Iran
I take a great interest in United States foreign policy, so let's have it for a bit.
Seymour Hersch, America's preeminent investigative journalist, wrote an article back in January for
The New Yorker that the U.S. is going to invade Iran by June of this year. As provocative as that assertion might be, I would argue the Pentagon has plans to invade Eretria, the Congo, and even stages war games based on a war with China. That's their job. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went ahead and created a plan to make Special Forces units more plentiful, agile, and mobile in combating terrorist groups, and that's a plan I happen to agree with. The only problem is that he failed to share his ideas with Congress, which I believe is really stupid. If you have a good idea, why not share it? In any case, the military has plans to do things the average American couldn't even fathom. The question is, does the U.S. intend to force some sort of regime change in Iran by June, or anytime by the end of the Bush administration, and whether or not that sort of policy makes any sense.
Given what the U.S. public, and the world for that matter, was told by the people that got us into the current war in Iraq, I'm sure they thought they would've had a really easy shot at regime change in Iran after all those flower pedals and pieces of candy showered U.S. troops in Baghdad. These are the people that predicted that we'd only have 30,000 troops in Iraq right now
at most. Geographically, Iran sits right in between Afghanistan and Iraq, so it was easy to see who was number one on the guess-who's-next list. Now, with the very real limitations on American military's current options so apparent, and all those rosy scenarios having been swept away in the sand, even the special thinkers who made up the Office of Special Plans must be reassessing the Iranian situation. If ever you hear some retired military person on TV say we should change the Iranian regime by force, just ask, "with who's army?".
Another key issue in play here is that the Iranians have an extremely well-funded military that, if invaded, will actually
fight instead of melting away into the population like their former adversaries next door. According to
GlobalSecurity.org, the Iranians have 350,000 infantry, and an actual air force, albeit in fairly shabby shape, and all kinds of other military
gum balls. Let's posit a scenario where the U.S. orders an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Forget about the fact that we don't have the types of "bunker buster" bombs to even penetrate their development shops, we're not even sure where they all are because they are so spread out. How might the Iranians react? Probably not overtly, like, say, having 200,000 soldiers and artillery pour over the border into Iraq, but covertly by making things much, much messier there than they already are. Remember, we were told that Iraq would be a "cakewalk" by Kenneth Adelman (a man worthy of his own post). One wonders how an invasion or even an air strike would be characterized at that point in time. Tiny Tim? Care to
share?
Let's concede that no one wants a bunch of religious fundamentalists with the capability of deploying the most destructive weapons ever invented wherever they might fancy. Would you want 1988 presidential candidate Pat Robertson, a man that thinks the American judiciary is
worse than Al Qaeda, having his own set of nuclear tipped missiles? Probably not. So the U.S. needs to negotiate with Iran. Unfortunately Secretary of State Rice hasn't seemed too enthusiastic to fully jump into the talks Germany, France, and England have been engaged in with Iran. Here's the rub, with all the wisdom Condi must have garnered in her role as Provost at Stanford University, she probably has figured out that Iran can effectively say, "who needs you?". If you were supreme leader of Iran you'd quickly realize, "hey, wait a second here, I'm the one with all the OIL!". Americans hate thinking about things in this shoe-on-the-other-foot way. If the U.S. was beset on both sides of its orders by a sworn enemy that was threatening American regime change, you can bet your ass that Richard Cheney would be declaring that America has a right, and these days God given, to possess and deploy nuclear weapons. As to the negotiations, oil is most certainly what "the big three" is after: all that yummy goodness that just happens to reside right under Iranian soil. The main U.S. dog in this fight is protecting the military base that's lodged right between the
Jordan River and the Mediterrian Sea.
Obviously multilateral talks are a positive step forward, and the U.S. should engage in lieau of its own interests. These kinds of negotiations can bear the fruit of exchanges of oil, economic incentives, and most importantly, warming of relations. It's akin to "we'll forget about you taking 44 of our embassy staffers hostage for a year and change if you forgive us for toppling your democratically elected government in 1953." I don't know, seems fair enough to me.
When I look back to the time of the Iraqi invasion, I often think that
Mr. Marshall was right:
Chaos could've been what they were after all along.
You know what, as my friend Jimmee Cracked Corn rightfully says, forget the whole God damned thing.
This guy knows a lot more about this stuff than I do.
Why is this a National Story?
As of 6:26 EST today, and really all day, if you went to CNN's website, the top story has been about some woman from Georgia who faked her own kidnapping because she got cold feet due to her upcoming nuptials. All I can say, or scream for that matter, is WHO CARES? As CNN devolves into the Tabloid News Network, is this what Americans really care that much about? I can see the local news in Georgia making a big fuss about this, but does it really warrant national coverage? What's next, Fido ran away because I switched his brand of kibble? Jeebus Christmas.
The simple truth is that today's news media, and CNN in particular, is NOT doing it's job of making sure the American public is getting the information it needs to really be an informed body, and thereby undermining our democracy. That's what's really at stake here. Five American soldiers were
killed in Iraq today, making it nine dead since Thursday. The man who President Bush has nominated to be the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
lied to Congress.
So, which story do you think is more important to maintaining our democracy, a conservative demagogue stomping around the globe screwing up U.S. foreign policy and lying to Congress, or some floozy from the south who doesn't want to marry someone who's probably a bigger jerk than she is? It makes me want to smash my television!
Gangbusters
When the executive branch of the United States government is packed with oil men and people who represent the military-industrial complex, especially for over four years, it's good times. As Spring begins to bloom here in Middletown, and even in Poopville, these first quarter earnings statements from the following must have industry executives sprouting new buds of their own. Where on their bald, white, foreheads we care not to even fathom a guess, but Jeebus it must be party time! Sorry, I meant PARTY TIME! Cue
Reuters: U.S. defense contractors reported strong quarterly earnings on Thursday as the Pentagon put billions into high tech military equipment and services.
Earnings soared 76 percent at Northrop Grumman Corp., 30 percent at Raytheon Co. and 22 percent at Goodrich . All three aerospace and defense companies beat analysts earnings forecasts, and they raised their earnings outlooks for the rest of the year.
After the news, shares of aircraft part maker Goodrich rose 6.4 percent, while Northrop Grumman stock was up 1.6 percent and Raytheon's shares were 1.9 percent higher.
"Everybody's coming in like gangbusters," said Paul Nisbet, an analyst with independent research firm JSA Research. "They were all well above expectations, and there is certainly every indication of increased guidance for the year on all three."
Defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp., which reported earnings this week, also beat forecasts and raised guidance for the rest of the year. However, results from No. 2 defense contractor General Dynamics were seen as being weak.
Demand from the Pentagon as well as the Department of Homeland Security also boosted results at Titan Corp. which provides intelligence and translation services. Titan said on Thursday its earnings rose sixfold, sending its shares 2.9 percent higher.
Contractors are reaping rewards of a surge in defense spending from a little over $300 billion before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States to about $500 billion now, Nisbet said.
And from the good
Mr. Sirota via
Kos:President Bush is expected to trumpet his "long-term" energy "solutions" at a press conference tonight. He is talking about nuclear power, and he's talking about drilling, and he's talking about every other cockamamie idea except the one that could make a difference to middle class people - cracking down on oil companies who are literally price gouging the American people:
USA Today reports "Exxon Mobil said Thursday that first-quarter earnings soared 44% from last year, due mainly to strong crude and natural gas prices...The company's net income surged to $7.86 billion."
Reuters reports "Royal Dutch/Shell comfortably beat analysts' forecasts to report a 28 percent rise in first-quarter profits, helped by surging oil prices and strong refining margins...The company's earnings rose to $5.548 billion."
The Houston Chronicle reports "ConocoPhillips, the nation's third-largest oil and gas company, said today that first-quarter earnings soared year-over-year on high oil prices, though they were partially offset by unplanned downtime in the company's exploration and production unit. The company's net income jumped to $2.91 billion."
Come on now, you're not being gouged, you're being fondled, and there's quite a difference. The former sounds like an activity associated with possibly unimaginable pain, and the latter, well, can be very titallating. Who doesn't like to be fondled by a welcomed suitor? Maybe I'm just jealous that I don't own stock in any one of these companies. Anyway, somebody should profit from war waged for oil, right?
To Mars!
I never set out to write about energy all the time, but because it's such a crucial issue, and one that will effect virtually everyone on the planet, there are items that come up that I feel I need to write about. That is for the four or five people that actually read this thingy. Today President Bush made a speech and laid out some new energy initiatives, and when I read the AP story all I could think of was his State of the Union address where he stated that we're going to Mars. After that pearl of wisdom, even the Conventional Wisdom Washington class of pundits wrote: Huh? So here's what the president wants:
- Build new fuel refineries on abandoned military bases.
According to
Reuters,
No new U.S. oil refineries have been built since the 1970s, mostly because of the lengthy process to obtain environmental permits from state regulators and opposition from local communities.
A top independent oil refiner, Valero Energy Corp. said expanding its current fleet of refineries makes better economic sense than building new refineries at closed military bases. Lack of refining capacity is frequently cited by experts as a reason why gasoline prices have surged.
Let's remember, the U.S. Government doesn't build oil refineries, oil companies do. If the oil companies could make money from building refineries, they would build them. In recent years oil companies have consolidates and shut down refineries. Guess why? There's already enough of them to process the amount of oil coming down the conduit. Why invest in new refineries when you already have enough capacity?
- Give companies incentives to build new nuclear power plants.
Three localities: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, France.
From
NBC:
Nuclear power accounts for about 20 percent of the country’s electricity. Some utilities have expressed interest in building a new reactor, perhaps as early as 2010, but want assurance of a smooth regulatory process to get financing.
To address their concern, the president directed the Energy Department to develop a federal “risk insurance” plan that would kick in if there were lengthy delays in licensing a new reactor. Administration officials acknowledged such a program would need congressional action and said they could not speculate on its cost.
This is one of those issues where I love the hear the free market, post e-bubble, right wing, think-tank economists spouting on about how all those lilly-livered green types are obstructing their vision of American energy independence. They whine and wail about how environmentalists are standing in their way, and how all of these bureaucratic rules and regulations are stifling their access to the mountain of cash that's just out of their reach. Someday it might dawn on them that there's a really good reason the electric companies don't want to build any more nuclear power plants: they're not profitable. It just costs way too much to manage, staff, and
defend, a nuclear power plant than it's worth. Never mind the costs of doing away with all the waste that nuclear plants generate. Besides, no one wants these plants anywhere near where they live. These NIMBY's aren't worried about the environment; they're worried about the safety of their children.
As for France, they get 70% of their energy from nuclear power. There's no way Bush is going down the path of those Cheese Loving Surrender Monkeys. No way.
This Can't Be Real
First of all, what
is this?
It's an Unborn Baby Ornament - US Troop Model!
Now, it is real? You bet it
is. It's from Miss Poppy.com, where you can "spend your TRUE Christian Dollars" and "Where even your MONEY is saved". I'll admit it took me a minute to figure out why they would put "money" in capital letters (maybe you caught it before me). They mean your soul
and your money will be saved. Get it?
For me, the description really takes the cake:
Protect our troops - from the womb to the war. What if the fetus you were going to abort would grow up to be a soldier bringing democracy to a godless dictatorship?
Ah, frankly, I'm really at a loss for words here...
(thanks to
tbogg and
so may it secretly begin)
Alaska National Wildlife Reserve
Here's something that's been sticking in my craw, and after reading
this polemic backwash, I had to write
something:
Get ready to ship the oil rigs up north to the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge! The House of Representatives passed a bill yesterday authorizing drilling in the area that was meant to be drilled in from the very start. It is expected that the region could produce 1 million barrels of oil a day.
Naturally, Democrats are opposed. So is the leftist mainstream media, which is (just like they always have) engaging in a disinformation campaign when it comes to ANWR. There are two methods the mainstream media uses to deceive television viewers when reporting on this issue. First, if they do happen to show the area where the actual exploration will take place, they will only show it in the Summer...
...But the left doesn't want us to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Their goal is a weaker America. An energy dependent America is a weaker America. Sure. they talk about it. give it a lot of lip service. But how many of those limousine liberals get into their fuel-guzzling private jets or their gas-hogging SUVs and ride around bitching about gas prices just like everyone else? The answer is all of them. An independent energy policy in the United States would bring down gas prices, make us less vulnerable to the whims of the terrorist-supporting Islamic sheiks that make up OPEC.
But alas, cheaper gas prices are good for the Bush administration. Remember, if it's good for America, expect Democrats to be opposed. The bill now goes to the Senate. Don't hold your breath.
Let's exhale and take a look at what's really going on here. As the writer of the above filth acknowledges, there's upwards of 10.5 billion barrels of oil to be had in ANWR. So, let's break that down:
- # of barrels of oil estimated to be in ANWR: 10.5 billion
- # of barrels of oil consumed worldwide daily: 82 million
- # of barrels of oil the U.S. consumes daily: 20.5 million (25% of world consumption)
(Handy solar calculator please) So, if they pumped every single drop of oil out of that reserve, based on the above estimate, it would be enough to satiate world consumption for 128 days.
Further, if we in the U.S. were greedy and kept that all to ourselves, it would last one year and 247 days.
1 Year, 247 Days.
That's it folks. That's what you'll get for opening up ANWR, and so I gather the Democrats deserve a nasty tongue lashing for opposing that big of an energy bonanza.
I guess either Mr. Boortz really didn't think this through, or somehow saw it more important to bash the left and really never cared about giving his audience any perspective. I leave it to you...
TAP
I'm a big fan of the
American Prospect. They offer great ideas, both on policy and politics, and the writing is superb (Their Blog link is over on the right). I came across
this today from their Executive Editor Michael Tomasky:
On successive days in mid-November 2002, Tom DeLay was elected House majority leader, replacing the retired Dick Armey, and Nancy Pelosi was chosen as the House Democrats’ leader, succeeding Dick Gephardt. One of those had amassed a capable but relatively quiet record of service in the House of Representatives, stirring controversy only once (by supporting the primary opponent of a longtime congressional incumbent from Michigan). The other had called the Environmental Protection Agency “the Gestapo of government”; had denounced the Nobel Chemistry Prize, after it was given to the discoverers of the link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone depletion, as the “Nobel Appeasement Prize”; had called CNN the “Communist News Network”; had linked the Columbine High School shootings to birth control and day care; had avoided military service during the height of the Vietnam War in 1969 (reportedly explaining, in 1988, that so many minority youths were going after those well-paying military gigs that there was no room for good folk like himself); had led a fanatical crusade to force votes on articles of impeachment against a president with an approval rating above 70 percent; and had been rebuked (privately) by the House Ethics Committee for attacking a business trade group for daring to hire a former Democratic congressman as its president.
And guess which choice the media said was a calamity?
I encourage you to take a few minutes and read the rest of this incredible piece. I've had my eye on the Hammer's dealings for quite some time now, and I've been baffled and amazed at how most Americans, until lately, have had no idea just how bought and empty this man is. If he has his way, and he has for a long time, he will destroy American democracy as we know it.
Bonus: If you give a damn about the environment, via
TPM, check out
"Tom's Tainted Ten."
Nicely Done
The good folks over at the DCCC (that would be the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) have put up quite the snappy website to track Republican congressman Tom DeLay's entreched sleaziness and it shows just how far and wide the corruption reaches. Go check it out:Tom DeLay's House of ScandalAnd you know you're cool if you even have a video...sweet...
Tapping at The Gates
Before the election in 2004, Karl Rove, President Bush's political advisor and now Deputy Chief of Staff, targeted some four million evangelicals that he believed had sat out the 2000 election. And while this strategy seems to have worked, these folks have now come calling believeing they deserve their due, and perhaps rightly so. I'm beginning to wonder if the Republican party has bitten off a bit more than they can chew with these people, but that remains to be seen.
What we do see are statements like this from
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council: "As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism,"
and
"For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the A.C.L.U., have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."
Not satisified enough with gains in the House, the Senate, and their evangelical President's re-election, they now have their eyes keenly focused on the judiciary. Given that there may be at least one vacancy on the Supreme Court, and possibly two more at the end of the court's current term later this year, the evangelicals want someone installed that will tow their line. They just may have found that someone in Antonin Scalia, who, as a Bush favorite and a Vice Presidential hunting buddy, may well ascend to the position of Chief Justice when our current Chief Rehnquist retires. In addition, the President will have another selection to make to fill Scalia's spot, and if that person makes it through the Senate confirmation, the Court will be tipped farther to the right from 5-4 decisions to either 6-3, or even 7-2.
In
"The End Of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason", Sam Harris writes:
Men eager to do the Lord's work have been elected to other branches of the federal government as well. The House majority leader, Tom DeLay, is given to profundities like "Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world. Only Christianity." Apparently feeling that it is impossible to say anything stupid while in service of this worldview, he attributed the shootings at the Columnine High School in Colorado to the fact that our schools teach the theory of evolution. We might wonder how it is that pronouncements this floridly irrational do not lead to immediate censure and removal from office.
We might indeed, and it seems Good Ol' Tom may be headed right off the cliff, especially if
Ronnie Earle gets to the bottom of all of Tom's shenanigans. Sam has more, and this ain't all about Tom DeLay:
"Facts of this sort can be cataloged without apperent end--to the vexation of reader and writer alike. I will cite just one more, now from the judicial branch: In January of 2002, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a devout Catholic, deliverd a speech at the University of Chicago Divinty School on the subject of the death penalty. I quote Scalia at some length, because his remarks show just how close we are to living in a theocracy:"
While Sam is quoting Antonin at some length, we'll quote, uh, Sam at some length (trust me, it's worth it):
"This is not the Old Testament, but St. Paul....[T]he coreof his message is that government--however you want to limit the concept--derives its moral authority from God....Indeed, it seems to me the more Christian a country is the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral....I attribute that to the fact that, for the believeing Christian, death is no big deal. Intentionally killing an innocent person is a bug deal: it is a grave sin, which causes one to lose his soul. But losing this life, in exchange for the next?...For the nonbeliever, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence. What a horrible act!..."
"The reaction to people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible. We done done that in this country (and continental Europe has not) by perserving in our public life many visible reminders that--in the words of a Supreme Court opinion from the 1940's--"we are a religious people, whore institutions pre-suppose a Supreme Being"....All this, as I say, is most un-European, and helps explain why our people are more inclined to understand, as St. Paul did, that government carries the sword as the "minister of God," to "execute wrath" upon the evildoer."
Now where have I heard that "evildoer" thingy before...hmmm...
Take it Sam:
"All of this should be terrifying to anyone who expects that reason will prevail in the inner sanctums of power in the West...It is remarkable that we are the last civilized nation to put "evildoers" to death, and Justice Scalia rightly attributes this to our style of religiosity."
Yes, terrifying indeed. For a little perspective, Sam saw this coming long before the current filibuster whirlwind ratcheting up on Captitol Hill. Coming from someone of
Tony Perkins' ilk, or from
SpongeDob Stickypants himself is one thing, but from a Supreme Court Justice? And what might the Taliban and these people have in common? Sam?
"It is no accident that people of faith want to curtail the freedom of others. This impulse has less to do with the history of religion and more to do with its logic, because the very idea of privacy is incompatible with the existance of God. If God sees and knows all things, and remains so provincial a creature as to be scandalized by certain sexual behaviors or states of the brain, then what people do in the privacy of their own homes, though it may not have the slightest implication for their behavior in public, will still be a matter of public concern for people of faith."
Let's snag a nugget of wisdom from the
Billmon when he says,
"Which brings us back to motives -- and not just Dobson's. The image I get from watching the Christian right these days is of a race car driver at the starting line, ferociously revving the engine and waiting for the checkered flag to pop the clutch."
Which, for some reason, brings me to this born-again Christian: four-time NASCAR Winston Cup Champion, or things go these days, Nextel Cup Champion
Jeff Gordon.Be sure to tune into
Justice Sunday.I keep wondering if this perversion of our American democracy, one that looks more like a meth-lab inspired display of The Crucible will ever really take hold, but these concentrated attacks from Protestant fundamentalists upon our way of life are unconscionable, immoral, and certainly not in keeping with our Founding Fathers' vision of America.
Despicable
Via
First Draft, we have this letter to the Editor of the
Lawrence Journal-World (Lawrence, Kansas):
To the editor:
My wife and I, both veterans of the U.S. military, found out the truth about Republican support for veterans at Ann Coulter's lecture last Tuesday. After I, a former Marine infantry sergeant, asked Coulter how she defended her promotion of the war, based on lies, which has sent 1,500 of my brothers and sisters to their deaths and 100,000 Iraqis to their graves, she responded that, "you're even stupider than I thought." This received an abundance of applause from the party that claims to "support our troops."
At the same moment, several Republicans hurled obscenities at my wife, a Navy veteran, and one threatened her with physical violence, stating he would kick her in the head if she didn't "shut up," when she was asking Coulter a question. The Republican Party claims to "support the troops," but who qualifies as a "troop"? Is the "troop" label only legit when we agree with the Republican stance, even if that "troop" has served in uniform bravely and selflessly for four years?
This is the manner in which the Republican Party treats its veterans that disagree with them. They threaten them with violence and call them names like "stupid," "f-ing bitch," or "idiot," all of which were hurled at my wife and I at Coulter's talk, despite our service to this nation. Ask yourselves this question, Lawrence: Why do you think they need to attack free-thinking veterans?
Chris White,
Lawrence
Nice how Ann and her minions are treating our veterans. And right there in the Heartland too. What a horrid creation this woman is. She's a malignent tumor on legs. Now, you might say, "hey, you're way out of line Buster, she's a best-selling author!". Oh yeah? Here's some more
Ann:On Iraq:
"I think if it got to the point where it was going on for six, seven years, and it was just Americans patrolling without killing anyone -- I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties. I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."
On Iran:
"They're a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world."
On Mecca:
"Seriously, I think the rest of the countries in the Middle East, after Afghanistan and Iraq, they're pretty much George Bush's bitch,..."
On Hillary Clinton:
"She's like the anti-feminist. No, except she isn't -- because all feminists behave that way and pretend to be, 'Oh, I'm a strong woman.' They're all weak and pathetic."
On Bill Clinton:
"Well, he was a very good rapist. I think that should not be forgotten."
On her Christmas in New York City:
"Oh, it was so much fun this year, because saying 'Merry Christmas' is like saying 'F--k you!' I've said it to everyone. You know, cab drivers, passing people on the street, whatever. And they come up with the 'Happy holidays.'"
Just Who Is "The Hammer"?
Few Americans know just who the House Majority Leader is. Well, maybe it's about time they did. His name is Tom DeLay, and he represents the 22nd Congressional district in Texas. His name has popped into the national headlines of late because of his activism in the Terri Schiavo case, but for political junkies he's very well known as "The Hammer" because of his ruthless brand of power politics. He's been content for years to operate under the radar, but since he's thrown in with the religious right and used the Schiavo case as a political cudgel to isolate his perceived enemies, we'll all be hearing a lot more about the former bug exterminator from Sugar Land. If you'll stick with me for a bit, I promise it'll be more fun than watching some crappy Paris sighting on Extra! Besides, who's more of a party than Tom himself:I'm all for anyone entering any line of work they choose, but as we shall see, being the owner of Albo Pest Control from 1973 to 1984 seems to have added to Tom's, well, flair. Not to mention his ability to stomp out piss-ant Democrats he finds disgusting.The U.S. Census Bureau conducts nationwide population surveys every ten years, and that can be some fun, because they even look under bridges for homeless people. And then they count them. Digressing already, these counts always land at the end of any decade, after which they pass their findings along to all of the states, and then the states redistrict their Congressional districts according to population movement and growth. Theoretically, districts either gain or lose constituents. Tom, being very industrious, and acting through his Texas surrogtes, found that it would be much more beneficial for Texas Republicans to redistrict not only in 2000, but in 2002 as well. And, being the smart guys that he is, calculated that the GOP could pick up five more seats from the Texas delegation to the House just by ramming through an unprecedented redistricting law through the Texas legislature. Given that the Texas legislature is under Republican control, it should've been a cakewalk. Texas Democrats, smelling something fishy, resisted, much to their credit. Not only did they resist, they literally flew the coop. They chartered a plane and flew to Ardmore, OK. All of them:A group of Democratic lawmakers who threw the Legislature into turmoil when they went into hiding to block a Republican congressional redistricting plan turned up Monday evening in Ardmore, Okla.
Tom doesn't politely ask these runaway Dems to come back to form a
quorum, he enlists the The Department of Homeland Security:Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said today that a "potentially criminal investigation" is under way into efforts to involve his agency in last week's search for Democrats who shut down the state House of Representatives.
Whoopsie! Using DHS to track down terrorists makes a lot of sense. Using the Department to hunt down errant Dems is a whole other kettle of fish, and might just be illegal. Alas, in the end, Tom got his way, and in the 2004 elections five Democrats were ousted from the Texas House delegation. But wait! Not so fast:The Supreme Court kept alive a Democratic constitutional challenge to a Republican redistricting plan in Texas yesterday, ordering a three-judge district court to reexamine its January decision upholding the plan.
The court's action will not affect the 2004 elections in Texas. Voting for the state's 32 seats in the House of Representatives will go forward under the contested plan, which was approved in 2003.
We'll have to see how the district court rules, but for now, the GOP was able to increase its number of seats in the House in the 2004 elections.If you were admonished three times by an ethics committee, you might think, "hey, self, you better clean up your act a little". But not if you're Tom. If you're The Hammer, the problem can't be you, it's got to be the ethics committee, so being the big shot Majority Leader, you just change the ethics committee's rules: House Republicans pushed through a significant change in the handling of ethics complaints over strong Democratic objections Tuesday as the 109th Congress convened with a burst of pomp and partisanship. The House, on a vote of 220 to 195, enacted a change that would effectively dismiss a complaint in the event of a deadlock in the ethics committee, which is equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. Its approval came after a retreat by Republicans on Monday on other proposed ethics revisions.
At the heart of both actions were calculations about how far Republicans should go to protect the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay. Many party members were unhappy with the ethics committee for the three admonishments it delivered to Mr. DeLay last year.
At the same time, some Republicans were uncomfortable retaining a party rule adopted in November that was intended to shield Mr. DeLay from having to step down from his leadership post if he was indicted in a campaign finance investigation in Texas. Republicans said the new approach to handling a deadlock on the ethics panel would protect lawmakers from purely partisan attacks.
I could go on:House Majority Leader Tom DeLay often plays defense in public in his fight against allegations of ethical misconduct, saying he didn't know about specific fund-raising practices under investigation in Texas or groups in Washington that paid for his travel.
Behind the scenes, though, the House majority leader has gone on offense like few public figures before him. With his blessing, Republican leaders remade House ethics rules and the committee that reprimanded him last year, inserting allies and policies more favorable to his circumstances.
He also has devised a blame-the-Democrats strategy, portraying his accusers as politically motivated while saying, "I have yet to be found breaking any House rules."
"All they can do is try to tear down the House and burn it down in order to gain power," DeLay said recently of the Democrats.
(Careful Tom, make sure when YOU burn the House down you're pants aren't down around your ankles while you try and escape the falling beams)and on:House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) yesterday downplayed a recent article linking him to former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is being investigated by a federal grand jury and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.
and, Oooo!!! What's this we have here Tom?:The FBI is trying to trace what happened to $2.5 million in payments to a conservative Washington think tank that were routed to accounts controlled by two lobbyists with close ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, NEWSWEEK has learned.
I think you get the picture. I'll leave you with Tom in his own words, blubbering like a big baby about how those damned Liberals are trying to tear him and his whole conservative movement down. Coming from arguably the most corrupt member of the House of Representatives in America's history, this crybaby routine is nothing short of breathtaking. Boo Hoo... And so it’s bigger than any one of us, and we have to do everything that is in our power to save Terri Schiavo and anybody else that may be in this kind of position.
And let me just finish with this: This is exactly the issue that’s going on in America. That attacks against the conservative movement, against me, and against many others. The point is, it’s, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement. And that is to go after people, personally charge them with frivolous charges, and link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only and that’s to destroy the conservative movement.
Update: From Josh Marshall over at
Talking Points Memo: (Sorry TPM'ers, I'm sniping the whole damn post)
Don't go! Don't go!
With news now breaking that Rep. Tom DeLay had a 1997 trip to Russia paid for by lobbyists who were, in some fashion or another, working on behalf of the Russian government, there must be a few Democrats out there who worry that he might actually be taken out by these burgeoning scandals. After all, he's great for the Dems. Heck, we're even planning on having a section of the new site we're launching devoted to tracking the DeLay/Abramaff scandal. So it might even require some site redesign on our end.
But, really, I wouldn't worry.
Even if the White House tries to get rid of DeLay (which would not surprise me) I doubt he'll go that easily. And even if he goes, actually make that when he goes, the truth is (and anybody who covers the Hill knows this) that his corruption has seeped all through the House GOP caucus.
There's a reason they call it the DeLay machine. It's not just DeLay. It's a system of organized corruption that many, many Republican members of the House have benefited from. Not all corruption is illegal or even against congressional ethics rules, mind you. But enough of it is, as we're now seeing with DeLay. And he's splashed his mud all over the House.
Late Update: Two other points about DeLay, or rather one question with possibly two answers. Who's turning on the bug man? Call me cynical: but Drudge is playing this story awfully prominently. That makes me wonder whether a thumb at the White House that used to be turned up just turned down. More concretely, a lot of DeLay's lieutenants are now under indictment or on their way there. Eventually, you've got to figure one of them starts to squeal. You've seen Deliverance, right?
-- Josh Marshall
The Industrial Bubble
We here at The Marble saw this coming:From Reuters:Oil prices surged to a record near $58 a barrel on Friday, powered by a forecast the market could spike above $100 due to robust global demand and tight spare capacity.From the L.A. Times:Oil Surges After "Spike" Prediction: A Goldman analyst says crude could reach $105 a barrel in 2007. Other experts are skepitcalWhile $100 a barrel may seem shocking, as global demand for oil outstreaches supply in the next couple of years, we may look back with some fondness at prices of $50 a barrel. Demand increases are mostly due to China's rapidly expanding economy, and while OPEC says it will increase production to keep pace with demand, there are reports out that state that they are at maximum capacity right now. In addition, Saudi Arabia, the kingdom that sits upon the largest reserves in the world, may have used some debilitating practices on their fields such that the largest ones may now be in decline.Let's get a little background on all this. Let's say you discover an oil well in your back yard. You say, "Eureeka!", haul in drills and pumping infrastructure, and begin selling your oil at quite a tidy profit. At first it's smooth sailing because the oil is so easy to get out of the ground. Maybe you weren't aware of it, but trouble lies ahead. Just after you've pumped about half of the total amount of oil in your well, it becomes much more difficult and costly to get the rest of it out of the ground. So, you hire an expert or two, and they tell you that you're going to have to start pumping water into the well to get at the good stuff. Finally, before your little cash cow is fully drained, it's costing you far more getting the remaining oil out of the ground than you're making by selling it. So, you're completely upside down on your cost/profit ratio, and it obviously makes no sense to continue with your little endevour. Again, this is before your well has even run dry. Now, picture the same scenario except on a global scale. That is exactly what's happening today.Discoveries of the largest oil fields on the planet peaked right around 1966. Oil production in the United States peaked in 1972, and that's why we import so much of it. Global oil production has either already peaked or will in the next couple of years. Are the headlines above making a little more sense now?For some more background, and more information on the late, great Dr. King Hubbert (no, we're not making that name up), check out this article: The Background Is OilHere are some other resources as well:Twilight In The Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy
By Matthew R. Simmons The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies
by Richard HeinbergOut of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil
by David GoodsteinAssociation for the Study of Peak Oil and GasThese events portend trying and difficult times for all of us on this planet, and we better get our elected leaders to start proposing some solutions, or the transition from carbon based energy to clean, reusable forms will be much more painful than they need to be.
3.5.2005 Update: From Reuters:
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Tuesday market forces could lead to a big enough increase in crude oil inventories to cool the recent "frenzy" that has sent prices to record highs.
Greenspan said the high oil prices of recent months had slowed oil demand growth, although "only modestly," contributing to a faster pace of oil inventory building.
He added that stockpiling could pick up further as producers seek to cash in on the higher prices future oil deliveries command.
"If sustained, these market technicals could encourage enough of an inventory buffer to damp the current price frenzy," Greenspan told an oil refiners' conference in San Antonio via satellite.
This is patently ridiculous. There are no "market forces", or "market technicals" that can increase crude inventories. Discovering vast new reserve fields would accomplish that, but as we asserted above, the discovery of those peaked in the mid 1960's. Oil is a finite resource, and there is no way the markets can change that.
