Saturday, May 31, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Stop the Oil Speculators
Guest Perspective/Ralph Nader
What factors are causing the zooming price of crude oil, gasoline and heating products? What is going to be done about it?
Don’t rely on the White House—with Bush and Cheney marinated in oil—or the Congress—which has hearings that grill oil executives who know that nothing is going to happen on Capitol Hill either.
Last week the price of crude oil reached about $130 a barrel after spiking to $140 briefly. The immediate cause? Guesses by oil man T. Boone Pickens and Goldman Sachs that the price could go to $150 and $200 a barrel respectivly in the near future. They were referring to what can be called the hoopla pricing party on the New York Mercantile Exchange. (NYMEX)
Meanwhile, consumers, workers and small businesses are suffering with the price of gasoline at $4 a gallon and diesel at $4.50 a gallon. Suffering but not protesting, except for a few demonstrations by independent truckers.
A consumer and small business revolt could be politically powerful. But what would they revolt to achieve? Their government is paralyzed and is unable to indicate any action if oil goes up to $200 or $400 a barrel. Washington, D.C. is leaving people defenseless and drawing no marker for when it will take action.
Oil was at $50 a barrel in January 2007, then $75 a barrel in August 2007. Now at $130 or so a barrel, it is clear that oil pricing is speculative activity, having very little to do with physical supply and demand. An essential product—petroleum—is set by speculators operating on rumor, greed, and fear of wild predictions.
Over the time since early 2007, U.S. demand for petroleum has fallen by 1 percent and world demand has risen by 1.3 percent. Supplies of crude are so plentiful, according to the Wall Street Journal, “traders of physical crude oil say their market is suffering from too much supply, not too little.”
Iran, for instance, is storing 25 million barrels of heavy, sour crude oil because, in the words of Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, Iran’s oil governor, “there are simply no buyers because the market has more than enough oil.”
Mike Wittner, head of oil research at Societe Generale in London agrees. “There’s various signals out there saying for right now, the markets are well supplied with crude.”
Historically, oil has been afflicted with the control of monopolists. From the late nineteenth century days of John D. Rockefeller, and his Standard Oil monopoly, to the emergence of the “Seven Sisters” oligopoly, made up of Standard Oil, Shell, BP, Texaco, Mobil, Gulf and Socal, to the rise of OPEC representing the major producing countries, the “free market” price of oil has been a mirage. Despite the breakup of the Standard Oil company by the government’s trustbusters about 100 years ago, selling cartels and buying oligopolies kept reasserting themselves.
In an ironic twist, the major price determinant has moved from OPEC (having only 40% of the world production) and the oil companies to the speculators in the commodities markets. What goes on in the essentially unregulated New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)—without Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) enforced margin requirements, and, unlike your personal purchases, untaxed—is now the place that leads to your skyrocketing gasoline bills. OPEC and the Big Oil companies reap the benefits and say that it’s not their doing, but that of the speculators. Gives new meaning to “passing the buck.”
Deborah Fineman, president of Mitchell Supreme Fuel Co. in Orange, New Jersey, summed up the scene: “Energy markets have been dictated for too long by hedge funds and speculators, who artificially manipulate the numbers for their own benefit. The current market isn’t based on the sound principles of supply and demand but it is being rigged by companies and speculators who are jacking up prices for their own greed.”
Harry C. Johnson, former banker who worked for many years inside Big Oil and ran his own small oil company in Oklahoma, blames the CFTC, the Department of Energy, the Administration, and Congress, as “asleep at the switch on an issue that is probably costing U.S. consumers $1 billion per day.”
He cites “some industry experts, who profit greatly from the high price of crude, and have stated openly that the worldwide economic price of crude, absent speculators, would be around $50 to $60 per barrel.
Imagine, our government is letting your price for gasoline and home heating oil be determined by a gambling casino on Wall Street called NYMEX. The people need regulatory protection from speculators and an excess profits tax on Big Oil.
In addition, a sane government would see the present price crises as an opportunity to expand our passenger and freight railroad capacity and technology.
A sane government would drop all subsidies and tax loopholes for Big Oil’s huge profits and other fossil fuels and promote a national mission to solarize our economy to achieve major savings from energy conservation technology, retrofitting buildings, and upgrading efficiency standards for motor vehicles, home appliances, industrial engines and electric generating plants.
Those are the permanent ways to achieve energy independence, reduce our trade deficit, create good jobs that can’t be exported and protect the environmental health of people and nature.
Those are the reforms and advances that a muscular consumer, worker and small business revolt can focus on in the coming weeks.
What say you, America?
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Bob Barr wins Libertarian nomination ...
Update: Thinking a little more about this, after the Dem contest has been settled [OK, let me rephrase, after Hillary comes to her senses and ends her campaign ...], Barr, McKinney, and Nader, should meet in a joint press conference and call on the two major party candidates to allow them into multiple debates between September and November, maybe even completely bypassing the Presidential Debate Commission. For whatever reason, the independent candidates refuse to come together in this way, calling on all to be seated. Well, now is the time.
Build Consensus Even When It's Hard
If you believe, as I do, that building consensus among competing factions is the only way to tackle the persistent challenges that threaten to hamstring our nation, then you have to be prepared to deal with one hard truth: It's extraordinarily difficult to do.
The diversity of public opinion, the intense partisanship of recent years, media coverage that thrives on division - all this and more makes hammering out agreement on difficult issues seem a Herculean task.
Yet Americans want their elected leaders to work across party lines. Over the past year or so, I've been asked on any number of occasions how two groups on which I served, the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group, managed to encourage men and women with partisan commitments to produce forward-looking policy ideas on two highly charged issues. We did this in spite of a truly venomous partisan atmosphere in Washington and our keen awareness that powerful interests had much at stake in what we'd end up saying.
Admittedly, both groups were far less complicated than the Congress or a state legislature, where consensus has to be built on scores of issues, not just one. Yet the core principles of consensus-building, I believe, apply no matter how large the body.
Congress certainly understood this in the past. Many times over the years, it has worked in a cooperative way to build consensus behind major legislation. The GI Bill, the Marshall Plan, welfare reform in the 1990s - all took considerable bipartisan legwork to pass. As political scientist Paul Light concluded in his recent book about America's 50 greatest legislative achievements over the past half-century, these accomplishments "reflect a stunning level of bipartisan commitment."
Greatness in policy-making, in other words, requires great effort in consensus-building.
To begin with, it's crucial to work cooperatively, rather than confrontationally. It was clear from the start that in order to do our work well, both the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group would have to delve into arenas that were politically touchy for the White House. Rather than trying to bludgeon the administration into submitting information we needed, however, we kept lines of communication open and spent many hours in dialogue with them; we understood their concerns for national security and the prerogatives of the presidency, and wanted to make sure they grasped our determination to fulfill our mandates by having access to key officials and documents.
Some of Congress' greatest achievements have unrolled in the same fashion: by members working closely with one another and with the White House to craft legislation that took into account the concerns of all involved.
Our commissions also came to understand something that veteran members of Congress already know: it helps enormously to find informal ways of getting together. This takes an investment of time that lawmakers these days often feel they dont have, yet it pays big dividends. It is pretty hard to get and stay mad at someone when you know them well. Building a rapport allows people to surmount tensions that might otherwise derail them. They let humor defuse sticky arguments, and build a respect for one another that ensures that disagreements will focus on the issues at hand, not on party interests.
These relationships also encourage lawmakers, commission members and any other group of people considering policy options to take the time they need for vigorous debate - in other words, to deliberate carefully and build consensus methodically.
Perhaps the most important step, though, is to focus on facts. The facts of the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath, the facts of what was taking place in Iraq - these were neither ideological nor partisan. By agreeing on what had happened, we could deliberate fruitfully on our recommendations and sidestep arguments about whether the Clinton and Bush administrations had done enough to combat terrorism, or which past U.S. policies deserved support or condemnation. In a city where partisanship is as much part of the atmosphere as nitrogen and oxygen, this was an invigorating move. Focusing on the facts may not guarantee agreement, but it enhances the prospects of reaching agreement.
In the end, building consensus is straightforward. Work cooperatively, not confrontationally. Look at your colleagues as colleagues, not political adversaries. Agree on facts before you apply your ideology to policy. Take ample time to understand different views and deliberate on where you're going. Search for areas of agreement, and do not exaggerate areas of disagreement. Get people focused on the national interest, not on partisan advantage. And decide from the get-go that you're going to reach an agreement, not use disagreement to score political points.
I believe Americans are starved for just this sort of approach. Let us hope that our elected leaders are ready to give it a try.
Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
NY radio ads cause a stink ...
These billboards around NYC have caused a big stink.
You know, I can understand why these very sexist ads might offend some folks. But, on other hand, the female form is such an awesome, beautiful thing. As well, it isn't called "sex, drugs, and rock and roll ..." or "sex, hugs, and rock and roll," if you are Meatloaf, for nothing.
The new billboards will now feature a big swath of red paint with the word "CENSORED" over the backs of the ladies.
Slot cars!
Although, in today's edition, there is this story, about the new high-tech digital slot car racing, including a pretty good video too.
This is why folks are reading the newspaper online. You really do get more. But, it just isn't the same as reading the physical newspaper.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Why Hillary should never be allowed to be near the White House ...
Say it ain't so ...
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Nader and Barr poll numbers ...
Barack Obama: 47 percent
John McCain: 37 percent
Ralph Nader: 4 percent
Bob Barr: 3 percent
Not sure/Other: 10 percent
I wonder who the "Other" is.
Hang tough Barack ...
You know times are hard when ...
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Rice and Richardson for Vice President? Perhaps Not Such a Good Idea
He is half Latino, served 14 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, held the post of Ambassador to the U.N. and was U.S. Energy Secretary. He is currently Governor of New Mexico and is very popular in that important swing state, having garnered 69% of the electorate in his re-election bid.
Republican Condoleezza Rice and Democrat Bill Richardson appear to be superlative candidates for Vice President. Rice’s resume will likely be scintillating to presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. Richardson’s resume and perceived electoral potency will undoubtedly bring serious consideration from the Democratic presidential nominee.
However, as the old axiom goes, “If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.” While on paper, Rice and Richardson appear to be outstanding vice presidential candidates; both would create serious problems for their respective tickets.
Rice’s problem comes primarily from her tenure as National Security Advisor. If Rice were to get the nod, Democrats would assail her for her failure to take the Al-Qaeda threat seriously prior to 9/11. Ad makers would be elated with thoughts of using clips from Rice’s 2004 testimony before the 9/11 Commission when commission-member Richard Ben-Venise asked Rice: “You acknowledge that Richard Clark [Counter-Terrorism Coordinator] told you that Al-Qaeda cells were in the United States. Did you tell the President anytime prior to August 6 [2001] of the existence of Al-Qaeda cells in the United States?” Rice answered: “I don’t remember the Al-Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.” The ad might then show Ben-Veniste asking Rice: “Isn’t it a fact Dr. Rice that the August 6 PDB [Presidential Daily Briefing] warned against possible attacks on this country, and I ask you weather you recall the title of that PDB.” Rice responded: “I believe the title was Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”
The ad would then display the title of Rice’s 2003 article published in the New York Times: “Why We Know Iraq Is lying.” Her article makes the case that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. The ad would conclude with a still photo of Rice with a voice-over saying: “Condolezza Rice --- Wrong on Al-Qaeda --- Wrong on Iraq. Can we trust her to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?”
Richardson’s tribulation stems from his time as U.S. Energy Secretary. In 2000, while Richardson was spending much time campaigning for presidential candidate Al Gore, two computer hard-drives with designs of the nation’s nuclear labs went missing from the Los Alamos Nuclear facility following a fire. They were later found behind a copy machine. During a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Richardson suffered a bi-partisan excoriation for a perceived malfeasance and inattention to his job. Members of his own party, including West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, lambasted Richardson for refusing to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the grounds that he had no answers. Byrd said to Richardson: “You have shown a supreme, a supreme contempt of the committees of this Congress . . . you have squandered your treasure, and I am sorry.” The following warning might follow this sound-bite: “If members of his own party can’t trust Richardson with national security matters, can we?”
It is extremely important that a vice presidential running-mate not antagonize the base of the presidential candidate’s party. John McCain is presently trying to establish rapprochement with the conservative base. Many conservatives are incensed with McCain’s deviations from right-wing orthodoxy on a litany of issues such as illegal immigration, Campaign Finance Reform, and climate change. Rice’s vice presidential candidacy may make a rapprochement impossible. Rice leaves the conservative reservation on what for many conservatives is a litmus test issue: abortion. She calls herself: “mildly pro-choice.” To many conservatives, opposition to abortion rights is non-negotiable, and the thought of a potential president who does not share their views could force them to sit out the election.
Richardson ran to the left during his now aborted presidential campaign. When the Democratic base looks at his history, they will find two major departures from the Left Wing. The first was Richardson’s strong advocacy for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which many liberals blame for job hemorrhaging. In fact, Barack Obama, Richardson’s potential running-mate, slammed the treaty for shipping “jobs overseas and forcing parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart.” Richardson, a Congressman at the time, orchestrated the successful effort to Shepard NAFTA through the House when he was Chief Deputy Whip. Richardson’s prior support of NAFTA will have the duel distraction of alienating the Democratic base and de-energizing swing-voters in the critical NAFTA-sensitive industrial mid-west.
Richardson’s second major departure from Left-Wing orthodoxy was his advocacy for maintaining U.N. sanctions on Iraq. Many liberals maintained that the sanctions dramatically debilitated Iraq’s economy. UNICEF, for example, contends that the sanctions led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis, including over half a million children due to malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases caused by a lack of clean water and chlorine. Dennis Halliday, the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, resigned in protest, saying: “I don't want to administer a program that satisfies the definition of genocide.” Former Democratic Minority Whip David Bonier called the policy: “infanticide masquerading as policy.”
In 2005, when challenged by Voice Of America’s Amy Goodman, “Do you think the price was worth it, 500,000 children dead?” without challenging the premise of the question, Richardson deadpanned: “Well, I believe our policy was correct, yes.”
If Richardson garners the vice-presidential nomination, that clip will be played ad nauseam in the media. Hearing a potential vice-president callously defending the death of 500.000 children can only lead to consternation among his Democratic base and will cause Richardson to spend critical time defending himself.
Both Rice and Richardson have attractive resumes, but if chosen, McCain and the Democratic nominee had better have a plan for dealing with the firestorm of criticism their choices will surely elicit. Proponents of Rice and Richardson should be careful what they wish for.
Rich Rubino, a resident of Marblehead, Massachusetts, is a political advisor specializing in independent political campaigns. He is a graduate of Assumption College and holds a Masters Degree in Journalism from Emerson College. He was a policy advisor to the Christy Mihos 2006 Massachusetts Gubernatorial Campaign.
Is Obama eyeing Kansas?
I don't want to go into why I am speculating about this. But let's just say that some folks in D.C. are casting a very wide search net, gathering data from around the Web about John McCain's shellacking at the hands of Mike Huckabee in the Kansas primary back in February.
This is pure speculation on my part. I'm just putting 2 and 2 together to see if the answer is 4 or not. I could be totally wrong on this.
But if Obama does pick Sebelius, it would be a safe bet. She is on everyone's short list right now. She would also deflect major criticisms of an Obama general election campaign: He would be joined on the ticket by a midwestern, more conservative Democratic woman. How could the Hillary supporters complain at that point?
As well, if Obama can hold the Kerry states, win back Iowa and New Mexico to the Democrat side, and win Kansas' 6 electoral college votes, he would beat McCain, 270-268. Obama wouldn't need Ohio or Florida.
Ideally, I would prefer to see Obama pick U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, a champion of worker's rights and an anti-NAFTA activist that Naderites and Perotistas could get excited about. That might just be enough to pull the election off, assuming McCain makes a really stupid VP pick or stumbles badly this fall.
Obama inches over majority delegate threshold but ...
Kentucky:
Clinton: 459,145 65 percent
Obama: 209,771 30 percent
Uncommitted: 18,029 3 percent
McCain: 142,855 72 percent
Huckabee: 16,239 8 percent
Paul: 13,439 7 percent
Uncommitted: 10,630 5 percent
Romney: 9,151 5 percent
Giuliani: 3,126 2 percent
Keyes: 2,138 1 percent
Oregon:
Obama: 330,533 58 percent
Clinton: 235,937 42 percent
McCain: 262,433 85 percent
Paul: 45,978 15 percent
Anyone know what John Cox received since some of his campaign folks are still saying that there is going to be a floor fight on the GOP convention floor and he will slip in as the nominee?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
'To know and not to do is not to know'
By Ralph Nader
Mountain View, California – An invitation to visit Google’s headquarters and meet some of the people who made this ten year old giant that is giving Microsoft the nervies has to start with wonder.
The “campus” keeps spreading with the growth of Google into more and more fields, even though advertising revenue still comprises over 90 percent of its total revenues. The company wants to “change the world,” make all information digital and accessible through Google. Its company motto—is “Do No Evil,” which comes under increasing scrutiny, especially in the firm’s business with the national security state in Washington, D.C. and with the censors of Red China.
Google’s two founders out of Stanford graduate school—Sergey Brin and Larry Page—place the highest premium on hiring smart, motivated people who provide their own edge and work their own hours.
We were given “the tour” before entering a large space to be asked and answer questions before an audience of wunderkinds. E-mail traffic was monitored worldwide with a variety of electronic globes with various lights marking which countries were experiencing high or low traffic. Africa was the least lit. One of our photographers started to take a picture but was politely waved away with a few proprietary words. A new breed of trade secrets.
I noticed all the places where food—free and nutritious—was available. The guide said that food is no further than 150 feet from any workplace. “How can they keep their weight down with all these tempting repasts?” I asked. “Wait,” he said, leading us toward a large room where an almost eerie silence surrounded dozens of exercising Googlelites going through their solitary motions at 3:45 in the afternoon.
“How many hours do they work?” one of my colleagues asked. “We don’t really know. As long as they want to,” came the response.
In the amphitheatre, the director of communications and I started a Q and A, followed by more questions from the audience. It was followed by a YouTube interview. You can see both of them on: (Q&A) http://youtube.com/watch?v=KR-V6bl41zU and (Interview) http://youtube.com/watch?v=zzUrUNhIj4c&feature=related.
Google is a gigantic information means, bedecked with ever complex software, to what end? Information ideally leads to knowledge, then to judgment, then to wisdom and then to some action. As the ancient Chinese proverb succinctly put it—“To know and not to do is not to know.”
But what happens when a company is riding an ever rising crest of digitized information avalanches without being able to catch its breath and ask, “information for what?” I commented that we have had more information available in the last twenty five years, though our country and world seem to be getting worse overall; measured by indicators of the human condition. With information being the “currency of democracy,” conditions should be improving across the board.
“Knowledge for what?” I asked. Well, for starters, Google is trying to figure out how to put on its own Presidential debates, starting with one in New Orleans in the autumn. Certainly it can deliver an internet audience of considerable size. But will the major candidates balk if there are other candidates meeting criteria such as a majority of Americans wanting them to participate?
The present Commission on Presidential Debates is a private nonprofit corporation created and controlled by the Republican and Democratic Parties (see http://opendebates.org/). They do not want other seats on the stage and the television networks follow along with this exclusionary format.
Google, with its own Foundation looking for creative applications that produce results for the well-being of people, should hold regular public hearings on the ground around the country for ideas. They may be surprised by what people propose.
In any event, the examples of knowing but not doing are everywhere. More people succumbed to tuberculosis in the world last year than ten years ago. Medical scientists learned how to treat TB nearly fifty years ago. Knowledge alone is not enough.
For years the technology to present the up-to-date voting record of each member of Congress has been available. Yet only about a dozen legislators do so, led by Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Chris Shays (R-CT). Recalcitrant power blocks what people most want directly from their lawmakers’ website. Here Google can make the difference with Capitol Hill, if it wants to connect information technology to informed voters.
When the internet began, some of us thought that it would make it easy and cheap for people to band together for bargaining and lobbying as consumers. At last, the big banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, automobile firms and so forth would have organized countervailing consumer power with millions of members and ample full time staffs. It has not happened.
Clearly technology and information by themselves do not produce beneficial change. That depends on how decentralized political, economic and social power is exercised in a corporate society where the few decide for the many.
I left Google hoping for a more extensive follow-up conversation, grounded in Marcus Cicero’s assertion, over 2000 years ago, that “Freedom is participation in power.” That is what connects knowledge to beneficial action, if people have that freedom.
I hope my discussions with the Google staff produced some food for thought that percolates up the organization to Google’s leaders.