheney, Frist, etc., then they do not deserve the vote of one Democrat.

The Democrats did not make up the rules to this game. The Republicans did. They made everything partisan. Many Democrats still do not understand that the political rules have changed. Well they have, and here is your shot across the bow.

etc, etc, etc.

2005-11-10T22:41:00.000-06:00

There have been a number of informative, inciteful posts at the following sites. Make time to read through the comment sections, because there are jewels to be found there as well. Although I link here, I also refer you to the right side of this blog, where links to Josh Marshall, Brad DeLong and Juan Cole can be found. If you are interested in economics, the Iraq War or the troubles in France, these will not fail to elucidate.

I would also like to mention this editorial from the New York Times (via Yellow Doggrel Democrat) that basically slams the Bush administration. As go the polls, so goes the NYT. The fact that "all the news fit to print" in the United States has only now opened their eyes to what is happening in this administration should be more frightening than anything the paper has to say.

There are, of course, many more topics to cover. The Alito nomination, Texas' approval of a ban on gay marriage (or any marriage), and torturegate (not to mention phosphergate), but those will have to wait for another time. In the absence of new posts from BOTB, please keep these issues in your thoughts and remember to write your representatives and senators. Every opinion matters!

World to US, Step Back

2005-11-08T22:11:00.000-06:00

The comments on bubba's post, Bush - Most Hate Man in the World, have started me thinking about the administration in a number of new ways. Is Bush really the most hate man worldwide, since Hitler? Do the neocons in his administration deserve most of the credit for this perception, or does the buck stop with the president? Who else is responsible? Is the War in Iraq small potatoes compared to Global Warming? Or are they related?

I think the truth is world opinion on Bush was formed in 2001, when he reversed President Clinton's support of the Kyoto Protocol shortly after he was inaugurated. That one act sent a message around the world that he and his people care more about keeping their corporate benefactors happy, than they do about keeping the world from self-annihilation.

Rather that being a red herring to detract the country from Peak Oil and Global Warming issues, the war in Iraq is emblematic of their indifference to all things not seen as contribuatory to their business-controlled self-interest. War is good business, especially when no one today is being asked to pay for it. Driving up massive deficits can't hurt the current administration because they will not be in power when the bill comes. What matters to Bush is 2006 shareholder return on investment and executive bonuses for the favored 500.

Hurricane Katrina caused an unusual blip on the screen for Bush and associates because it threatened to reveal the awful truth of what Bush and his team of Terrell Owenses have done to this country. Unfortunately a gutless congress, too scared to open Pandora's Box of evil created by those in power this close to elections, have paved the way to more debt, buried with the pork spending they so adroitly deny.

Americans are to blame for the mess this country is in because they had all the information about what this administration was up to and voted to reelect the man anyway. We live in a greedy, self-absorbed ignorant culture in America and the world is watching.

If the world could send just one message to the US, I am sure it would be to: look around for the forest through the trees; step up to the plate of humanity and try some falafel; step back from the abyss that is ignorance of science and history, the two speeding trains threatening to collide if not attended to responsibly. Bush and his people don't care, but it is not too late for the rest of us, if we start paying attention now.

Does Cheney Owe Libby? Big Time

2005-11-07T16:47:00.000-06:00

I haven't posted on the Plame Game since the summer, and had been somewhat hesitant to do so until the whole thing finished playing itself out, but this post by John Dean (via Brad DeLong, Nov.7th) is so intriguing, I just had to put in my dos centavos. Make sure you read to the bottom, because though he actually contradicts himself in the middle (maybe the implications hit too close to home), but his conclusion seems right on the money.

Dean should know a thing or two about politics and the law, having been the "Mastermind" behind the cover up in the Watergate scandal and having served time for obstruction of justice for his involvement. While serving his sentence, Dean flipped on his former Nixon administration cohorts, and became the sweetheart of federal prosecutors.

Libby is no John Dean. While Dean had files of information to protect him from becoming the Watergate scapegoat (this was the Nixon White House), Libby told what everyone knows now is the biggest fishing story ever. It was so stupid, he had to have known he would get caught., so what's the point? What Patrick Fitzgerald found in investigating the whole sordid affair, is that Libby's lie basically set up a firewall to protect Big Time Cheney. Unless the prosecutor can find someone or something else to pry open Libby (and maybe Rove), investigation over, Scooter takes the fall, gets pardoned, writes more porn.

Dean writes that the only thing that might throw a spanner in the works is a Democratic Revolution in the Senate at midterm election. That would be a tall order even in today's anti-administration climate. I count 43 Dem Sens + Jeffords (an anti-war independent). That makes 7 seats needed to take over the floor and demand accountability. Why not just six and force a tie vote? Who gets to break ties? The same guy who likes to break legs and laws, Big Time Dick himself.

Bush - The most hated man in the world?

2005-11-06T10:19:00.000-06:00

As I was looking at coverage of the Summit for the Americas and the anti-Bush demonstrations there, I was wondering if there was anywhere in the world, outside of some Republican strongholds in the US, where an actual spontanous gathering of people at a Bush appearance would not result in a multitude of epithets hurled at the supposed "leader of the free world". Of course such a situation will never be allowed to happen, but hypothetically speaking.

This led to the next thought of who (and when) was the last person who was so universally hated throughout the world. I guess you could put Bin Laden in that category, even though history will show him to be a small powerless bit player in the overall scheme of things. Perhaps Ayatolla Khomeni, but it is really hard for me to guage how the rest of the world thought about him.

Certainly no American President has ever been so despised thoughout the world as Bush. Nixon doesn't even come in a close second. And the worst thing is that I don't think he really has any clue how much everyone hates him.

Now Bush is not a mass murderer on the scale of Hitler or Stalin (even though he attacked a small weak country under the cover of lies and false pretenses resulting in an ongoing struggle causing the deaths to date of over 26,000 of its citizens).

So I guess the best we can say about Bush is that he is no where near as bad as Hitler.

So where have your been?

2005-11-04T21:25:00.000-06:00

Well it is nice that someone decided to actually publish some verbage on this E-rag, even if it is stc. Unfortunately I have been preoccupied with three things - work, visiting relatives, and TOD.

What the hell is TOD. TOD is the The Oil Drum. The owners of TOD asked my to be a contributor to their blog, and I have been concentrating my feeble efforts over there for a couple weeks.

Unfortunately, they actually have editors at TOD and don't just publish any old drivel. On BOTB I can write anything I God Damn Well Please! Over there they actually have standards. That is the one reason why I will never give up this blog. I hate f***ing standards!!!! Long live literary anarchy.

Projecting Fascism

2005-11-02T22:16:00.000-06:00

I've been watching a lot of Faux News lately. It is one of the side-effects of spending time with certain relatives, a tripe-laden diet of bad news, bad radio and opinions based on bad information. And as I watched and listened, I was struck by an increasingly annoying habit of O'Reilly, Malkin, Goldberg, etal. Claim liberals lie, smear, bash, debase, insult and fill the airways with bigoted, racist invective, when it is they who are, in fact, the main purveyors of such fare.

A recent case in point was the naming of Sam Alito as SCOTUS nominee. Within days MSNBC's Chris Matthews (lead by talking points from his right-wing sources) was slamming Democrats for their disgusting comments about Italian-Americans. This appears to be the offending statement:

SAMUEL ALITO:
Judge Scalito Has Long History of States Rights,
Anti-Civil Rights, And Anti-Immigrant Rulings
Samuel Alito is a judge on U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Appointed to this position by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, Alito is often referred to as Judge Scalito because of his adherence to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's right-wing judicial philosophy. While serving as a U.S. Attorney, Alito failed to obtain a key
conviction, releasing nearly two dozen mobsters back into society. Based on his
Third Circuit opinions, Alito has established himself as a potential foe to
immigrants, reproductive rights, and civil liberties.
Hunter at the Daily Kos has spoken more about this, but in researching the issue I found this from O'Reilly on Nov. 1st:
O'REILLY: By the way, if Alito is confirmed, that will be a good thing for
conservatives. That's the bottom line. Because Alito will take a more
traditional view than a [Supreme Court justices Stephen G.] Breyer or a [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg. OK? He'll look at things, and he'll say, "You know, the
Founding Fathers didn't want partial-birth abortion. The Founding Fathers didn't
want all mention of Christmas stricken from the public arena." That's what Alito
will do. He's a traditionalist. He's going to rule that way.

Is it my imagination or did O'Reilly just say that the only two Jewish Justices are out to kill babies and steal Christmas against the Founding Father's wishes because they are non-traditionalists, which is to say not Catholic, like the soon-to-be majority on the court?

It seems I am not the only one who has made this connection. David Neiwert of Orcinus has covered the subject in depth. It seems Jonah Goldberg has written a book calling liberalism the new fascism. And while Goldberg's work smacks of punditry verging on propaganda, Neiwert takes a scholarly approach to the matter and explains why the talking heads on the right seem so determined to confuse the issue. I warn you this is a very long PDF file and if you just want to read small bits of his work, go here.

Remember Orwell's 1984 and Newspeak. By combining opposite terms, you denature both words and overlay new, though misguided truths to both. When War is Peace and Ignorance is Strength, Liberalism is Fascism makes a certain kind of sense. By repeating this way of thinking over and over, the right is creating a New World Order, where, as Orwell's character pointed out, "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime impossible, because there will be no words with which to express it?"

By combining the repetition of false information with the formation of new idiomatic reference, the working vocabulary and understanding of events skews to the meaning most often heard. I discovered this when trying to discuss "Conservatism". By my somewhat date notion of the word, it refers to one who prefers less governmental intrusion in daily life; fiscally, socially, a conservative was anti-bureaucracy, pro-personal freedom. Try explaining that in Newspeak, where conservative means doing things the religious right way or the highway.

Why does this matter so much? I leave you with a vignette from 1930's Germany. People wonder how Hitler came to power and managed to coerce millions of people to his way of thinking. He didn't really, he just rerouted their ideas until they were unwilling or unable to think for themselves.

From: Afterword of In God's Country: The Patriot Movement and the Pacific
Northwest, reminiscing about a professor's midafternoon lecture:

When he was a young man, he told us, he served in the U.S. Army as part of
the occupation forces in Germany after World War II. He was put to work
gathering information for the military tribunal preparing to prosecute Nazi
war criminals at Nuremberg. His job was to spend time in the villages
adjacent to one concentration camp and talk to the residents about what they
knew. The villagers, he said, knew about the camp, and watched daily as
thousands of prisoners would arrive by rail car, herded like cattle into the
camps. And they knew that none ever left, even though the camp never could
have held the vast numbers of prisoners who were brought in. They also knew
that the smokestack of the camp's crematorium belched a near-steady stream
of smoke and ash. Yet the villagers chose to remain ignorant about what went on inside the camp. No one inquired, because no one wanted to know. "But every day," he said, "these people, in their neat Germanic way, would get out their feather
dusters and go outside. And, never thinking about what it meant, they would
sweep off the layer of ash that would settle on their windowsills overnight.
Then they would return to their neat, clean lives and pretend not to notice
what was happening next door. "When the camps were liberated and their
contents were revealed, they all expressed surprise and horror at what had gone
on inside," he said. "But they all had ash in their feather dusters."

Baseball Bean Veddy Veddy Bad to Me

2005-10-24T14:35:00.000-05:00

Let me say up front that I really don't like baseball. I do go to the occasional game, drink all the beer I can afford and complain about the 1/2 sized seats at Minute Maid park. I actually saw Roger Clemens pitch this year, although I was under-impressed by his ability to pitch six scoreless innings (it is moderately more fun when people actually hit the damn ball) and I was offended by all the insensitive cracks about his age (the same as mine).

So it is with some chagrin that I admit to having watched not one but four complete baseball games in the last week. All these years I've told anyone who would listen how hopelessly dull the game is to watch and have ridiculed the over-analysis of each player, team and game. Now I am forced to admit it is story-telling at its finest, with complicated characters, unpredictable plots and tension-filled climaxes.

Naw, I'm only fooling. The game is still indecipherable to me and regular season games are boring as hell, but postseason is fun when you are winning. I'm a Dallas girl, and therefore no stranger to playoff bliss - in football. But this year in Houston, baseball's the game, Astros the team, and our lucky number is still four. The last two nights have been as painful to watch as the NLCS game five and the 'stro's better get their bullpen together or they don't have a chance to take even one game from these White Sox. Hey, that almost sounded like I knew what I was talking about. Next thing you know I'll be watching golf. Don't get me started...

New Urbanism

2005-10-21T06:00:00.000-05:00

I'm going to start this post with the caveat that I have absolutely no technical foundation to my arguments; as bubba could tell you, I'm hopelessly, physically ignorant. But that might just make me the perfect foil for all the strong, technical arguments made in the last few post and comments. I'll lay my case and let you explain where my naivete has led me astray.

Listening to NPR the other day, I was fascinated by the rebuilding ideas already being discussed for the Gulf Coast, specifically hurricane -razed Mississippi. The idea is New Urbanism - mix-use, walkable town centers with combined low and middle income housing, using architectural designs from the early 19th-century, but incorporating modern technologies. It's rebuilding the small towns of our past with an eye to the future.

After reading the AE posts of the last few days and thinking of SinceSlicedBread, wouldn't this be a great way to initialize schemes for alternative-based, energy-efficient communities. Things could be tested in these micro-climates and the successful ones transferred to larger communities, either over-layed or reengineered as necessary. Could a brownstone type structure, with a storefront on ground level and four single family apartments above get by with a roof-sized power grid and community biomass heater?

At one point none of our infrastructure was interconnected, not water and sewage, heating and electricity, phones, cable or satellite. All of these things have been incorporated over time, with new areas having the best of the new technology, but older housing being updated as it became possible. In 1980, fewer than 10% of houses had cable, today it is derigour for new developments, even though satellite is becoming more popular. In 1990 not one in fifty had heard of the internet, today technophobic seniors wouldn't dream of living without e-mail. It may take years of trial and error to get the country (world) out of fossil fuels and into alternatives, but it doesn't all have to be done at once. So longs as we make it a priority, it will happen.

It also doesn't have to be a one-size-fits-all proposition. Wind technologies may work better in rural areas, solar in sunny ones, wave-driven near the coast. Industrial areas may need more interconnected power, while populated ones could use more individualized solutions. Bubba worries that people would be slow to commit/utilize/accept such diversity, but as others have pointed out, necessity is the mother of invention. What about a slow, need-fit conversion?

Hydrogen Hype

2005-10-19T15:24:00.000-05:00

There is a widespread belief that the savior of the planet, in terms of an energy solution, will be hydrogen. I'm here to tell you that just ain't so. Hydrogen, as it occurs on the Earth, is not a primary energy source. It can be used as an energy carrier, like electricity, but it cannot replace fossil fuels, which are primary energy sources.

From Wikipedia:

There is a widely held misconception that hydrogen is an alternative energy source. There are no uncombined hydrogen reserves on Earth that could provide energy like fossil fuels or uranium. Uncombined hydrogen is instead produced with the help of other energy sources. It may play an important role in a future hydrogen economy as a general energy storage system, used both to smooth power output by intermittent power sources, like solar power, and as transportation fuel for vehicles. However, the idea is currently impractical: hydrogen is inefficient to produce, and expensive to store, transport, and convert back to electricity. New technology may change this in the future.

From Physics Today:

Although in many ways hydrogen is an attractive replacement for fossil fuels, it does not occur in nature as the fuel H2. Rather, it occurs in chemical compounds like water or hydrocarbons that must be chemically transformed to yield H2. Hydrogen, like electricity, is a carrier of energy, and like electricity, it must be produced from a natural resource. At present, most of the world's hydrogen is produced from natural gas by a process called steam reforming. However, producing hydrogen from fossil fuels would rob the hydrogen economy of much of its raison d'être: Steam reforming does not reduce the use of fossil fuels but rather shifts them from end use to an earlier production step; and it still releases carbon to the environment in the form of CO2. Thus, to achieve the benefits of the hydrogen economy, we must ultimately produce hydrogen from non−fossil resources, such as water, using a renewable energy source.

However, even using Hydrogen as an energy carrier has its drawbacks, as are demonstrated by Engineer-Poet here.

That's all I have to say about hydrogen. Lots of other people have said it better elsewhere.

Technorati Tags Peak Oil, Alternative Energy, hydrogen

Engineer-Poet Needs Your Help

2005-10-17T13:46:00.000-05:00

Engineer-Poet writes a blog called the Ergosphere. He knows more about alternative and renewable energy than anyone else I have run across. He has entered a contest called Since Sliced Bread that is looking for:

"ideas that are original and creative, have the best chance of practical success and would most effectively:

Grow the economy

Create good-paying jobs that allow people to raise a family, afford health insurance, pay for their children’s college education, get additional training and save for retirement

Encourage existing companies to expand and entrepreneurs to start new ones.

Finally, keep in mind who should benefit from the ideas — whom this contest is about. "

He needs our help to put his ideas over the top. Go check it out, register, and comment.

There are further details on his blog, Ergosphere.

Alternative Energy II

2005-10-16T16:44:00.000-05:00

Based upon the energy generated by my last post, I have decided to make all of my future posts on things I am mostly ignorant about. That way, I will at least generate a lot of blog traffic by people correcting my misstatements. (Just kidding).

Clearly there are a lot of people out there, some of them down right brilliant, who are big believers in alternative energy, especially solar, wind, and biomass. A lot of these people have ideas on alternative energy schemes and systems that are very well thought out and make a lot of sense. However, one of the problems that I have with many of these schemes is that most presume a highly dispersed and distributed energy infrastructure where we all are our own power generation company. This idea works great for engineers, electricians, and technogeeks, but it kind of falls down for single mothers, senior citizens, and average Joe’s who can change a lightbulb, but wouldn’t know how to change a circuit breaker if their life depended on it.

Although the sun and the wind is everywhere, and there may be efficiencies, from a pure energy standpoint, to having distributed power generation, do we really expect a wind turbine in every yard, solar panels on every roof, and a battery of batteries in every garage/basement/utility room? I think not. If alternative energy is to have a future, I believe it has to be within the context of energy delivered through a centralized system to a customer base that is relatively ignorant. Think of how much penetration the PC would have if we all had to learn BASIC to use one. Any thoughts?

Technorati Tags Peak Oil, Alternative Energy

Alternative Energy Will Save Us

2005-10-11T12:45:00.000-05:00

The Common Misconceptions About Peak Oil
A continuing series
Chapter VI

So far we have talked about the following subjects, where energy comes from, OPEC, Deepwater production, tar sands, and oil shale. In this post we are going to explore the fascinating world of ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.

I am not really sure what alternative energy is, but for the sake of this article, we will define it as any type of energy source that is not a major commercial source of energy in the US. I guess we could define it by what it is not. Alternative energy is not conventional crude oil, conventional natural gas, coal, nuclear, and large-scale hydroelectric power. It is oil shale and tar sands, but as stated above, those subjects have been treated in separate posts on this blog.

For alternative energy sources they can be divided into renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, biomass, tidal, other hydro etc.) or non-renewable (methane hydrates for example, also geothermal which kind of falls between renewable and non-renewable).

The greenies favorite white horse is renewable energy. To many people, this is going to save the planet. Now why isn’t this possible?

We kind of have to look at these energy sources one at a time and evaluate what they are capable of. Let’s look at wind energy first.

Wind is a reasonably good source of power to turn a turbine to make electricity. In some parts of the world (e.g. Denmark) wind power is a major contributor to the electrical generation capacity. However, it has some downsides. 1) It can never be counted on to provide a large percentage of the power generation requirements for a large country. Here are some reasons why:

Wind is a diffuse and fickle energy source. It is there when you don’t need it and it is not there when you do. Although in some places it is almost constant in terms of it always blowing somewhat, most of those places are in the middle of oceans, in Antarctica, in the Texas Panhandle or other God-forsaken places far from urban centers. Electricity from wind requires an inordinately large foot print (e.g. 300 sq mi to replace one conventional power plant), and it requires a hell of a lot of concrete, steel, wire, and electrical infrastructure to put it all together. At best it could replace 20% of the generating capacity needed for a large community, although many people think that is a stretch. Even then, it only cuts down on the UTILIZATION of conventional power plants but not the need for them. Power must be provided at 100% of the peak demand load. If the wind is not blowing, a wind turbine is useless. Consequently, 100% of conventional, always-on, generation capacity must be maintained for the times that wind in unavailable. To read about the pros and cons of wind energy here is a good source.

I guess my conclusion about wind is that it is a nice niche energy source, and it should be fully researched and exploited, but I don’t ever see it becoming a major part (>5%) of the world’s energy mix.

OK, what about solar? Solar energy is divided up into categories like passive vs active and direct vs indirect. But what we are talking about here is the use of solar energy as a major transportable energy source, not how to use passive solar energy to decrease your heating bill in New Mexico. So that means active, direct solar power generation.

Solar power generation has many of the same drawbacks as wind power does. It is not there when you need it and there when you don’t need it. Just like with the wind, the availability of the sun is highly variable from location to location and from season to season. Not only that but even at the sunniest spot on earth, the sun doesn’t shine 12 hours of every day (on average). So now we are talking about the need for energy storage as well as power generation.

Also there is a significant downside in cost and footprint: “While the price of photovoltaic cells has been slowly dropping, solar-generated electricity is still four times more expensive than nuclear (and more than five times the cost of coal). Maybe someday we'll all live in houses with photovoltaic roof tiles, but in the real world, a run-of-the-mill 1,000-megawatt photovoltaic plant will require about 60 square miles of panes alone. In other words, the largest industrial structure ever built”

Enough rain on your parade yet, or shall we look at some others. Biomass is one that is bandied about. How does it stack up?

Of course biomass is the oldest energy source on the planet. In its simplest form, biomass is just wood or dried animal dung to be used for burning. In a more general sense, however, basically all organic waste that can be turned into heating fuel (i.e. burn it) or into transportation fuel through various chemical engineering processes (gasification and Fisher-Tropsch etc.). Also, ethanol can and is made directly from different types of biomass. Ethanol is clean (relatively speaking), but growing the amount of cellulose required to shift US electricity production to biomass would require farming an area the size of 10 Iowas, not to mention what additionally will be needed to replace the 10,000,000 barrels of oil we burn in our motor vehicles every day (US only).

I guess if we used every arable spot of land in the US for growing biomass to make fuel we could come close to meeting our energy needs, but we would starve to death.

What about geothermal energy. Like energy from the Sun, energy from inside the earth is everywhere. But for the most part it is diffuse, low-grade energy source. Only in a few places on the earth is there a sufficiently high near-surface heat gradient to utilize geothermal energy to do things like generate large-scale electrical power (Indonesia, New Zealand, the Phillipines). Basically if you have active volcanoes nearby, geothermal is an energy source available to you. However, it is important to realize that geothermal is not completely renewable.

Most geothermal power generation schemes are like any other heat-based schemes (nuclear, coal, natural gas). The heat is used to create steam which is in turn used to rotate turbines and generate electricity. For geothermal this is done by extracting naturally-super-heated groundwater, flashing it to steam, running it through a turbine, then pumping the used-up steam/water back into the ground. The net effect of this process is to cool the reservoir of geothermal energy to the point where, eventually, there is not enough heat in the system to effectively provide power. At such a time, the resource must be abandoned. For the Kamojang Geothermal Field, Java, Indonesia, the typical life of a power-generation unit is about 35 years.

So where does that leave us. The reasons why the above are considered “alternative” energy sources rather than “primary” energy sources is that they are not as efficient at providing widespread energy at affordable prices. The reason why oil, coal, and natural gas are the preferred energy sources world wide are because:

1. They are dense in terms of their energy content
2. They are widely available and have been available in large quantities
3. They are transportable
4. They are useful in their raw or easily refined states to be used as heating fuel, transportation fuel, or generate electricity
5. They are cost effective

So far, none of the above alternative energy sources we have looked at even comes close to achieving these 5 things.

Does that mean we should ignore them? Hell no. We should be working with utmost urgency to try to improve on and utilize all of the alternative sources of energy we can come up with. However, from what we know now, alternative energy my deflect some of the blow from Peak Oil, but not much.

Technorati Tags - Peak Oil, Alternative Energy

More recession warnings

2005-10-10T14:46:00.000-05:00

As readers of this blog may or may not know, I made prediction here last August that we were on the brink of heading into a recession. Here are some more leading indicators. From The Houston Chronicle this morning - "Companies have not been in such shape since the Depression"

From James Hamilton's blog Econobrowser: -

So where do we stand right now? In response to the rapid run-up in gasoline prices in August and the devastation from Katrina, the University of Michigan's index of consumer sentiment fell from 96.5 in July to 76.9 in September. Consumption spending fell 0.5% in August, with sales of many SUV's down 50% in September compared with the year earlier. And today Delphi, the largest U.S. auto parts supplier, filed for bankruptcy.

On Friday we further learned that U.S. nonfarm payroll employment fell by 35,000 jobs in September. Given that we'd normally expect to see a monthly increase in employment of 150,000 jobs, the September figure amounts to 185,000 jobs lost. Although this loss was evidently smaller than many other analysts I suggested on Sept. 7 for the size of the effect that we might expect to see from Katrina itself. I also noted then that 200,000 lost jobs would amount to about 1/4 of a recession-inducing employment shock. See also excellent discussions of the latest job figures by Calculated Risk and Macroblog.

What else is out there? Anything pointing the other way?

Help me out here people.

Technorati Tags - recession, economics

Energy 101 – The Basics

2005-10-08T11:26:00.000-05:00

The Common Misconceptions of Peak Oil – V
(a continuing series)

I started this series over a month ago with this post. In the meantime we have had two hurricanes and skyrocketing oil and gas prices. However, my high-school-aged son keeps bugging me to finish this so here is the next installment.

First of all, let’s get down to basics and talk about where energy comes from. From the standpoint of pure physics, 99.9+% of the usable energy on the earth comes ultimately from nuclear fusion or nuclear fission reactions (a tiny amount comes from gravity [e.g. tides] but let’s forget about that for now). Most of this, of course, comes from fusion reactions on the Sun which transfers an infinitesimally-small part of this fusion energy to the earth through electromagnetic radiation. Much of this radiant energy is then transferred and stored on the earth through radiant heating of the oceans, land masses, and atmosphere. It is through the uneven radiant heating (and cooling) of the earth that we get weather, wind, hurricanes, ocean currents, rain, rivers, hydroelectric power and wind turbines.

However, in addition to storage of solar energy through heating, some of it is also stored as chemical energy through the photosynthetic process. Most of the chemical energy created by photosynthesis is liberated through oxidation and decay (through biological and non-biological processes) a short time (months to tens of years) after the radiant energy was fixed as chemical energy. However, some of this photosynthetically-created chemical energy ends up being stored for the long haul (tens to hundreds of millions of years) through burial in anoxic environments. It is through this process we have coal, oil, natural gas, oil shale, tar sands etc.

The other type of basic energy source that we have on the Earth is energy from nuclear fission. This, of course, is where we get energy for “nucular” power plants, and what caused Chernobyl, Thee Mile Island, and Hiroshima. However, this is also the main source of heating within the earth itself, and without it the earth would be very cold indeed. Moreover, without it we would not have any oil, gas, coal or probably any life on earth at all.

If I have you confused, let me explain a little more. The rock that makes up the majority of the earth’s crust and mantle contains small to minute quantities of minerals with radioactive elements that comprise them. These minerals are dispersed throughout these rocks. They are more concentrated in rocks that make up the continents (granites etc.) than in the rocks that make up the oceanic crust and mantle.

The radioactive elements in these rocks (Uranium, Thorium, etc.) are undergoing constant radioactive decay. As they decay, they emit radiation. That radiation, as it occurs in deeply-buried rocks, does not escape, and is turned mostly into heat. This heat is the fuel that drives the motor for plate tectonics, causes volcanoes to erupt, creates geysers in Yellowstone, and keeps the earth nice and toasty warm below the surface. Without the constant, ongoing radioactive decay throughout the earth, only the surface of the earth, where the sun was immediately shining, would be even the slightest bit warm and the rest would be cold, cold, cold.

Now I have serious doubts whether any life as we know it could live on the earth without this constant fission-heating, but for the sake of argument, lets assume it could and that photosynthesis would continue on at the same rate that it does today. Without the geothermal heat of the earth, though, there could be no oil, gas, or coal. The application of geothermal heat over millions of years is what is required to turn dead and buried flora and fauna into these energy sources.

OK, so where are we going with this? Let’s summarize.

1. Effectively all energy on the earth comes from nuclear reactions
2. Nuclear energy is a good thing, so get over your phobia about it.
3. All other energy sources are derived from nuclear
4. Both fusion from the Sun and fission from inside the Earth is required to provide the energy system and all life that we have on the earth today.
5. When discussing energy sources keep in mind that with each energy conversion you get away from a nuclear reaction, the more inefficient the energy source will be.

Next installment – “alternative” energy sources.

Technorati Tags - Peak Oil, Energy

Is This Another Misconception - Montana's Black Gold

2005-10-06T22:18:00.000-05:00

Bubba's legion of energy fans have demanded a new post on fossil fuel issues. While I know he is busy watching the Astros tonight, maybe he will find time tomorrow to provide insight into this post by Governor Brian Schweitzer linked from the Daily Kos. What do you say Bubba?

Hammered, et al

2005-09-28T18:53:00.000-05:00

If I had a Hammer,
I'd indict him in the morning,
I'd indict him in the evening,
for crimes against man.

I'd indict him for corruption,
I'd indict him for greed,
I'd indict him for all the shit,
the a**hole has done to people,
all over this land.

I know that was weak, but I'm a bit behind trying to get out of town and don't have time to do anything really creative. If you want to know what I really think about what is going on in politics right now, read this by Hunter, posted Kos. It says it all.

Dodged a bullet

2005-09-24T08:32:00.000-05:00

Some part of me is a little disappointed that we didn't have any excitement last night and that I don't have something interesting to write about this morning. For the most part we had pretty constant wind at about 20 to 25 mph with gusts probably to 50, accompanied by light rain. Louisianna seems to have taken the brunt again although SE Texas and even the eastern side of Houston probably had some damage also.

Two and a half days ago we were forecast to take a direct hit hear on the west side of Houston. It's like a bully called you out and threatened to beat you up after elementary school, and then he never shows up.

Anyway, since I don't have a lot of interesting storm stories you may want to check out these or these.

Afternoon post

2005-09-23T15:53:00.000-05:00

It's 4:00 PM and the wind is starting to pick up. I would guess where we are it averages about 10 to 15 mph but gusts are at least twice that. We are in the "dry" side of the storm, so the wind feels like a hot summer breeze blowing through Amarillo. It is coming out of the NNE. My main worry is where to park our cars so that falling tree limbs or trees don't hit them. We live in a neighborhood with lots of mature trees. My neighbor has two very tall palm trees. These trees have very small root systems. They can get knocked over easily. The north wind would bring these trees down either on my garage/game room or on my driveway. I can't do much about the game room, but I can keep cars out of the drive way.

Waiting, waiting

2005-09-23T09:58:00.000-05:00

Starting to see some high clouds from the outer bands of Rita. We have a slight breeze coming in from the north. This should help cool things down, as they were unbearably hot yesterday. I am waiting on the 10:00 AM post from the National Hurricane Center as to where they think this thing might hit. Right now, if the previous forecasts hold, we are in a pretty safe, if not benign, spot.

Of course, every event like this will cause a lot of retrospection when it is all over. The current estimates I heard were that 2.5 or more million people evacuated. Most of these people evacuated out of areas that were well inland and were not likely to be severely damaged by the hurricane. Once again we see that fear is the most powerful motivational factor for human beings.

Looking at analogs, Hurricane Carla in 1961 killed 31 people in Texas. Hurricane Alicia in 1983, a Cat 3 that went right through the heart of Galveston and Houston, killed 21 people. Hurricane Camille, the largest storm to ever hit the coast of the US killed 255 people in 1969.

As a comparison, at least 24 people died this morning in one accident trying to flee this storm. I will bet that when this is all over, lots of others will have died also - from heat stroke, auto accidents, heart attacks, etc.

Technorati Tags: Hurricane Rita

Quick update

2005-09-22T17:55:00.000-05:00

Went to the store to get party goods. The local supermarket was closing at 5:00 PM and reopening ??? It pretty much looked like a Soviet Safeway - no bread, no meat, no fruit, minimal chips, crackers, no bottled water. The freezer stuff was still in good supply, but of course, if the power goes out that stuff quickly turns into a science project. I am thinking about taking some beer up to people stuck on the freeway, but there is so many of them and I don't have that much beer.

It's unbearably hot - about 100 deg F, and right now there is almost no wind. That's it for now.

A Second Round of 'Rita(s)

2005-09-22T13:30:00.000-05:00

On Sunday nobody had even heard of Rita, but by Monday morning she was the talk of water cooler set. Monday night the decision to stay and ride out the storm meant careful planning was required. This involved the inevitably long list of items a family of five can't live without - water, batteries, TP and peanut butter, cash, cheese in a can, crackers, tampons and booze. Tuesday I joined thousands of my fellow Katycans at Sam's, where we stood in long lines and congratulated ourselves on our bravery and disaster preparedness.

By Tuesday night it became clear that Rita was not something to be trifled with. A quick change in plans called for our three daughters (plus dog and bunny) to drive to their grandparent's house in Dallas, Thursday morning. My husband and I left early Wednesday for Seabrook to secure our 30' sailboat and strip her of expensive electronics just in case - hope for the best, plan for the worst. We finished at 1pm and finally made it home at 6pm. Bumper to bumper traffic on the Beltway turned our typical hour drive into a 5 hour purgatory.

4:50 this morning (Thursday) the kids and pets packed into the 19-year-old's car and set off for Dallas down I10 to Brookshire, 359 to Hwy 6, Hwy 6 to Waco and up the 35E. Or at least that was the plan. 2 1/2 hours later they were still on the Katy feeder, having not moved more than 50 feet. Luckily, they managed to find a back road home so the 2 mile round trip only took three hours.

So we are all staying, battening down the hatches, enjoying a last few hours of air-conditioning, TV and computer time, before all H-town breaks loose. Tonight we will join friends for that time honored tradition - a hurricane party. Tomorrow, who knows...

Rita Roundup

2005-09-22T09:22:00.000-05:00

I took a walk with my dog this AM up to I10 to look at the traffic going out of Houston (near Katy). The road is a parking lot (and that is not hyperbole). There is no gas. I suspect that a lot of people are running out of gas on the freeway just idling, which is slowing up the traffic even more. I also suspect that a lot of people are going to have to leave their cars and find shelter somewhere near the road, as they won't be able to drive to the destination they intended. Many, many, many people are leaving town. The fear in many people, especially those who have never experienced a hurricane, is palpable.

Even if Houston is completely spared, it is going to take a week from Saturday until the city will be funtioning normally again. Everything is shut down. If the refineries, petroleum storage facilties, and batch plants are damaged it will take a long time to resupply fuel to the gasoline stations. Not only that, but the tankers have to use the same roads everyone else will be using to try to get back home.

I will try to keep posting for the next couple of days as the shit hits the fan. Hopefully the power won't go out.

Until later.

Profiting from Peak Oil

2005-09-19T19:31:00.000-05:00

A few months ago I spent quite a bit of time doing internet searches trying to find information on mutual funds and investment companies who were aware of Peak Oil and had devised investment vehicles to profit from Peak Oil. At the time I found very little out there. However, in the last month that has begun to change. Now there seem to at plethora of small funds that have picked up on the Peak Oil theme. These include the Guiness-Atkinson Global Energy Fund, Mammoth Resources, Sprott Asset Management, and Raymond James (Canada) Investments.

I believe this is the start of a wave, but right now, some major investment houses (Vanguard for one) are warning investors away from the energy sector. They think that the recent appreciation this sector has seen is unwarranted and speculative. Of course it is only unwarranted if you believe that dramatically lower energy prices are going to return in the near future. If not, then the current valuations are not unwarranted, and in fact, a number of the energy sectors are still priced cheaply relative to the overall market.

So here is what I am going to do for you – my faithful following of readers. I am going to give you Bubba’s own personal investment strategy for Peak Oil. Now I started this last summer, and if you took my advice back then, depending upon how much you invested, you would be a very happy camper, if profiting in the stock market makes you happy. So here is my advice, completely free of charge and conflict of interest, for Peak Oil Investing.

First of all, if you were buying this advice I would say “Caveat Emptor”, but since it is FREE, I will add “use at your own risk”.

I work under the three following premises:

1. From here on into the foreseeable future owners of energy will be the winners. Cash will flow to them. The coming scarcity of oil (and natural gas) will be the rising tide that will carry all energy forms to higher prices (coal, uranium, wind, solar, hydroelectric, bio-mass, etc.). Moreover, owners of long-term supplies of energy (20 or more years) will be much bigger winners than owners of short-term supplies.
2. From here on into the foreseeable future purchasers of energy will be the losers. The more your business or lifestyle depend on the availability of cheap energy, the more you will be hurt from here on out (airlines, car companies, chemical companies, home builders who build in the suburbs, road construction companies, entertainment companies like casinos or Disney, etc.)
3. There is a time coming when cash will be very important to your financial well being. You won’t know when that time will be until it arrives. Don’t be caught without a significant portion of your assets in cash.

Here’s how I apply the above premises to investing.

For everybody

1. Keep lots of cash on hand.
2. Stay out of the broad based mutual funds and overall stock market
3. Keep your household debt down to a minimum, especially if you work in one of the companies that will be hurt by rising energy costs
4. Get rid of that gas-guzzling SUV or truck.
5. Avoid buying that big house that you love 40 miles from your work.

For those with a moderate (to high) risk tolerance

Invest in those companies who OWN long-lived energy stockpiles and hold for the long term

1. Canadian Oil Sand Companies
2. North American Coal Companies
3. Oil and Gas Companies that have long lived reserves
4. Other energy companies positioned to profit from high energy prices

For those with extreme risk tolerance (aka Huge Balls)

Short Sell

Airlines
American automobile companies
Home builders
Casinos
Resort Hotels
Disney
Walmart
And lots of others

Let’s focus on the middle category for now, because that is the one I find myself in and the one I know the most about.

Most energy companies, with few exceptions, have seen their stock valuations skyrocket in the past 2 to 2.5 years. This, of course, is tied to the rising price of oil. So we have seen oil company stocks rise, but we have also seen coal company stocks, uranium mining stocks, gas-to-liquid stocks, and oil refining stocks rise.

Of course, as with everything in life, some of these companies have done better than others. If you would have bought 10,000 shares UTS Energy Corp. for $0.60/shr (total investment of $6000) last summer when I first recommended it, you would be sitting on a gain of nearly $40,000. A similar investment in ExxonMobil would have resulted in a gain of less than $2000. So why would that be?

ExxonMobil, the largest energy company on the planet, with the largest reserve base, is a behemoth. It may own more oil and gas than any other publicly traded company, but it sells a lot of that stuff every day. In fact it sells so much oil and gas that it has to work like hell to try to replace the oil it sells every year. This is true for all major oil companies, and the fact of the matter is that they are not doing a very good job of replacing into their reserve inventories the amount of oil they sell every year. Those of us who believe in Peak Oil think it is increasingly unlikely that companies like Exxon and Shell will be able to continue to replace their in-ground inventories of oil and gas. When this happens, they will just be liquidating their assets and going out of business. This is the signal that I think the market is sending about these multi-national oil companies.

UTS, on the other hand, was sitting on 2.8 billion barrels of undeveloped bitumen in a prime area in the middle of the Athabasca Tar Sands development. Last summer they did not have a way to commercialize this resource. However, since then they brought in two partners (PetroCanada and Teck Cominco) with considerable war chests, expertise, and commercial gravitas. These partners have agreed to pay almost all of the multi-billion dollar initial investment required to get this project off the ground. So now UTS is sitting on 25% of 2.8 billion barrels heading toward development without any initial capital exposure to UTS itself, rather than sitting on 100% of 2.8 billion barrels sitting in the ground and heading nowhere. The stock market has approved strongly of these measures and early investors are sitting on a pile of cash.

I guess this post could go on and on, but I think that most people reading this are really interested in recommendations – so here they are:

Tar Sand Companies – Own and hold them all. If you believe that oil is cheaply priced at $60/bbl you should buy these. If you believe it is overpriced at $50/bbl you should not, as most are probably priced in the market as if $50 oil is here to stay.
Suncor
Canadian Oil Sands Trust
Imperial Oil
Shell Canada
Canadian Natural Resources
UTS Energy
Western Oil Sands
OPTI Canada
Nexen

Oil and Gas Producers

Focus on those companies that have long lived reserves. This is measured by the ratio of their reserves divided by their production (R/P). Also, focus on companies with heavy upstream exposure compared to other sectors. Lastly, pay attention to the P/E ratio.

The companies I like are:

Petrobras
Encana
Conoco-Phillips
Occidental
Husky Energy

Coal Companies

Focus on those companies that have long lived reserves. A number of coal producers are organized as partnerships, which makes for complicated tax accounting. For this reason, I keep these in my IRA so I don’t have to worry about the immediate tax consequences. Also, I am somewhat leary about niche players. The companies that are producing metallurgical quality coal are getting a significant premium, both in revenue per ton sold and share price, to more run of the mill producers. I wonder, however, if steel production takes a hit whether this premium will mostly evaporate.

The companies I like are:

Peabody Energy
Alliance Resource Partners
Natural Resource Partners
Consolidated Natural Resources
Massey Energy
Fording Canadian Coal Trust

Others

Sasol – South African gas to liquids company
Comeco – Canadian-based Uranium mining company

What about alternative energy companies, you ask? Wind power, solar energy, geothermal, biomass, biodiesel? I am convinced there will be major winners and losers in the alternative energy category. I just don’t know how to pick the winners. You can’t own the sun, and you can’t own the wind. If you come up with the best wind turbine or most efficient solar cell who is to prevent the next guy to trumping your design a year later? It is just too easy, as an investor, to invest in the wrong good idea.

OK, so there you have it. All these companies have profited tremendously from the run up in oil prices. Will they continue to go higher? Over the long term this is a good bet, but not necessarily over the short term. As I said earlier – use this advice at your own risk.

Technorati tags: Peak Oil, Energy Investments, Investing, Energy Companies

A Tale of Four Colors

2005-09-17T21:33:00.000-05:00

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way . . ." not so advanced from Dickens' time, ours is a land of four colors - black and white, red and blue. Where you land on this twister board says a lot about how you see life in America today.

I remember the day I realized how privileged I was to be born white in America. After spending a year in Hawaii learning how little my whiteness meant, I returned to my parent's house. There was a wonderful woman who cleaned once a week, often bringing her children and then grandchildren with her. I remember always wanting to play with these other kids through the years, and how my grandmother and the cleaning woman never encouraged my ambitions. One day, after returning from college, I cried to this woman, because I could not afford mascara. She comforted me and reminded me that my daddy would give me anything I wanted. I don't know if it was at that moment, or days later it occurred to me she might not have enough money to spoil her children or pay her rent, but she had the goodness in her heart to comfort me in my hour of need.

Awhile back I posted that Bush doesn't hate black people, that he really just hates the poor. And for the most part, I still believe this to be true. But after spending a few days reading digby and Krugman, I realized I may just be suffering from the same kind of institutional racism as the majority of people my age. We know black people, we like those we know and therefore we don't think of ourselves as racist. Hurricane Katrina changed all that. We have all been confronted with the sad truth that had been in front of us for years. It is great to be white in America, but to be born black is an early death sentence and has been since day one.

In the early days of our nation, slaves were brought here to do the work no white man wanted to do in a free country. The Civil War was meant to end the suffering of black Americans, but it took another 100 years to free them from the laws that white men had enacted to keep them bound. The last forty years should have freed African-Americans to assimilate into the culture in which they were born, but what we have seen in the last two weeks should be enough to prove to anyone paying attention, there is a deep disparity between those who have and those who don't, and that difference delineates along racial lines more than anyone cares to talk about.

Before we engage in a New Deal effort to rebuild New Orleans or ask congress to investigate the travesty that was FEMAs response to the situation, we should as a nation look at how we can include a growing population of citizens in on the American Dream. It's time to add a little color to the red, white and blue.

Understanding the Oil Patch

2005-09-17T14:26:00.000-05:00

Many people who are interested in Peak Oil or oil and gas production in general tend to be woefully ignorant about the companies that produce most of the oil in the world and sell it back to the public as gasoline or other products. Many, if not most, people who are not involved in the industry, at least in a peripheral way, tend to ascribe all kinds of devious, conspiratorial, and unethical if not evil intentions to these companies. They treat the multi-nationals as if they were some sort of conspiracy against the earth. This may sound self-serving, but I am going to tell you the way it really is, or at least the way that I have seen it to be observing it from the inside for the past 20 years.

First of all, these companies, like all companies, are made up of people. That may sound stupid and redundant, but some people, based on what they write, seem to think that the Exxons of the world are organized like the Galactic Empire of Star Wars with a Sith lord at the top directing all the evil. The fact of the matter is that the people who work in these companies tend to be extremely normal. For the US-based contingent of these companies the employees probably vote Republican more frequently than the country as a whole, and they tend to be a church-going lot – to a large degree because of the concentration of these companies in the South (Houston, New Orleans, etc.), however, they are concerned with most of the same things you are.

The one thing they tend to be is rather insular. These multinationals are large bureaucracies. They are organized presumably to maximize return on investment for their investors. Like all bureaucracies, however, internal politics plays a big role in ultimately how they are organized and how effective they are as businesses. Despite aspirations to put the whole company first, many parts of these organizations look like Dilbert Comic Strips crossed with the movie Office Space.

OK, so where am I going with this? One point I want to make is that many of you reading this are far more educated about the worldwide supply and demand situation for crude oil than even a large number of middle managers at most of these companies. Until recently, if I walked up and down the hallway at my office and polled people on their opinions about Peak Oil, most of the people probably would never have heard the term. Individually these people might know about drilling horizontal wells in 2500 m of water in offshore Sabah, or about the historical geology of the Falkland Islands and how it relates to West Africa, or how to numerically simulate a steam flood of a Tar Sand deposit in Alberta, but they do not understand the global business. They are technocrats focused on their jobs. They think that oil should be at $25/bbl because corporate planning tells them that is what their company is forecasting for the future. People higher up in the organization, in corporate planning, vice presidents of E&P etc. are also focused on their jobs. Most tend to be near-term focussed. What is happening this quarter, next quarter, and next year? How do we meet the targets that we told Wall Street we would meet? How do we invest this mountain of cash coming in because we planned for $25/bbl and we are now seeing $65/bbl?

The other thing about bureaucracies, especially large ones, is that they are averse to change – any kind of change. The reason why companies go out of business is that they refuse to see the change coming until it is too late to do anything about it. Compare IBM , US Steel, Delta Airlines or AT&T to where they were in the early ‘80’s. External forces that were clearly visible to other parties, were invisible to these companies. Or if they weren’t invisible, the decision makers in those companies were deer in the headlights, frozen with fear. Those forces transformed those companies and turned them into shells of their former glorious selves.

These multi-national oil companies are a whole herd of deer grazing on a bounty of spilled corn in Interstate 10 outside of Houston at 5:00 AM. There is a giant semi-truck cresting the hill with its bright lights on called Peak Oil bearing down on this herd. Some may make it off that highway. Some definitely won’t.

Technorati Tags: Peak Oil , Oil Companies

Gasoline Demand Freefall

2005-09-15T20:54:00.000-05:00

Occasionally I like to do an "I told you so" post, especially if I can rub some salt in to the wounds of my blog partner's (stc) husband (aka English Bubba). Back on August 13 I made the prediction that a recession is on the way and it will be triggered by high gas prices. OK I will admit that there is no proof that we are yet in a recession, and to compound things, Hurricane Katrina may have sped up the timetable, but clearly as James Hamilton notes, gasoline demand in the US has taken a huge hit in a couple weeks - a trend that started before Katrina hit. Of course my friend English Bubba will state that all bets are off because of the extreme effects of Katrina. However, the price of oil today is approximately the same as it was before the storm, and as JDH also notes, the wholesale price of gasoline has also dropped to pre-Katrina levels. What do you have to say now EB?

Technorati tag: Peak Oil
Technorati tag: Recession
Technorati tag: Gas Prices

View from the inside

2005-09-14T20:05:00.000-05:00

For those of you who aren't Peak Oil disciples, The Oil Drum is becoming one of the main sites these days for day to day discussions about Peak Oil. Today there was a discussion going on there that I feel I would like to share here, mostly because it expands on my own view of the world. Here is an exerpt:

I called 6 different people last month, with 6 different companies. We all work in the oil field as drillers or geologists or petrophysicists. We all operate in various domestic and international areas. Everybody has the same outlook, and Bubba summed it up, but let me explain it once more for those new to the site.

snip

We have found almost everything there is to find of consequence. What we are doing now is scraping the bottom of every known reservoir, and drilling almost any prospect that might have a shot. Our dry hole rates are all rising in spite of the new technologies. The real warning shot to the world should have been the mergers of the majors - the only logical reason to do this is because it is easier to buy reserves than to find them!

snip

Is there more oil to be found? Yes, but not enough to prevent Chevron and Texaco from buddying up, or Exxon and Mobil or BP and ARCO. Those facts, in and of themselves, should make any thinking person realize that this industry has limited extraction options. When we got to places like Colombia (1992), where we have to fence in rigs and put up razor wire around the perimeter and hire mercenaries to secure a drilling site - it means this is the most economical field we can find, and THAT should tell people the state of exploration. When we go to places like Angola (1995), where you can have your throat slit for being the wrong color or because someone is having a bad day, THAT should tell people how difficult it is becoming to find oil.

Just to let you all know, I never heard of Peak Oil until I started my recent job which gave me a very up close and detailed look at nearly all of the exploration and development opportunities my company had in its portfolio. The emptiness staggered me. Moreover, because we partner with most of the other big oil companies throughout the world, I get to see many of their projects also, and from what I see, they are no better off. I came to the realization very quickly that reserves of oil were going to become very valuable as soon as the excess OPEC capacity was drawn down. I had no idea, however, that that time would happen so soon.

Technorati Tag - Peak Oil

Suffer the Little Children

2005-09-13T14:09:00.000-05:00

Another one to file under This can't be right, the federal government has said it will not help Texas pay for additional textbooks or teachers needed to educate the 29,000 evacuated Louisiana students the state has enrolled thus far (or the several more thousand expected in coming weeks). While FEMA has money to pay for increased transportation costs, portable buildings, school computers and mental health counselors, the state must bear the primary costs of teaching additional children (the state mandates 65% of monies be spent in the classroom), at least for the time being. How long a time do you reckon that's going to be? My guess is as long as it takes to measure the political fallout of the decision. The greater the heat, the more likely funds will be made available.

Complicating the funding dynamic is the dismal fate of the Texas' state education funding. Three legislative sessions down and no remedy for what ails it. Add a Gubernatorial primary season started early by two high-powered Republicans, and the chaos is more apparent. Governor Rick Perry believes his good buddy W will eventually reimburse the state for these additional costs and does not plan to do anything about funding at present (too tired from his wasted summer). State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn (little Scotty McClellan's mom) has her eye on $1.2 billion surplus revenue the state has collected in higher oil and gas receipts, which would usually go into the "rainy day" fund, but could be earmarked for disaster relief for schools, police and hospitals, if the legislature decrees it. Only problem, Governor Rick Perry would have to call for a special session, and he doesn't want to. Not only did the ones he held over the summer really bum him out, he doesn't want to give the comptroller the political edge.

As if that were not enough burden for the beleaguered, Secretary of Education Margaret Spelling, who no doubt has spent countless seconds pressing Bush and Congress for money to help states pay for the their recent additions, has not yet determined if displaced students will be held to the strict No Child Left Behind guidelines, which mandate already underfunded testing, and retention of students who do not meet their criteria. She claims that exceptions may be made on a case by case basis, but we all know what that means.

Who do you think will suffer most in all the bureaucratic nonsense? Got it in one; the children, of course. They are the ones who will sit in over-crowded classrooms without textbooks, while underpaid teachers force-feed them the uninspired pablumn our government mandates. Many of them have just come from a trauma more painful than most adults can process, have lost family members, their homes and possessions, are living in shelters and learning lessons in compassion and caring from total strangers in the form of volunteers and classroom teachers. Wouldn't it be nice if our government considered these lessons as valuable as those on the TAKS test. Wouldn't it be really great if those who have given freely were not made to pay for their generosity by having to stretch the already meager government dollars paid to education. Wouldn't it be fabulous if those who have already lost so much were not subject to losing even more to a government test that can not hope to show the true measure of children.

Lets turn up the heat on this one and let there be no misunderstandings, before education in Texas and across the country becomes another unintended catastrophe.

Fighting Mother Nature - A Losing Proposition

2005-09-11T10:26:00.000-05:00

Shorter version of post:

New Orleans = Atlantis

Conclusion: Let it go

If you are a scientist, and especially if you are a geologist, it quickly becomes apparent that the physical laws that govern weather, landforms, oceans, etc. are not well understood and are mostly ignored by humans. Human beings tend to have very short attention spans and very short frames of reference. People are mostly interested in the here and now. They could care less about what is going to happen in 50 years or even in 10 years. This is really true in the US where the overall savings rate is less than 2% of personal income, and credit card debt has skyrocketed. We don't care about global warming, social security and medicare solvency, and peak oil because all of the consequences of these things are beyond our "give a shit" time span.

However, let me say this to all of those people who are talking about how we are going to rebuild New Orleans. Don't ask for any of my money to do that! You might as well go out into the ocean and dump the money overboard.

That city has been sinking into the Gulf of Mexico since the first homestead was built there. The geologists and meteorologists have been telling you for 30 (or more) years that the tragedy that just happened was a certainty - the only uncertainty was when. If the idea is to rebuild the city in place and just build higher levies with bigger pumps, I will tell you that this catastrophe will happen again, and it will be worse next time.

Anyway, kudos again to the Houston Chronicle for raising this important topic now before the political steam starts to build on what to do with N.O.

P.S. - I'm pretty sure that one of these days I will be writing a similar post about San Francisco. The destruction of that city, like N.O. is not an if, but a when.

Technorati Tag - Katrina
Technorati Tag - New Orleans

Man with the Screaming Brain

2005-09-10T22:07:00.000-05:00

For reasons I can't explain, I watched The Man with the Screaming Brain tonight on SciFi. Directed by SciFi standard Bruce Campbell, written by Bruce Campbell, story by Bruce Campbell and staring Bruce Campbell, it was not the worse movie I have ever seen. That distinction would go to Big Trouble in Little China (another story all together), with a close second to Alien apocalypse (staring Bruce Campbell) which was on just prior to MwtSB. Talk about your must miss TV.

Not to damn the movie with faint praise, but you know things are bad when the best actor in the film was Stacy Ketch, stunningly acceptable as the mad Doctor Ivan Ivonov Ivonovitch. Antoinette Byron and Valdimir Kolev were engaging as Jackie and Yegor, though both lost their roles too early as pawns to the plot. Ted Raimi was cute a Pavel and Tamara Gorski curiously Angelina Jolie-like as the evil Tatoya. Bruce Campbell always seems to play the same character, stiff and uptight savior of the world, though by the end of this spoof, he had seriously let his hair down and started to find the soul of William Cole.

Brief plot - Mad doctor finds a way to fuse brain tissue and is curiously, easily supplied with bodies to experiment with. Couples are united and divided, by death, only to find resurrection from the good doctor. Happy Ending.

Why is this germane to this usually serious political blog? It occurred to me that something similar would be fantastic for the Bush administration. Imagine W fused with Howard Dean, intelligent, though still often unintelligible, but with a heart, finally. Cheney with Al Gore, still stiff and self-important, yet well meaning and somewhat ethical. Condi with Hilary, er, um, maybe that one would just turn around in circles, but you get the idea. Make your own suggestions and if I think one is priceless I'll send you a Republican Jesus T-shirt (or donate the funds to Katrina victims).

War on the Poor

2005-09-08T11:06:00.000-05:00

Kanye West upset the administration's applecart with his assertion that Bush hates black people and therefore the catastrophic conditions in NOLA were allowed to go unnoticed and unaided by the federal government for so long. Meanwhile, fingerpointing and blame-placing have become the most talked-about topic in the aftermath of Katrina. The Bushies deny the former, while trying to deflect and misdirect the latter.

First, let me state for the record, I do not believe Bush hates black people. I don't think Bush particularly cares about race or ethnicity at all. In his life the only people of color or cultural difference have been just like him, wealthy, educated, powerful, and he is just fine with his people, no matter what they look like. See examples like Condi, Al G. and cousin Bandar Bush. Colin Powell would be on that list, but he committed the ultimate offense in Bushworld, he disagreed (and was proven right). He is no longer one of them, although it really has nothing to do with race.

The people Bush and his constituency hate are poor people. People who were not born wealthy like most of those in government. People who did not have the gumption to pull themselves out of the lower middle class like AG Al Gonzales. People who did not have the Rev Billy Graham pull them out of an alcohol and drug-fueled haze and put them on the path toward self-righteousness. People who depend on the government for their lives and their livelihood.

How do I know this? Because he proves it everyday, in everything he has done as our compassionate conservative president. Lets take a look - tax cuts for the wealthy; no federal healthcare program; disdain for social security; underfunding of education, social programs and disaster preparedness; an unnecessary war overseas staffed by low-paid enlisted, reserve and national guard troops; the assumption that everyone who wanted to get out of harm's way in NOLA could, sparking the slow response to calls for help.

Bush believes that a lean and mean federal government can take care of all the important problems facing our nation while simultaneously fighting terrorism and an unnecessary war, because he hates and refuses to look seriously at the problems, especially those facing the poor. He does not want the dead soldiers from Iraq or the dead from Katrina to be shown by the media because he and people like him don't want to see how their decisions effect the lives of others. His mantra is to say everyone is doing a great job, reward all those around him for their contributions, ignore all evidence to the contrary (and keep it out of the press) and the administration is always right. In Bushworld, they can do it all, for the people who matter.

Which brings me to Juan Cole. He posted an open letter to Donald Rumsfeld, which I have reprinted below.

"US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld maintains that the US government can both take care of New Orleans and pursue the 'global war on terror.' Uh, Donald, let's look at this situation. First, much of New Orleans is under water. You stole money that should have been spent on its levees for the Iraq War, and you stole state national guards from Louisiana to fight in Iraq. (The state national guards hadn't signed up to fight foreign wars and were surprised when you kidnapped them, sometimes for a whole year at a time.) So you haven't actually done a good job with the effects of Katrina in New Orleans. In fact, the job has been so bad that some wags are saying they can't believe you personally were not in charge of the recovery effort.Then let's consider the war against al-Qaeda. You may have noticed that Ayman al-Zawahiri issued a videotape late last week. It was bundled with the farewell suicide tape of Muhammad Siddique Khan, the mastermind of the 7/7 bombers in London. It now appears that your inability to capture al-Zawahiri has allowed him to intrigue with Pakistani jihadi groups to recruit British subjects to bomb their own country. Bin Laden and Zawahiri are at large and free men, which is your failure.Then there is the war in Iraq. I don't need to tell you that that isn't going very well. In fact, what in hell are you doing in the godforsaken Turkmen city of Tal Afar? Is it really a big threat to the United States? Is it likely to be friendly to us if you drop 500 pound bombs on its residential districts?You left out the fourth war Bush is fighting, on the US poor. The average wage of the average American work fell last quarter, amidst rising corporate profits. Bush cut billions in taxes on the rich, and then gave $300 checks to some poor people, who didn't seem to realize that by taking it they were giving up all sorts of government services and maybe even their social security payments.So, Donald, maybe it is true that you can save New Orleans, occupy Iraq and fight a global war on terror all at the same time. But you, at least, cannot actually do these things successfully. Which is why you should have resigned a long time ago."

Juan Cole directed his anger at Rumsfeld, but as the ever eloquent Scott McClellan put it in his recent press report, the buck stops with the president. He is the one who charged in his 2001 inaugural address, "The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born." If every person who came out of the scourge that was Katrina, every family of a soldier who died in Iraq, every citizen who has felt disenfranchised by an administration who vilifies those who disagrees with them, does not feel insignificant in the America Bush has created, don't worry. He still has three more years.

In Bushamerica, 99% of us are all poor, some just haven't noticed it yet.

Misconceptions 4 - OPEC will save us!

2005-09-07T21:09:00.000-05:00

The Common Misconceptions of Peak Oil 4:

OK, so far we have covered the following topics: Oil shale will save us; tar sands will save us; and deep water basins will save us. I want to come back to the issues of deep water developments for a few comments then lets discuss the topic of OPEC will save us.

I discussed in a previous post that deep-water basins are pretty much played out from an exploration stand point. What I didn’t discuss, but what Hurricane Katrina brought into sharp focus, was how vulnerable these deep-water developments are to disruptions. These developments are extraordinarily capital intensive and represent huge amounts of production (up to 250,000 BOPD) coming through a facility occupying a very small geographic area floating in the middle of the ocean. In the last two years Hurricanes Ivan, Dennis, and Katrina have had major impacts on production in the Gulf of Mexico. As discussed below, Katrina sidelined 140,000 BOPD from the Mars Platform alone. More and more of the Gulf of Mexico production is coming from these highly productive, extremely expensive, but remote and vulnerable facilities. The same is true for production from Brazil, Angola, Nigeria, Malaysia, Egypt and several other areas. Needless to say, if some of these facilities were not vulnerable from attacks by Mother Nature, many are in areas where one might worry about attacks by man.

Now, lets talk about OPEC. Of course lots of others have covered this topic in much more depth and from much more knowledge than I can, such as Matt Simmons, or Colin Campbell, or PFC Energy, but let me put my two cents worth in.

First of all, though OPEC stands for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, at least one of these countries, Indonesia, has reverted from being a net exporter of oil to a net importer of oil. There is no question that Indonesia has peaked in its production (absent some major deepwater finds that seem unlikely), and is sliding down that irreversible slope called depletion.

Another significant OPEC member, Venezuela, has likely peaked in terms of conventional oil production. It is possible, that, given the right economic incentives, they could ramp up their heavy oil production much as Canada has. However, given the current political climate in Venezuela, I find that unlikely.

Nigeria is another OPEC member that, though not at peak yet, does not appear to have much ability to ramp up production much beyond what is already in the pipeline (Bonga, Erha, Agbami, Akpo, and a couple other deep water developments). Moreover, projects in Nigeria seem to take an inordinate amount of time to come on stream and cost much more than they would elsewhere in the world (Bonga for example). Expect increased production for about 5 years with decline setting in by 2012 to 2015.

OK, so who is left – Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Algeria, Qatar, UAE. Who am I forgetting? Oh ya – Saudia Arabia.

Lets look at some of these. Iraq? I mean who besides Dick Cheney expects Iraq to be boosting its oil production any time in the next five years. Iran? Most forecasts have them with production slightly increasing over the next few years but not significantly. In fact all of these other countries are forecasted to have flat to slightly increasing production over the next 5 years based upon announced major projects.
What about Saudi Arabia? They of course are the wild card in all of this prediction business. They have announced capital projects that they say will provide net increases on 2.5 million barrels per day by 2010 (from about 10 million per day now to 12.5 million per day in 5 years). There is a lot of skepticism about whether or not they can do this. Ultimately, only time will tell.

That said if the world is relying on Saudi Arabia to keep them out of the Peak Oil squeeze, they would have to increase their production capacity by about 2 million barrels per day every year from now until forever.

OPEC increases might stave off Peak Oil for a few years, but that is it. Even OPEC cannot forestall the inevitable demise of hydrocarbon man.

Technorati Tag - Peak Oil
Technorati Tag - OPEC

Kudos to the Houston Chronicle

2005-09-04T17:39:00.000-05:00

My hometown newspaper is one of the first papers to start addressing Peak Oil head on. The lead editorial today was PEAK OIL
Hurricane Katrina's aftermath only hints at what will happen when demand for crude outstrips supply. This is one of the first occurences in a major media source where Peak Oil has been addressed head on with the term Peak Oil right up front. I can already see all the letters coming in from all locals saying that there's oil all over the place. Let the arguments begin.

Technorati Tag - Peak Oil

A Houstonian's perspective on Katrina's aftermath

2005-09-04T14:23:00.000-05:00

OK, lots of things to post about.

First the aftermath of Katrina. I spent yesterday at a local church trying to do something to help these poor people. There were probably 100 volunteers, and tons of goods were donated. The goal was to feed 1000 people with a barbecue and provide clothing, water, food, bathroom kits, etc.

The goal was admirable, but I had serious doubts about the expectations. The problem was that the plan required the refugees to find out about the event and get themselves there. In the end, the only about 40 to 50 people showed up, and these people, though hurting, were not the really desperate people that you see at the Astrodome. This scene was played out all over Houston yesterday.

There is a tremendous desire of people here in Houston to help and a tremendous feeling of empathy for our neighbors from Louisiana. The problem is trying to match up the bounty of Houston and the desire to help with the people who need it. Those people had to somehow know where to go and had to have transportation to get there. Most of the people who showed up to the church where I was drove there in their own cars and were staying in local motels. Of course, they had no homes to return to and had lost everything, but they could at least afford a hotel room for several days.

Regardless of the lack of success, it was cathartic for me personally to try to help and to talk to some of the people who did experience this. I have to admit that I was highly suspicious of the reports of extreme lawlessness and danger from violent individuals and groups. However, the people who showed up confirmed that their own experiences involved a struggle to survive both the elements and the other people who wanted to do them harm. Several of the people were very fragile emotionally, and could hardly talk about their experiences without breaking down. They said it was worse than reported on TV, at least for them individually. One poor woman, through tears, described old ladies up to their necks in water pleading for help.

The problem now is trying to sustain the effort. These people will need help for months at the least. Humans tend to be able to put out tremendous efforts over short time spans, but over the long term people get burned out. I must admit that our family has talked about taking in refugees to house them. My problem is that I am not sure I am willing at this point to commit to something where we would be the primary support for another family on an open-ended basis. That is a tough commitment to make to complete strangers.

Technorati tag - Katrina
Technorati tag - Houston

Katrina's Fury - Mars Platform

2005-08-31T12:52:00.000-05:00

Shell's Mars Platform showing damage to the topsides and drilling module after passage of Hurricane Katrina. This platform supplies approximately 140,000 barrels of oil per day to the US Gulf Coast.

Defending Science

2005-08-29T22:28:00.000-05:00

One of the things I have enjoyed most about this blog is getting to know others though feedback by our visitors. Bubba once described blogging as screaming into an echo chamber; you're mostly just annoying yourself. However, over time we have amassed a legion of loyal readers (okay two, but we love you guys) and it is though their comments and additions that we have improved as writers, and thinkers as well. Time and again FAR has challenged Bubba and me to dig a little deeper, to avoid sound bytes and easy answers, and to do our homework before we post, so as not to prove quite so quickly how little about a subject we do in fact know. Far from being just some demanding SOB, he really is interested in furthering intelligent political debate.

Most recently, in comments following my Sharia-for-all submission, he asked me to explain some comments Kos made, to which I had linked. I did my best, answering his questions from my POV, as I do not know Kos personally or well enough to accurately characterize his. Several of the questions I felt related to the current popularity of intelligent Design and why it angers scientists and many others in leftblogosphere. While I learned the basics of evolution from school and had read about ID, there was still much I did not know.

Today I found a wonderful article that really does a good job of explaining why ID is not a scientific hypothesis at all, and why it is such a red flag to biologist and should be to the rest of us. So I give you Show Me the Science. It is long but easy to understand and so worth the read. Hopefully a spirited discussion will follow!

Deep Water Basins Will Save Us

2005-08-28T09:16:00.000-05:00

The Common Misperceptions About Peak Oil – III

Deep Water Basins Will Save Us

When oil companies started jumping from shallow water to deep water to explore for oil depends a lot on your definition of deep and shallow water. However, sometime in the mid to late 70’s decision makers at Shell decided that to find the large accumulations of oil needed to sustain themselves as a company they were going to have to look in places where no one else was looking. One of those places was off the edge of the continental slope in water depths of 600 ft and ultimately, much deeper. At the time they started exploring for oil in these deep waters, there was no available technology to produce the accumulations even if they found them. It was truly a “Field of Dreams” scenario – If you find it, the technology will come.

The success of deepwater exploration and development has been one of the saving graces for big oil. It is an amazing technological success story, and was the result of the confluence of many different technologies – both engineering and geoscience. The advent of three dimensional seismic data (3D) coupled with the ability to use it to actually see hydrocarbons in the sediments a mile below the ocean floor (“bright spot” or DHI technology) gradually opened up whole new areas where oil could be explored for. What was discovered very early on was that 1) bright spot technology worked very well in many deepwater basins; 2) hydrocarbon-bearing clastic reservoirs (sand and sandstone) in deepwater settings could sustain phenomenal flow rates – rates that were only dreamed about except in Saudi Arabia; and 3) horizontal and extended reach drilling, and later, sub-sea well technology would allow for these large areal accumulations to be developed from single floating structures tethered to the sea floor.

From Shell successes in the Gulf of Mexico, this technology spread quickly to the Campos basin in Brazil and to the North Sea. Since then it has spread across the globe to West Africa, the Mediterranean, Northwest Borneo, and everywhere else oil companies can imagine that oil can be found. Many tens of billions or barrels have been found (60+). Billions have already been produced.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that, from an exploration standpoint, this party is over. The only thing that is left is the potato chip crumbs in the bowl, and a couple of half empty beers.

Don’t get me wrong, a lot of discovered volumes throughout the world are not on production yet. Much of this oil will be coming on in the next 5 years (Thunderhorse, Mad Dog, Atlantis, Tahiti, Great White, Bonga, Erha, Plutonio, Platina, Jubarte, Kikei, Gumusut, etc,); but what is being explored for now, and what is being found is of substantially different quality than those projects and the previous projects that are already on production.

In many basins, the fields being found now tend to be small, are in ultra-deep water (9000 ft or more), and/or are very deep below the ocean floor (20,000 ft). Many of the discoveries are in low-permeability reservoirs that won’t flow at high rates and/or contain highly viscous crude oil. Many of the current exploration programs are targeting reservoirs below a thick canopy (5000 ft) of sedimentary salt. These potential sub-salt accumulations are very difficult to image. The salt dramatically distorts the acoustic waves that provide the seismic images. Think of watching TV through four inch thick coke-bottle-lens glasses that got run over by a car.

Effectively everywhere that oil companies can think of to explore for oil on the planet has been tested with a drill bit. Where these deepwater accumulations tend to occur is no mystery – it is outboard of major river deltas where large sediment piles tend to accumulate. Those areas include outboard of the Mississippi, the Congo, the Niger, the Nile, etc. Some sedimentary basins, so far, have been big disappointments (the Amazon for example).

There is a limit to how far out in the ocean one can find this deepwater oil. Once you get too far away from where the sediment source is (mouth of a river) all you will find is a thin veneer of very fine-grained mud on the ocean floor. Below this is oceanic crust (think Hawaiian lava). Modern seismic data can image all of this.

I personally reviewed many deepwater prospects from recent lease bid rounds around the world. Maybe other people are seeing things that I am not, but even in a $60+/bbl world, most of this stuff does not look good. It doesn't matter if the price of oil is $1000/bbl if there are no hydrocarbons there.

Conclusion – Expect substantial ramp-up in deepwater production for the next five years, but then decline will set in. All of this is known by the experts. Deepwater production will not stave off Peak Oil.

The Imminent Recession Part II – Looking for Clues

2005-08-27T12:59:00.000-05:00

Not being an economist, I look for more "close to home" signs for for economic barometers. This morning I got a good one. As many of you know, I live in West Houston (TX), out in the exurbs surrounded by neighbors who all drive very large SUV's (all with W'04 stickers in the windows). While walking my dog, I started talking to one of my neighbors. He was test driving a 2003 Acura coupe. I asked why. He said the weekly gas burden on his Suburban was getting to be too much. He was hoping to cut his gas costs from $320/month to $160 per month.

This is the first tangible sign that I have seen, other than people bitching, that the recent runup in gas prices is taking a toll on the economy. Sounds like bad news for car companies who have bet big on large SUV's and Trucks (GM, Ford). Also, I expect the value of 2nd hand SUV's to depreciate in value as more and more come into the used car market

On the other hand, James Hamilton and Econobrowser has a much more technical discussion going on regarding the chances of a future (2006-07)recession.

Tar Sands Will Save Us

2005-08-24T20:47:00.000-05:00

Installment 2 of the Series

The Common Misconceptions about Peak Oil

Tar Sands Will Save Us

As opposed to oil shale, which I have direct professional experience with, I have only peripheral experience with tar sands. Tar sands refer to a large grouping of hydrocarbon accumulations where the hydrocarbon phase is so viscous that it will not flow on its own and must be produced either by mining the oil with the equivalent of a large shovel or by injecting heat into the rock (through steam or direct heat of conduction) to decrease the viscosity of the oil to flow.

There is a very good treatise on tar sands – especially the Canadian kind – here on the ASPO web site. It explains everything in much greater depth than I care to go into here.

In any case, like with oil shale, there are many deposits in the world but only a few that are worth considering from a commercial standpoint. The largest of these deposits is in Alberta, Canada and is called the Athabasca Tar Sands (or Oil Sands) deposit. When people speak of tar sands, they are usually referring to this deposit in addition to some nearby deposits at Cold Lake and Peace River. The total volume of “oil” in place in these deposits is estimated to be at least 1.6 trillion barrels.

The “oil” or tar in these deposits is not really oil but something called bitumen. The bitumen is what was left in these deposits after the oil that was initially deposited there was biodegraded over millions of years. Basically them damn bugs ate all the good light oil and left all the heavy tarry shit behind. This is different than oil shale which has never been turned into oil yet. Oil shale requires a very large amount of energy to turn the raw kerogen into a liquid form of hydrocarbon whereas the bitumen in tar sands has already gone through this process

To turn this bitumen into usable energy and transportation fuel it has to be heavily refined and upgraded, but that is doable. However, as you might imagine, this bitumen is not a very valued product by most oil refiners. Consequently, it sells at a heayv discount ($20/bbl ?) to light, sweet crude.

Right now approximately 1 million barrels of bitumen per day are produced from tar sands in AlbertaBy 2010 that quantity is expected to double. It may double again by 2020.

With WTI at $67/barrel lots of companies are making a fortune in this right now. I personally have made enough money investing in a lot of these companies (UTS, WTO, SHC, IMO, OPC, CNQ, DCE, SU, HSE, COS-UN) to either put my daughter part of the way through college or to comfortably outfit my cave when Peak Oil Armageddon arrives.

In any case, if there is so much of this stuff, why can’t it stave off peak oil? Good question. The answer is multi-fold. First, all of the forecasts for future relating to future worldwide oil supply already forecast a substantial and growing wedge of production from Canadian tar sands. Some of these forecasts assume as much as 5 million barrels per day (total “Heavy Oil”) by 2020. But that is not enough to offset the decline in other areas.

In addition, tar sands require a lot of other energy resources to extract and upgrade them. Natural gas has been the fuel of choice for most of these energy needs as well as to use in hydrogenating the bitumen in the upgrading process. The forecasted need for natural gas collides head on with a forecast of limited future supply for this vital resource. There may be a way around this conundrum, but right now it is considered an impediment to future growth of tar sands development.

Lastly there is the issue of acceptable environmental disruption and damage. As you can imagine, mining tar is kind of a messy project. These deposits occur in a swampy, low-lying, area full of muskeg. How much environmental pollution will the Canadians put up with to provide Americans oil? Also, how willing is Canada to break the commitment it signed at Kyoto? These questions are yet to be answered.

Technorati Tag - Peak Oil
Technorate Tag - Tar Sands

Sharia-for-all

2005-08-24T16:25:00.000-05:00

As the reasons for invading Iraq move from eliminating WMD and toppling Saddam Hussein to creating a free Iraq and improving the lives of Iraqis, I give you this analysis from the BBC on the New Islamic Republic of Iraq. Is it possible that we have made things worse for the average citizen there, as well as the region as a whole? Whodathunkit?

Talk about your deja vu. Ever get that strange feeling, when the hairs on the back of your neck stand up straight and every instinct you possess screams fight or flight, with flight winning most the time. That's how I felt when I read the following to posts from Kos and Magorn, both via Daily Kos - Fundamentalist Republic of America & American Madrasas.

The first chronicles a group of congressional aides who dine together each week scouring their bibles for help on such matters as taxes, foreign aid, education and cloning. "They view every vote on the hill a religious duty and compromise a sin..." Most of these aides are future politicians who "have no problem imposing their biblical worldview on every American."
They are evangelical conservatives who acknowledge that this is their goal.

The second piece concerns an evangelical college in Virginia, established in 2001, the stated mission of which is to train and establish conservative Christians in government. As stated by founder Michael Farris, Patrick Henry College was created because home-schooling parents and conservative legislators came to him, separately yet simultaneously, to ask for a way to supply more like-minded youngsters for internship positions. Seems the existing schools in and around the United States did not have enough candidates for the positions available. Look at how successful Patrick Henry has been:

"Patrick Henry is a Christian college, ... where almost all the students {300 in all} have internships, with Republican politicians or in conservative think tanks..Three times a year, the White House chooses a hundred students for a three-month internship. Patrick Henry, with only three hundred students, has taken between one and five of the spots in each of the past five years-- roughly the same as Georgetown. Of the school's sixty-one graduates through the class of 2004, two have jobs in the White House; six are on the staffs of conservative members of Congress; eight are in federal agencies; and one helps Senator Rick Santorum, of Pennsylvania, and his wife, Karen, homeschool their six children. Two are at the F.B.I., and another worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority, in Iraq"

Considering Georgetown is also a Christian college (Catholic), is geographically close, has five times the enrollment and has been in existence since 1789, that is quite an accomplishment for Patrick Henry.

Another astonishing fact is that 85% of Patrick Henry students were home-schooled. Not that there is anything wrong with home-schooling; I've home-schooled kids myself, but major colleges and universities are often leary of accepting such students because they often lack a world view deemed necessary for college life. Obviously not at Patrick Henry, where it seems to be an advantage.

Religious extremist across the globe are indoctrinating their young by educating them in such schools. It has happened in Afganistan and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Israel, and it is happening in America; now it seems to be the future in Iraq. In the name of God, what have we wrought.

The Common Misconceptions About Peak Oil

2005-08-23T11:57:00.000-05:00

I have been reading lots of discussions about Peak Oil on various blogs, especially those kept up by economists (see Freakonomics, or Econobrowser), and I keep reading misinformation that keeps getting propogated throughout the blogosphere. So I’m here to set the record straight! Here is a new series I am starting called

The Common Misconceptions About Peak Oil

First misconception “ Oil Shale Will Save Us”

I worked with a major oil company for 2 years trying to develop a way to commercialize oil shale. Trust me on this, it ain’t going to happen. Most oil companies know this. The few (one??) that don’t are totally deluded.
Oil shale is not oil. Oil shale is rock that has a relatively high concentration of organic carbon compounds in it. Geologists call this a source rock. If you heat this shale to 700 degrees F you will turn this organic carbon (kerogen) into the nastiest, stinkiest, gooiest, pile of oil-like crap that you can imagine. Then if you send it through the gnarliest oil refinery on the planet you can make this shit into transportation fuel. In the mean time you have created all kinds of nasty by products, have polluted the air and groundwater of where ever you have extracted it. You have also created an enormous pile of superheated rock that will take hundreds to thousands of years to cool off.

The biggest deposits of oil shale in the world are in northwestern Colorado. No other deposit anywhere else in the world (China, Jordan, Australia, etc.) even comes close in terms of size and richness. There are approximately 1.3 trillion barrels of POTENTIAL oil in this deposit of oil shale. However, even those in their wildest hallucinations have never proposed that more than about 300 billion of these barrels were POSSIBLY extractable.

Of course 300 billion barrels is a very large number. Assuming $50/bbl, these $300 billion would be worth $15 trillion. Quite an enticement to go after. HOWEVER, - I still haven't seen a good analysis that shows you end up with more energy at the end of the cycle than what you put in. Moreover, it takes about 3-5 barrels of water for about every barrel of oil you get. Last time anyone seriously looked at where all this water would come from was Exxon back in the late 70’s and early ‘80’s. Their solution was to RE-ROUTE THE MISSOURI RIVER to bring water to this very arid area. I am not shitting you.
Lastly, you will be leaving the biggest superfund site you could ever imagine.

Will we eventually extract oil from oil shale – maybe, but it has always been a last resort, and for good reason. In the meantime, DON’T EVEN THINK about investing in this, even if the offer seems really good. You can’t imagine how much money has been poured into trying to commercialize this resource without any success.

Stay tuned for future topics including:

Tar sands will save us
Deep water basins will save us
Alternative energy (as currently understood) will save us
Hydrogen will save us (corollary to the one above)
OPEC will save us
and finally the Holy Grail
The Market will save us

Technorati Tag - Peak Oil

Scared Shitless

2005-08-21T21:25:00.000-05:00

My wife and I watched the documentary "The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream" tonite. The message was nothing new to me, but the film/video media with all of its visual imagery can pack a wallop, even when you are prepared. I am pretty sure my wife was not prepared for the dark message this film putting forward. She was visibly upset in the middle of it.

I am not a much of a pessimist as these guys, but sometimes I wonder if I am just kidding myself. When the price of regular gasoline goes over 3.00 (on average), 4.00, 5.00 per gallon there is going to be some political hell to pay. And that is where the shit starts to hit the fan. People will be blamed. Scapegoats will be found. ExxonMobil will very quickly be everybody's whipping boy. The Patriot Act will start being used for the purpose it was passed in the first place - to control an angry public.

Technorati Tag - Peak oil

Kids!!!

2005-08-17T22:29:00.000-05:00

So in this third and final edition of what's up with Kids Today (yes bubba, this is it, I swear), I wanted to add my two cents worth of advice on raising children and what parents, churches and other nonprofit groups, and our government can do better.

I start with this link from Off the Kuff, because it is a timely testament to my thesis. it is an article in the Dallas Morning News about the Price of Wealth involving Plano parents who spend themselves into bankruptcy trying to help their kids (and themselves) fit in. Without reading the piece, I bet the picture that popped into your head was a couple of boomers trying to pay for big ticket cars, cheerleading and college, but you would be wrong. The featured couple were 24 year-olds with toddlers and a baby grand. Talk about buying into the American Dream. The parents of these young parents no doubt taught their children the comforts of Retail Therapy and now its great rewards are being passed on to the next generation.

What can parents do to break this evil cycle? Stop buying - stop buying into the notion that things mean more than people, that happiness can be had with a wallet full of plastic and a full tank in you Lexus, or that the images from Hollywood or Madison Avenue have anything to do with real life. Stop working - stop working because you think your kids need something other than you. Stop working so much they never see you. Stop working the remote, the DVD, the phone and the computer. Stop believing - stop believing everything you see, hear and read; most of it is crap. Stop believing that you are somehow not enough for your children; you are more than enough, if you take the time to be. Stop believing that God wants anything from you but faith, hope and love; the worst acts in history have all been don't in His name, think about it.

Once parents buy into the value of spending time more than money, start working towards a happy home life and begin believing in their rights and responsibilities as parents, children will accept these concepts too. While change is slow, it should not take very long for families to notice the difference. More time together will help both parents and children sleep better, function more efficiently during the day, eat more healthily and have less medical problems. Spending less money, saving more towards their own future, driving less (walking more) all make individuals better off financially, physically and emotionally. Churches and other non-profit organizations should see an increase in voluntarism and a decrease in need as families learn to do more for others and want less for themselves. Government can concentrate on the needs of the under-privledged and the elderly, healthcare and homeland security, the environment and the economy, because families will be taking care of themselves.

I know this sounds terribly Utopian but it is the way the world works in my crazy brain. Government works best when it works least. Family values are family issues and not something church or state should command or legislate. A free society exists because of the individual, not inspite of them. So why isn't this what is happening today? Bhlogger hit the nail on the head a while back; if you believe in conspiracy theories, this one is a doosy. It is not in the vested financial interests of the church or state for families to be successful. To ensure growth and financial prosperity, both need instability, at least in working class families. Supply-side economics and religious conservatism need silent, docile, passive worker bees and drones to build a bigger beehive, make more honey and keep the queen happy. Fear of the unknown, financial insecurity and a promise of community keep the bees buzzing and not out searching for their own hive.

It should not be unpatriotic or anti-religious to want what is best for your own family first and for churches and government to fill any voids that exist. It is the way the founding fathers wanted this country to be, but that is a whole other post. The problem with kids today is a disconnect between the American Dream and the best interests of our children, our families and the world. Where and when the changes come is up to us; lets not wait until it is too late.

Oil Combat

2005-08-13T23:13:00.000-05:00

Well loyal readers, the shit's about the reach the fan. British Bubba, my hubby and note expert on world-wide oil production, claims that the current bubble in the prices of oil is demand driven, ie. speculation and hedge forces, and not truly a consequence of limited supply. He maintains that the market will eventually return prices to their more natural level, about $45 per barrel.

So there you are bubba, a challenge. Prove him wrong. Make us believe that your dire predictions of global gloom and doom are correct. We won't thank you, but will we end up having to kiss your ...?

The Imminent Recession

2005-08-13T09:58:00.000-05:00

I'm sure you have realized it, but filling up your gas tank is costing a lot more today than it did even two weeks ago, and 60% more than a year ago. Even in Houston, the energy capital of the world, prices were hitting over 3.00/gal at selective stations yesterday. Nationally the gas price news was overshadowed by the release of the 9/11 tapes, but there was an constant national murmur and low to high level bitching about the price of gas. This was accompanied with major anger directed at the oil companies, the vast majority of the public believing that the reason for the high gas prices was Exxon screwing them.

The reality, of course, is that there is a dearth of supply to match demand worldwide for oil. The price has been moving inexorably up, in the attempt to find a tipping point for demand. What is the world wide price for oil that dampens demand enough so that supply can keep up. What we are talking about is a worldwide slowdown in global economic activity - i.e. a global recession. William F. Buckley wrote about this scenario yesterday. (Buckley, one of the original Country Club Conservative commentators, actually thinks for himself rather than spewing Rove's talking points ad nauseum)

Commuters suddenly forced to pay double for a gallon of gas begin to brown-bag their lunches, inching away from restaurants and sandwich shops. Americans who can still afford a vacation go on shorter trips, putting a major dent in the tourist industry. Trucking companies hauling everything from wines and spirits to furniture to automobile parts impose a hefty surcharge on shippers, who pass it on to their customers, who then pass it further down the line to the retail buyer if they can.

The crunch forces many independent truckers to sell their rigs, playing havoc with both cross-country and local shipping. Higher fuel costs send the U.S. Postal Service deeper into the red and threaten the survival of rival package shippers FedEx and UPS. With the break-even point for airlines a distant memory at $31 a barrel and carriers already operating with skeleton staffs, sharp fare boosts are the only option. Traffic spirals into a tailspin, and one airline after another declares bankruptcy.

But of course, oil is vital to everything from plastic picnic forks to printer's ink to asphalt. Manufacturers raise prices across the board, and potholes go unfilled in city streets around the nation. At first, municipal and factory employees lose overtime, then they are laid off or fired outright.

Foodstuffs of every kind -- from beef in the butcher case to fresh fruits and vegetables in the produce aisle, to milk and cheese in the dairy section -- reflect the higher costs incurred by growers and shoppers.

Runaway prices on just about everything take the Federal Reserve Board by surprise. Determined to keep interest rates low and dulled by their own assurances that inflation is somnolent, the Federal Reserve's governors are ill-prepared for the economic crisis. The Fed belatedly boosts interest rates a full 2 percentage points.

The heretofore unheard-of move jams on the economic brakes so swiftly and so sharply that you can almost smell the stink of burning rubber. Higher mortgage rates stop would-be home buyers dead in their tracks and cast a pall over the building industry. The real-estate market crashes almost overnight, wiping out billions of dollars of paper profits and putting holders of adjustable-rate mortgages and home-equity loans in peril. Foreclosures and tax-default auctions become common, consumer spending dries up, and soon the entire world is in a recession.

All I would say to any of you all who have assets in the broader stock market (broad based mutual funds, etc.) beware of the next few days, weeks, and months. Cash is a safe option for a while.

Technorati Tag - Peak oil
Technorati Tag - Gas price

Kids Today, part 2

2005-08-11T10:24:00.000-05:00

In part one of this self-important series of posts - my magnum opus or ode to what I believe- I pontificated on the crimes of youth today - needy, entitled, seemingly immune to violence and obsessed by consumerism. In the interests of preserving peace in my own family and possibly bubba's as well, let me state for the record that not all kids today are completely spoiled brats, nor are most of them beyond redemption. Changes in how we view youth, raise children and encourage government to act in our kids behalf could alter and possibly reverse the trend, but only if we have serious national dialog about important issues and how to reach meaningful goals. Hahaha, like that is really going to happen under this administration!

Today's post concerns accountability. Taking personal responsibility when things go wrong is a key component in correcting the situation. It is a failing of this administration that no one ever admits a mistake, no one ever takes responsibility for poor decisions. They slap a smiley face and pretend nothing is wrong, or point fingers and blame anyone else for problems they can't cover up. Bush has been called a dry alcoholic because he never learned to own up to his past problems and has been enabled by his family, the religious right and the neocons to continue to act with the same kind of reckless abandon of his youth, power now taking the place of alcohol and America as a passenger in the car racing 90 to nothing towards the inevitable crash.

Bush is not to blame for all the problems of today's youth, but he exemplifies what is wrong. Born into privledge and entitlement, he has no real empathy for those who were not. Having never been asked to take responsibility for his actions or atone for his mistakes, he refuses to admit ever being wrong or learn how to correct misdeeds. He believes that his so called personal relationship with Christ gives him immunity from consequences and consequently behaves soullessly. His belief in the greatness of the American way of life is based not on the constitution and bill of rights but on the inerrancy of the free market system. Because he has never really had to work, he values consumerism over labor; because he has never had to fear being without money, he values spending over saving.

How do these attitudes affect our country? Just look around: Tax cuts for the wealthy cause a strain on programs for the underprivileged; the healthcare crisis is ignored, while the administration pushes for useless adjustments to social security; education and scientific discovery are burdened unnecessarily; a war is fought for no reason; supply-side economics reinforce the importance of spending with abandon, without thought to the consequences.

Are our children effected by these choices? Of course: the wealthy ignore the problem, mimicking the actions of their parents; the middle class buy into the enticements of advertising and try to buy their way into the world they see in magazines and movies; the poor grieve for what they feel they can never achieve and act out in anger and resentment. They all dream in terms of cell phones, pimped cars and flash cribs, while our government touts a growing economy and endless possibility. The terrible consequences of an endless war, housing bubble, rising gas prices and a jobless future are no where to be seen.

Where are parents in this equation? Trying too hard for the wrong reasons and ignoring the real problems. As I said in part one, children's needs are few. What they really want is time and attention. Even in the face of mass marketing appeal, a child will choose parental love and support every time. It is only when parents choose (or are forced by need) to abdicate their parental role that children find a surrogate. The corollary to this is when parents try so hard to relive their own childhood through their kids, that they loose the needs of the child in the process. Churches and other nonprofit organizations can help to fill the gap, but only when they put children over and above their political agendas.

I realize this has been a real downer of a post, it depresses me just to edit it. But to paint a realistic picture, we must put all our cards on the table. Part 3 will cover my pathetic attempts to address all these issues and hopefully start a plan for the future. Stay tuned.

It's Official - Bubba's a Ho

2005-08-09T21:38:00.000-05:00

But what do you reckon TEP stands for? Tries Every Position

Yergin Schmergin

2005-08-07T21:38:00.000-05:00

Yeah, here I am, back from retirement. Y’all were getting used to those interesting, thoughtful and emotionally-appealing posts from my friend stc, but since my picture is on the cover of this rag, I still get to rant occasionally.

Anyway, I know y’all have been waiting for my recent thoughts about my favorite subject – OIL. (Actually I know that 99% of our 5 readers do not give a shit about oil, but hey, it’s MY blog. If ya wanna read something else, get yer own damm BLOG.

So this morning in the Houston Chronicle, Daniel Yergin published an editorial about all of the oil just waiting to come onto the market. Now if you don’t know Daniel Yergin, he is the Chairman of, Director of, or Grand PooBah of (or some such crap) the Cambridge Energy Research Associates – which happens to be the Harvard of the energy consulting firms. Not only that, but in 1990 he had the fabulous timing of publishing a tome on the history of petroleum, called “The Prize” about the same time that Bush the Elder was invading Kuwait and Iraq for the first time. Suddenly, he was all over the Sunday talk shows and the News Hour etc.

I read that tome, and found it interesting, but would never recommend it to someone who was not an oil geek.

Well to make a long story short, Danny Boy thinks there is just oodles of oil left in the world. And I have to admit that his word carries some weight with me (but not that much). After thinking about it (and after 3 glasses of Cabernet), here is what I think about his piece:

1. First of all, from the tone of the article, plus the fact that it is contrary to my own personal experience and contrary to what everybody else seems to be writing (including ChevronTexaco, Exxon, PFC Energy, etc.) I am not sure where Yergin is getting his information.
2. I would not put it past Yergin to shill for the administration, just to keep the riff raff from getting panicked about spending $50 to fill up their Suburban.
3. Danny Boy says that by 2010 the world will be producing over 100 million barrels of oil per day – a 20% increase from 2004. And where is this magic oil coming from – all over the place (except the US) including Canada, Kaskhstan, Brazil, Azerbaijan, Angola, Russian, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Algeria, and Libya. I don’t know about you, but that list, with the exception of Canada, is pretty scary to rely on.
4. Personally, I look at many of these countries for a living, and I don’t see what he seems to see. What I see is small volumes in very hard to get places, requiring not-yet-developed- technology to produce. I see the global oil industry trying to hit singles when they are down by 20 runs.

Some interesting connections and phenomena that I have observed are the following:

1. Major energy producing companies are valued in the marketplace (read Wall Street) at low price to earnings (P/E) multiples – indicating that investors do not think the AVALANCHE of money coming their way is long lived (ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco trade at P/E’s of about 9).
2. This seems justified to me because the major oil producers (Exxon, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Total, BP etc.) seem to produce less oil every year than the previous one.
3. On the contrary, companies that have demonstrable long lived energy reserves (Canadian tar sand companies, coal companines, Comeco (uranianium mining), etc.) are trading at pretty high multiples to their earnings – meaning the investors are putting REAL MONEY down on the bet that long lived energy is going to be very valuable in the future

Am I certain that Yergin is blowing smoke? No! On the other hand, I have a large chunk of change riding on the likelihood of high oil prices for the forseeable future and well into my retirement. At least I put my money where my mouth is. Sometimes I wonder where Yergin’s mouth has been.

What 's the Matter with Kids Today, part 1

2005-08-04T19:34:00.000-05:00

The more I thought about this post, the more rambling a thought process it became. Part rant on the religious right, part libertarian testament, with a healthy dose of anti-consumerism and a smidge of reckless abandon. Sounds like a recipe for disaster, but for me it is just another day in the life. Lets go for a ride...

We live in a very strange time. In a lot of ways society is very child-centric, youth-conscious. Parents spend more time with their kids than in years before. Advertising is aimed at the youngest demographic. Religious groups vie for the attention of children and government enacts laws to protect them. Yet in many ways, our kids are lost in all this attention. We are told it takes a village to raise a child, a family to raise a child, the church to raise a child and Disney to raise a child. While I can attest to the fact that children don't just raise themselves, I fear too many cooks are spoiling this batch.

Babies' needs are very few. Milk, diapers, love, that's about it. Designer bedrooms, Motzart, excess gizmos and gadgets are all lost on children under three. Healthcare is important, but somehow our government has been too busy to tackle that issue comprehensively.

From older toddler to older school-age, children's needs grow, but still not very much. Healthy food to eat, lots of love and attention, educational stimulus by way of school, church and social activity. Think apples and swing sets good, mini-motorcycles and cellphones bad. Vacation Bible School is fine, as is one dance class, soccer team or gameboy. But when did it become mandatory for kids under ten to have a TV in their room (with cable and DVD), access to the internet, a working motor vehicle and multiple afterschool activities? Children actually go to school these days to get a rest from their active social lives, to be taught that all important lessons are test scores. Healthcare and direct parental interaction are still the most important, but they seem to get lost in the shuffle.

Teen years are difficult. No matter how hard parents try, peers and advertising get the upperhand. Schools and churches try to reach out to kids at this age, but seldom with the right message. Schools reject students who do not fit into the mold and churches begin their fight for control of the next generation. Instead of teaching inclusiveness and the open exchange of information, teens are encouraged to hate that which is different. Parents continue to buy into the idea that teens need all America has to offer by buying and supplying more than any one child can handle, setting our youth with an expectation no culture can maintain.

We have raised a generation of dysfunctional children. They need more than is sustainable and are prepared to give very little. Our current government is enabling this behavior and we will all suffer its consequences. My next post will cover why I think this is happenening, and a final post will give a few meager suggestions for a cure. Stay tuned.

Tangled Web

2005-08-02T23:13:00.000-05:00

This will be the most personal blog post I ever make. Not that I hide behind the keyboard completely, but it is wise to make some balance of anonymity and reality-based commentary. Tonight, I break that wall.

My parents are in their early middle sixties. They have both worked and paid into the government retirement system for forty years. For ten years they worked overseas, made a bit of money, which they proceeded to spend with abandon. They had a large retirement account they expected to carry them through the end of their lives, and lived accordingly.

Unfortunately, the stock market crashed, they did not react quickly enough, and most of their savings were lost. They looked for work, found some contract stuff, and made a bit more money. But by age 65 my father needed to take social security and Medicare. My mother, three years younger, qualified for social security, but not healthcare. The premiums on their private insurance were near $1000 a month ( 1/4 their income) so she dropped coverage, betting she would stay healthy for three years.

My mother has just been diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer. She had a check-up just before she dropped her insurance, which was clear, but did not go to the doctor afterward because she did not have insurance. By the time the cancer was found, it had invaded her lymph nodes and traveled throughout her body. There is no cure; she will die in the next few years from a disease that could have been corrected if caught earlier.

My brother and I would like to help our parents, but have been warned that if we guarantee anything, we will be held responsible for the lot, which would bankrupt us. And so my parents will declare bankruptcy in the next few days, to pay for her treatment.

This is a cautionary tale. There are many things my parents could have done better. They should have watched their savings and spending. My mom should have found better supplemental insurance, rather than betting on good health. But in the end of days, our government, the richest in the world, should have been there for my parents. Why is there a gap between when one can take social security and when one is eligible for Medicare? Why do my parents have to lose everything that they own to pay for the healthcare that she so desperately needs?

I'm left with these final thoughts: don't retire until you absolutely must; watch your money like a hawk; and the United States must have a healthcare system that protects its citizens from the devastation that will me my mother's final days.

The Dark Lord

2005-07-14T19:04:00.000-05:00

This is my last post before leaving for vacation. I'll be camping in Colorado, far from the drumbeat that is life in the blogosphere, but with a copy of Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince I hope to pick up between midnight and 6am Saturday morning somewhere near El Paso. Escapism at its finest - hiking, fishing and fighting the Dark Lord with the boy who lived.

Speaking of the Dark Lord...

Karl Rove is in the gunsight of everyone left of center around the country. I'd post a link, but it would be pointless. Pick a blog on our roll to the right and you will doubtlessly be treated to endless chatter about what he did and why he should be fired. The MSM has joined in the fight, mostly because they are pissed that Scott McClellan lied to them two years ago and is freezing them out now. Democratic lawmakers are staying somewhat above the fray publicly, but rubbing their hands greedily and deal-making privately, while the omnipresent perusal of Rove is elsewhere engaged.

Republicans are handing out talking points as fast and furiously as possible, trying to spin the story into politics as usual. The way they see it the whole thing is Wilson/Plame's fault to begin with, forcing themselves on the CIA through the Niger trip, then lying or being incompetent in reporting their findings, forcing Karl Rove to report both this and Valerie Plame's identity to reporters so they wouldn't get the idea that there were no WMD in Iraq and Saddam had not tried to buy yellow-cake uranium from Niger as the president had stated. Disagree with this administration and you deserve what you get!

My favorite claim by the right is that Wilson was only given the Niger job as a favor to his wife and they should both be condemned for their nepotism. This from the people who think Bush has done ANYTHING in his life on his own merits, that Tom DeLay's wife & daughter deserves $500,000 for their work on his re-election campaign, and that the McClellan bros won their places in government without any help from mama. Who you know (or are related to) does help in this world. Not everyone who was helped along by a familial relationship is incompetent; it should never be an excuse for endangering lives.

There is a lot of information to sort through, much of it boring, most of it misleading, but distilled to its essence, there is this:

Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, undercover for ten years or more. Yes, when she married and had twins, it forced her to "retire" from the cover life the CIA had created for her, but the intelligence information trails she forged while a covert operative were still open for CIA use. Many people vouched for Valerie Plame, introduced her around, invited her to parties and allowed her to gain secret information on WMD around the world and share it with our government. These people are still there, in the countries where she worked, now exposed as traitors and spies themselves and no longer available as assets to our government at a time when the kind of information they provide is invaluable and necessary to our national security. Rove admits exposing Valerie Plame and her CIA cover. Whether he did so deliberately (therefore illegally) or inadvertently (and irresponsibly), his actions constitute a breach of his duty to this country and he should respectfully resign. Failing that the President has no alternative but to terminate his employment and sever his relationship with his long-standing advisor.

While we are all discussing this inevitable conclusion, soldiers and civilians die in Iraq and Afghanistan, the budget deficit grows, detainees in Gitmo are humiliated and tortured, civil liberties are taken by the Patriot Act, terrorists grow more brazen and embolden and the world wonders where is this great democracy the Bush administration likes to gloat about.

And the beat goes on...

The War on Terra

2005-07-09T23:29:00.000-05:00

I don't know when I've agreed more with a sentiment than I do with Robin Cook in this Guardian article. My husband, British bubba, who lived in the Muslim world for almost two decades, has said many times the West simply does not understand the Arab mind and so is doomed to repeat past failures. Arabs and Muslims are proud, unified and determined to keep their civilization, one of the oldest in the world, unique and genuine. We can cannot force our way of life on them, any more than we could on the Native Americans. Yes, we succeeded in the near genocide of the people who inhabited this country before us, but there are far more people in the Middle East, and technology got there before us.

Democracy and capitalism found their way to the Americas, Europe and now slowly through Asia, not by force from the outside, but from within. Why does the right so distrust the fundamentals they claim to hold so dear. The last great threat, Communism, has been virtually eliminated, not by brute force, but by globalization. Russia and China are now our great partners or our biggest nemesis, depending on your point of view. We are fighting wars of trade and market control, rather than Star Wars and ballistic missiles.

The same could be true of our Global War on Terror, if we viewed the problem in a similar light. Bring Middle Eastern countries into the power structure. Ask, beg, implore, demand, force them to work with The World in our fight against terrorism. Allow them time to find a middle ground between the new world and the old. Let democracy and freedom take a foothold and watch the results. If history has taught us anything, it is that what Hitler tried in Europe, what Balfour did in Israel, and what we are doing in Iraq, does not work. Terrorism is not fought on the battlefields, but in the hearts and minds of people everywhere.

Judy, Judy, Judy

2005-07-06T21:21:00.000-05:00

This is an absolutely nail-on-the-head defense of the jailing of Judith Miller, from Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News.

"Indeed, as recently as a few days, we didn't want to see Judy Miller of the New York Times (or Time's Matt Cooper, whose case turned out quite differently) sent to jail. But frankly, our reasoning was pretty much along the same lines that the NRA uses to make hideous arguments to allow assault rifles or cop-killer bullets -- the "slippery slope" argument.

So what if the "source" that Miller (and Cooper) have been protecting may have committed a serious crime, naming an undercover CIA agent and possibly even exposing her to fatal consequences, as happened when American spies were "outed" in the 1970s. In the "slippery slope" argument, those facts are irrelevant. If Judy Miller goes to jail today, under this thinking, it makes it more likely for a good and honest journalist who's on the brink of exposing true corruption to be jailed tomorrow.

Today, we realized that the "slippery slope" argument is wrong, and so were we. We're not happy that Judy Miller is going to jail, but we think -- in this case -- that if she won't cooperate with the grand jury, then it's the right thing.

That's because Judy Miller's actions in recent years -- a pattern that includes this case -- have been the very antithesis of what we think journalism is and should be all about. Ultimately, the heart and soul of real journalism is not so much protecting "sources" at any cost. It is, rather, living up to the 19th Century maxim set forth by Peter Finley Dunne, that journalists should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

That is why the ability of reporters to keep the identity of their true sources confidential is protected by shield laws in 31 states and the District of Columbia (although not in federal courts). Without such protections, the government official would not be able to report the wrongdoing of a president (remember "Deep Throat," the ultimate confidential source?), nor would the corporate executive feel free to rat out a crooked CEO. The comfortable and corrupt could not be afflicted.

But the Times' Judy Miller has not been afflicting the comfortable. She has been protecting them, advancing their objectives, and helping them to mislead a now very afflicted American public. In fact, thinking again about Watergate and Deep Throat is a good way to understand why Judy Miller should not be protected today. Because in Watergate, a reporter acting like Miller would not be meeting the FBI's Mark Felt in an underground parking garage. She would be obsessively on the phone with H.R. Haldeman or John Dean, listening to malicious gossip about Carl Bernstein or their plans to make Judge Sirica look bad.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Miller -- working with her "sources" inside the Bush administration and their friends in the Iraqi exile community like the discredited Ahmed Chalabi -- wrote a number of stories that now seem meant to dupe the American people into to thinking Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were a threat.

Turns out, as you know, there weren't any. When the Times looked back on the fiasco, it found that Miller wrote or co-wrote nine of the "problematic stories" on the topic.

~snip~

And rather than act humbled when the basis for many of her stories proved false, by this year she had adopted yet another pet cause of the Bush administration, the oil-for-food scandal at the United Nations.

Then, seemingly out of left field, comes her involvement in the case of Valerie Plame, the "outed" CIA operative. The facts of the case are still murky, and so we want to tread carefully as we write about it. What is clear is that Judy Miller wasn't on the side of the person seeking to expose government wrongdoing -- that would have been Plame's husband, ex-ambassador Joe Wilson, who revealed the White House's lies about uranium and Iraq.

Instead, the special prosecutor wants to know about conversations that Miller had with a person, or persons, who wanted to squash the whistleblowers. He wants to know if Miller, perhaps unwittingly, abetted what would have been a criminal act against the whistleblower and his family. In fact, there's a theory that Miller might even have been a person who told Bush administration officials that Plame was a CIA agent.

We don't know what it's all about, except we do know that this isn't really journalism. It's about whether she continued her longtime pattern of aiding those in power and spreading their propaganda. What ever it is, we don't think it's protected by the shield laws that are on the books."

I used the slippery slope argument just today when talking about this story and why I have not covered it in this space. It is hard to write a convincing opinion on a topic you feel ambiguous about. An example is the Rush Limbaugh case - absolutely hate the guy, and what happened to him, developing a drug problem that is then exposed brutally in the media, could not have happened to a nicer guy. Cosmic Karma.

You would have thought he could have learned a little compassion from the mess, but then the government steps in and turns him into a privacy martyr. Seizing his medical record, threatening him with prosecution for a drug offense, when the only person truly hurt by his actions were himself. So I find myself defending this man who persecutes anyone who falls outside his narrow ditto-based koolaid community. Blogging is hard work, no misunderestimation about it.

The Miller case has been equally troubling because she is such a scumbag shill for the administration, yet I believe in protecting the First amendment. But now my mind is as unencumbered by doubt as a koolaid kid; eat pilaf Judy, enjoy your Capitol accommodations, watch out for people with digital cameras.

Finally, a brief bit of speculation. Novak publicly says he had two senior administration sources, but he has not named them publicly, nor said if he has testified. Cooper gave his source up, with "unambiguous permission" but has said he will not do so publicly. Miller has gone to jail rather than reveal her source, even though the prosecutor has a waiver from the source allowing her to do so. Rove has admitted speaking to all these people around the time of the disclosure. And what about this idea of the journalist informing the WH. Conclusions, there are multiple sources from both inside the administration and probably Miller herself. Chalabi is mobbed-up like the Mossad, it would be within his ablility to gain such information and to give it to Miller (was he still friends with the Koolaid Kids Klub at the time?). Miller lets fly at the WH. Rove rubs his cloven hooves together. If Judy told him, it must be common knowledge and therefore open to discussion with Novak and Cooper, maybe not just him but Libby too, so it looks like they all thought it was safe, plausible deniability. The original charge is therefore nullified. Novak probably bought into the common knowledge lie (he'll believe anything). Cooper has been trying to do the right thing journalistically, but after Time cooperated, Rove let him off the hook, what a guy. Which leaves Miller and Chalabi, a foreign national and persona non grata in the US. Miller protects Chalabi because Rove is telling her she has to. She is the only one who can break their cover, because if she gives up Chalabi, he'll reveal Rove as the ultimate source. Maybe Chalabi has signed a waiver stating his innocence but has been unavailable for deposition and as long as Miller does as she's told, everybody is covered. The prosecutor knows what's up but can't prove anything without Miller or Chalabi. I may turn out to be wrong, wrong, wrong, so would that make me a Republican?