Two weeks ago, in the wake of Jack Abramoff’s plea agreement, House and Senate Democrats announced they would have a package of lobbying reforms to present to the public soon.
But, when it comes to actually having that package ready to go, the GOP is first to the pole.
If you can’t be better organized than that on a crucial campaign issue, how can you expect to reverse the tide?
Note: This is not a comment on the content of the Repubican package; it’s not perfect, certainly, but it’s not horrible either.
January 18, 2006
Forget Peak Oil, focus on Peak Copper
Perhaps that’s a bit strong, but not too much, according to Scientific American.
Shorter story? There may not be enough copper in the world for all the world to enjoy the electric infrastructure and concomitant standard of living of First World countries.
And, while iron for steel is still in good supply, the zinc to galvanize it is not. Neither is the platinum for car catalytic converters to reduce the air pollution levels in non-First World countries that eventually manage to get near First World car ownership levels.
Shorter story? There may not be enough copper in the world for all the world to enjoy the electric infrastructure and concomitant standard of living of First World countries.
And, while iron for steel is still in good supply, the zinc to galvanize it is not. Neither is the platinum for car catalytic converters to reduce the air pollution levels in non-First World countries that eventually manage to get near First World car ownership levels.
Time for more moronity from Cambridge Energy Research Associates
Surprisingly, it’s not Peak Oil Denial, $30/bbl oil pie in the sky or anything similar
No, this time it’s about the possibility of sanctions against Iran, and how gradually stepped up sanctions, including on refined gasoline, could hurt the country.
Here’s the word from CERA’s James Placke.
The U.S. Energy Information says Iran imports about 170,000 barrels per day of gasoline, about one-third its needs.
First, this is Iran, not Iraq. Although there is a fair amount of more liberal discontent, the mullahs will likely have no trouble rallying the country in the face of Western sanctions. As part of that, if gasoline rationing is needed, they’ll do it.
Second, the China, Russia (and India, not mentioned in the article) that want to do oil business in Iran will either build Iran one or more gasoline refineries or else transship refined gasoline down the Caspian Sea if necessary.
If this former diplomat is the type of person providing unofficial back-channel advice to BushCo, we’re in big trouble.
No, this time it’s about the possibility of sanctions against Iran, and how gradually stepped up sanctions, including on refined gasoline, could hurt the country.
Here’s the word from CERA’s James Placke.
“Iran’s vulnerability is its gasoline imports,” said Placke, senior associate with Cambridge Energy Research Associates and a former U.S. diplomat.
The U.S. Energy Information says Iran imports about 170,000 barrels per day of gasoline, about one-third its needs.
First, this is Iran, not Iraq. Although there is a fair amount of more liberal discontent, the mullahs will likely have no trouble rallying the country in the face of Western sanctions. As part of that, if gasoline rationing is needed, they’ll do it.
Second, the China, Russia (and India, not mentioned in the article) that want to do oil business in Iran will either build Iran one or more gasoline refineries or else transship refined gasoline down the Caspian Sea if necessary.
If this former diplomat is the type of person providing unofficial back-channel advice to BushCo, we’re in big trouble.
January 16, 2006
Jack Abramoff: GOP bagman or his own?
I think Jack was trying to play both ends against the middle in all of his scandals.
By giving his direct money only to GOPers, he could portray himself as a loyal K Streeter.
By directing his tribal (and other) clients’ money (and some of his other favors) to big hitters from both parties, albeit more to Republicans because they hold the majority, he was able to engage in, not so much pre-K Street lobbying, but pre-K muscling in on things.
Just as Tom DeLay shows no more loyalty to “true conservative principles” than what he needs to do to get reelected, so I think the record will similary show for Jack Abramoff that he showed no more loyalty to “true K Street principles” than was necessary to expand the reach of his power politics.
Again, because the GOP has the majority and has thrown around the weight of that majority, there's going to be a lot more Republican than Democratic wind-sucking when this settles.
But, if this were the 1990s, and Abramoff thought he could find a Democratic Congressional hitman to out-Rosty Dan Rostenkowski, he’d been showing primarily Democratic Congressmen the way to turn the post office scandal into major payola.
I agree that the GOP is primarily at fault here, and has brought a lot of this on themselves.
But, ultimately, Jack Abramoff was playing Jack Abramoff’s game, not the GOP's game.
By giving his direct money only to GOPers, he could portray himself as a loyal K Streeter.
By directing his tribal (and other) clients’ money (and some of his other favors) to big hitters from both parties, albeit more to Republicans because they hold the majority, he was able to engage in, not so much pre-K Street lobbying, but pre-K muscling in on things.
Just as Tom DeLay shows no more loyalty to “true conservative principles” than what he needs to do to get reelected, so I think the record will similary show for Jack Abramoff that he showed no more loyalty to “true K Street principles” than was necessary to expand the reach of his power politics.
Again, because the GOP has the majority and has thrown around the weight of that majority, there's going to be a lot more Republican than Democratic wind-sucking when this settles.
But, if this were the 1990s, and Abramoff thought he could find a Democratic Congressional hitman to out-Rosty Dan Rostenkowski, he’d been showing primarily Democratic Congressmen the way to turn the post office scandal into major payola.
I agree that the GOP is primarily at fault here, and has brought a lot of this on themselves.
But, ultimately, Jack Abramoff was playing Jack Abramoff’s game, not the GOP's game.
January 13, 2006
Is the U.S. Army a terrorist organization?
That’s exactly what this Asia Times column argues.
If you go by a common-sense definition of terrorism as “deliberate killing of civilian populations for psychological effect,” or something similar, I’d have to say the column is correct.
And the evidence is there in Iraq. As columnist Michael Schwartz explains:
Expect this to increase in the future, Schwartz says. The U.S. plan to “Iraqicize” the war covers only ground troops. Because the Iraqi forces have no armor, let alone high-tech weaponry, that means more use of U.S. airpower. And that means more accidental casualties, despite our boasting about our vaunted precision weapons. And, as Schwartz hints, many of those casualties may actually be deliberate.
The Army attitude appears to be, “If we have to crack some more civilian eggs to make terrorist omelets, that’s what we’re going to do.”
Support our troops? I support getting them all out.
Support our troops? I’ll support Army and Marine ground force privates, NCOs and field officers. Above that, or anybody in the planning of this horror, no. They deserve no support. If it’s terror elsewhere, it’s terror when we do it.
If you go by a common-sense definition of terrorism as “deliberate killing of civilian populations for psychological effect,” or something similar, I’d have to say the column is correct.
And the evidence is there in Iraq. As columnist Michael Schwartz explains:
As one American officer explained to New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins, the willingness to sacrifice local civilians is part of a larger strategy in which US military power is used to “punish not only the guerrillas, but also make clear to ordinary Iraqis the cost of not cooperating.” A marine calling in to a radio talk show recently stated the argument more precisely: “You know why those people get killed? It's because they're letting insurgents hide in their house.”This is, by the way, the textbook definition of terrorism — attacking a civilian population to get it to withdraw support from the enemy. What this strategic orientation, applied wherever US troops fight the Iraqi resistance, represents is an embrace of terrorism as a principle tactic for subduing Iraq’s insurgency.
Expect this to increase in the future, Schwartz says. The U.S. plan to “Iraqicize” the war covers only ground troops. Because the Iraqi forces have no armor, let alone high-tech weaponry, that means more use of U.S. airpower. And that means more accidental casualties, despite our boasting about our vaunted precision weapons. And, as Schwartz hints, many of those casualties may actually be deliberate.
The Army attitude appears to be, “If we have to crack some more civilian eggs to make terrorist omelets, that’s what we’re going to do.”
Support our troops? I support getting them all out.
Support our troops? I’ll support Army and Marine ground force privates, NCOs and field officers. Above that, or anybody in the planning of this horror, no. They deserve no support. If it’s terror elsewhere, it’s terror when we do it.
January 10, 2006
Bruce, it's about time you got tapped
Finally, and by a margin of less than 2 percentage points, 1980s Cardinal ace closer Bruce Sutter goes into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
The honor is long overdue; Sutter was in his 13th year of eligibility.
For mastering and popularizing the split-fingered fastball, the one really new pitch in the last 30 years, Sutter deserved consideration as a baseball pioneer alone.
But, for being a closer ironman back in the days when you often pitched more than one inning out of the bullpen, Sutter needed to be seen for what he was — the best fireman of his era.
Goose Gossage had a lower ERA, but, with the exception of one year, Bruce pitched more innings per year. And, although Bruce had a somewhat higher ERA, much of that comes from spending his early years at the pitching-not-so-friendly-confines of Wrigley Field.
No matter. I hope the Goose gets in next year. And Bert Blyleven.
But, as a lifelong Cards fan, I am glad to say this is truly Bruce’s moment.
The honor is long overdue; Sutter was in his 13th year of eligibility.
For mastering and popularizing the split-fingered fastball, the one really new pitch in the last 30 years, Sutter deserved consideration as a baseball pioneer alone.
But, for being a closer ironman back in the days when you often pitched more than one inning out of the bullpen, Sutter needed to be seen for what he was — the best fireman of his era.
Goose Gossage had a lower ERA, but, with the exception of one year, Bruce pitched more innings per year. And, although Bruce had a somewhat higher ERA, much of that comes from spending his early years at the pitching-not-so-friendly-confines of Wrigley Field.
No matter. I hope the Goose gets in next year. And Bert Blyleven.
But, as a lifelong Cards fan, I am glad to say this is truly Bruce’s moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)