Israel’s Oil War?
January 5, 2009 by Captive American Editor
Some think Israel is after Gaza's natural gas. And the American press ... couldn't care less.
A column in today’s Times of India argues that Israel’s invasion of Gaza isn’t really about stopping rocket attacks into its territory. According to the piece’s author, Israel has a much more mercantile, and unfortunately familiar, motive–cheap access to fossil fuels:
In 1999, the oil firm BG International discovered a huge deposit of natural gas 32km from the Gaza coast. The Gaza Marine gas field contains 1.2 trillion cubic feet of gas valued at over $4 billion. As per the Oslo peace accords, which created Gaza, Israel has security control over air and water around Gaza. So, it wrangled a deal with BG to get access to Gaza Marine gas at cheap rates.
But before the deal could go through, Hamas won the elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006. This sparked off a bitter power struggle between Hamas and the pro-west Fatah. Ultimately, the Palestinian Authority split in 2007, with Hamas taking control of Gaza and Fatah taking control of West Bank. One of the first things that Hamas did after getting elected was to declare that the natural gas deal would have to be renegotiated
…
It appears that the current Israeli move is to try and turn the Gazans against Hamas, paving the way for a more pliable administration, so that the gas deal will go through.
We’re not saying we agree with this assessment, but some further reading on the subject did yield some interesting results. For instance, back in 2003, according to an article in the Independent, Israel was all set to sign a deal with the Palestinians to import the Gaza gas, but backed out. Why? Because former prime minister Ariel Sharon didn’t like the fact that the pact would have given as much as 40% of the profits to the Palestinians:
Mr Sharon is reported to have preferred to buy gas from Egypt, which already sells Israel oil from its Sinai fields. The Israeli Prime Minister was reluctant to put money into the Palestinian treasury without knowing what it would be used for.
In 2005, two years after Sharon killed the Gaza gas deal, Israel did in fact enter into an import agreement with Sharon’s preferred partner Egypt. But late last year, this supply line was put in jeopardy. From the NY Times:
An Egyptian court on Tuesday ordered the government to stop piping natural gas to Israel, saying the 15-year contract was improperly awarded because it was not approved by Parliament.
That article is dated November 18. That means less than two months before Israel launched its attack on Gaza, its main source of natural gas was threatened. Meanwhile, an almost inexhaustible supply of the stuff sits just off the coast of … Gaza. Again, we’re not saying this is the sole reason for the invasion, or even one of the reasons. But it is an intriguing, perhaps critical, bit of background. Too bad our domestic media hasn’t mentioned it to us. A Google news search on “Gaza Israel natural gas” yielded absolute bupkis in the American press.
Pumping Chumps
January 5, 2009 by Captive American Editor
Don’t look now, but truck and SUV sales are up again:
Trucks and sport utility vehicles will outsell cars for the first time since February, according to a December report by Edmunds.com, which tracks industry statistics.
…
The surge in SUV and truck sales suggests that the issue of fuel efficiency has faded in the minds of many consumers.
And those girly hybrids? They’re sitting on dealers’ lots like wallflowers at a school dance:
Toyota has already slowed production of the industry’s flagship hybrid vehicle, the Prius, due to lack of interest and a growing inventory of the once best-selling model, Edmunds.com reported.
Are Americans really this shortsighted? Do they really think gas prices will stay below $2 a gallon? Sure, new Suburbans and F-150s might be a bargain this year. And thanks to Hank Paulson and the gang in Washington, financing might be shockingly easy to get. But a no-money-down loan and a couple thousand knocked off the sticker price is nothing compared to the costs of things like, you know, two foreign wars, massive indebtedness to inimical regimes in places like China and Venezuela, melting polar ice caps, and rising sea levels. Oh yeah, and let’s not forget bailouts for automakers, too. If we’re going to keep rewarding them for building inefficient vehicles, we shouldn’t complain when they fly to Washington rattling their tin cups.
Bill Richardson–Blago With Better Hair?
January 5, 2009 by Captive American Editor
Putting the nation first ... by selling it out to the highest bidder.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spent a good portion of his time on Meet the Press yesterday vowing not to allow Roland “Tombstone” Burris to join the Senate. Why not? Because Burris is “tainted” by the fact that Governor Rod Blagojevich appointed him. It’s almost amusing to watch Reid and his fellow Democrats turn up their noses at Blago while the stench of corruption and pay-to-play politics wafts over their entire party:
From Bloomberg:
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson withdrew his name from consideration to be President-elect Barack Obama’s commerce secretary amid a federal investigation into how a political contributor won state financial business.
A federal grand jury in Albuquerque met in December to look at how Beverly Hills, California-based CDR Financial Products won $1.5 million of work from the New Mexico Finance Authority in 2004, people familiar with the matter said.
CDR, which also advised Jefferson County, Alabama, on bond deals that threaten to cause the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, donated $100,000 to Richardson’s efforts to register Hispanic and American Indian voters and pay for expenses at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Here is an excerpt from President-elect Obama’s statement on Richardson’s withdrawal (emphasis added):
It is a measure of his willingness to put the nation first that he has removed himself as a candidate for the Cabinet in order to avoid any delay in filling this important economic post at this critical time.
So, Richardson was forced to step down because he is being investigated for handing out state business to an allegedly corrupt financial firm in exchange for $100,000 in political contributions. And that somehow proves that he … puts the nation first? Huh?
A governor trading $100 grand in political contributions for state business. Hmm. That sounds familiar. Where have we heard about a deal like that? Oh yeah. That’s where:
After an October 6 meeting with Harris and Individuals A and B, during which Individual B sought state help with a business venture, Blagojevich told Individual A to approach Individual B about raising $100,000 for Friends of Blagojevich this year.
But remember! Blago is “tainted” while Richardson “put the nation first.” Riiiiiiiight …
For more on what a peach of a guy Richardson is, check out this Politico article from last month on his brief stint in the private sector after leaving the Clinton administration and before he ran for governor. Surprise, surprise! He exploited his government service to land lucrative gigs in the corporate world. Again, where have we heard of such a thing before? No, we’re not thinking of Rahm Emanuel and his $16 million dabble in investment banking. We’re thinking of that other Illinois politician. You know, the one Harry Reid says is “tainted.” Oh yeah! Here it is:
Blagojevich and others discussed various ways Blagojevich could “monetize” the relationships he has made as governor to make money after leaving that office.
Compare Blago’s plan to cash in to what Richardson told the whole world on national television about his post-government work:
“I’ve never been able, in public life, to make much money,” he said, “and this was an opportunity to just put a little bit in reserve.”
To recap: when Blago merely tried to “monetize” the relationships he made in government, he became persona non grata in Democratic circles. When Richardson actually went out and did it, he became … the perfect candidate for a major cabinet position in the Obama administration.
PS: Another highlight from the Politico article–Richardson sat on the boards of numerous energy and oil firms while simultaneously serving as a director of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Wow. Talk about having it both ways.
Republicans: Limit Democrats, Er, Presidential Power!
January 5, 2009 by Captive American Editor
John Yoo: When it comes to serving my party, I'm willing to torture logic, too!
This is rich.
John Bolton and John Yoo, two of the biggest enablers of President Bush’s many abuses of presidential power over the last eight years, now say–get this–that Congress should act to curb the executive branch. Specifically, they call for all foreign treaties to be subjected to a two-thirds vote in the Senate, as prescribed by the Constitution.
Following the Constitution. Wow. What a concept! From the NY Times:
The framers of the Constitution designed the treaty process with a bias against “entangling alliances,” as Thomas Jefferson described them in his first inaugural address. They designated the Senate as the body responsible to protect the interests of the states from being bargained away by the president in deals with foreign nations. The framers required a supermajority to ensure that treaties would reflect a broad consensus and careful, mature decision-making.
On the surface, Yoo and Bolton sound, well, incredibly reasonable. But hold on a sec. We read through their piece several times. They fret about a lot of stuff that President-elect Obama might do. But they don’t seem terribly interested in the stuff the last guy (ie: their guy) actually did. Stuff like this:
Bush and his counterpart in Iraq signed the so-called Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which will keep our troops in the country for at least another 3 years. The Iraqi parliament passed the treaty. Yet our own Congress hasn’t even seen the document, despite the fact that it essentially hands over control of our troops to Iraqi leaders.
It’s hard to imagine a more “entangling alliance” than the SOFA. And yet, forget about such quaint notions as whether or not the Senate needs a two-thirds majority to approve it, the Bush administration didn’t even let anyone in Congress read it.
For some reason, Yoo and Bolton fail to mention this glaring example of executive branch arrogance. Hmm … we wonder why. And it seems mighty convenient for these two Republicans to argue that a Democratic president should seek out approval from two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, seeing as that body is about the only part of our government where Republicans still retain any power at all. Steve Benen over at the Washington Monthly found a good description for this. Chutzpah:
… I had to double check to make sure we were talking about the same Bolton and Yoo. After all, John Yoo has spent most of the last eight years arguing that the president has an unfettered power to do as he pleases on the international stage. Indeed, Yoo argued that the president can literally ignore any law he chooses — including the Constitution — if he decides it’s in the nation’s interests.
But that was then. Now Yoo is worried about executive overreach. Now Yoo wants every letter of the Constitution to be respected and adhered to without exception. The very same people who argued that the president must act without restriction when pursuing his foreign policy are now arguing that the president must honor the Treaty Clause at all costs.
Then again, Steve, Democrats spent the entire Bush years whining about the abuses of presidential power and restoring the prerogatives of the legislative branch. But come January 20th, watch how quiet they get on the subject. And, for once, we tend to agree with Dick Cheney. The other day, he predicted that President Obama will “appreciate” many of the new executive powers he and Bush took by force from our weak-kneed lawmakers. Do you really think Obama will just give them back? Or that his fellow Democrats in control of Capitol Hill would ever make him?
The Tennessee Two-Step: Trampling Independents
January 5, 2009 by Captive American Editor
... as long as you're a Democrat or a Republican.
Over the New Year’s holiday, Richard Winger at Ballot Access News posted on a partisan flip in elections commissions in Tennessee:
Because Republicans won more seats than Democrats in the House of Representatives, in the November 2008 election, control of all 95 county commissions now switches from Democratic majority to Republican majority
According to Winger, the state’s Constitution says the party with the most seats in the House gets to choose three out of the five commissioners for each county. The party with the second most House members gets the other two. In other words, in Tennessee, two party rule is virtually enshrined in the Constitution. And the Republicans and Democrats have made damn sure that they are the only two options available to voters, as Winger pointed out in 2007:
Tennessee requires a petition signed by 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote. The petition must say that the signers are members. The petition is due 4 months before the primary.
No group has complied with this requirement since 1968.
In forty years, not a single third party has even appeared on the ballot in Tennessee. And with the two dominant parties taking turns running the state’s elections, the chances for reform are exactly slim and none.
PS: A couple of weeks ago, we interviewed Richard Winger, one of the country’s foremost experts on restrictive ballot access laws, minor parties and independent political movements. Check it out here.
Federal Reserve: We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Congress!
January 2, 2009 by Captive American Editor
Fed Chair Bernanke: "What's $500 billion between friends?"
File this one under “Y,” for “You Couldn’t Make This Stuff Up If You Tried.”
Remember back in October of last year when Hank Paulson said he needed three-quarters of a trillion dollars in taxpayer money to buy up “toxic” mortgage bonds RIGHT NOW! or the economy would crash, the terrorists would win, defenestrated bankers would rain down on lower Manhattan like Armani-clad hailstones, Santa Claus would stop paying his elves, and we’d all get socks and underwear for Christmas?
And remember all the sturm and drang in Congress that followed? The back and forth, the endless partisan posturing, the amendments, the 24 hour media panic over it?
Okay, good. Now remember how, days after Congress finally handed over the cash, Paulson cried “psyche!” and decided to spend the money nationalizing our banking system instead of buying up worthless bonds?
Did you ever wonder what happened to all that subprime paper and why Paulson decided he didn’t need to spend our tax money on it after all? We did. And now we have our answer. Paulson didn’t have to pay for it because the Tweedle-Dum to his Tweedle-Dee, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, was planning on doing it for him.
But don’t expect much media notice or congressional handwringing over this new Wall Street rescue. Big Ben says he ‘don’t need no stinkin’ Congress’ to authorize his bailout. All he has to do is run off a quick $500 billion in new money himself. From Bloomberg:
The Fed plans to create money to purchase the bonds, boosting bank reserves.
That’s comforting. Our government “plans to create” half a TRILLION dollars out of thin air to buy a bunch of bonds no one else wants to own. But don’t sweat it, say Ben and his boys, we’re only going to buy the good bonds that no one else wants to own:
Only fixed-rate agency mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae will be eligible for purchase, the central bank said in a statement released in Washington today.
To recap: the Fed is going to use its newly minted money to buy up worthless junk. But that worthless junk will be guaranteed by trustworthy agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Gee. What could go wrong with that plan?
To top it all off, Bloomberg informs us that the Fed has hired Goldman Sachs–that’s right, that Goldman Sachs–and three other Wall Street firms to help it decide which bonds it should buy and to manage its holdings.
Let’s see, Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Three of the biggest players in bringing on the economic collapse. Who is Bernanke going to hire next? Bernie Madoff? And, seriously, is the entire financial oversight apparatus of our government now primarily dedicated to the health and welfare of Goldman Sachs?
More Monumental D.C. Egos
January 2, 2009 by Captive American Editor
Rep. Charlie Rangel: You owe me, America.
The other day, we posted on the pride of Illinois, newly-appointed senator Roland Burris and the marble mausoleum he’s already constructed for himself. As far as we know, at least Burris paid for this homage to his own self-love out of his own pocket. The same can’t be said for New York Rep. Charles Rangel. The cash for the monument he wants to build to please his, er, monumental ego is coming out of our pockets. From Time magazine:
The Harlem Democrat raised hackles after securing a $1.9 million earmark for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York.
Rangel has been in office since 1970. When someone questioned the wisdom of an elected official spending taxpayer money on something named after himself, he gave us all a glimpse at the inner workings of the career politician’s brain:
When a more junior colleague objected to the idea of lawmakers sponsoring things bearing their own names, the 78-year-old Congressman responded “I would have a problem if you did it, because I don’t think that you’ve been around long enough….”
This is how these lifetime leeches think. They spend decades on the public dole, spending the public’s money. Eventually, the line starts to blur and they start seeing our money as their money. Rangel is an extreme example of this phenomenon, but he is far from unique.
BTW: Rangel’s item is part of Time’s Top 10 Outrageous Earmarks in 2008. Amazingly, his only rates second place!
Debt Diplomas
January 1, 2009 by Captive American Editor
Our universities are supposed to prepare young people to be productive members of our society. Given that being a productive member of society now means going into massive amounts of debt to keep our sick consumer economy spinning, this–perhaps–should not be surprising. But that doesn’t make it any less disgusting. From the NY Times:
[Bank of America] has an $8.4 million, seven-year contract with Michigan State giving it access to students’ names and addresses and use of the university’s logo. The more students who take the banks’ credit cards, the more money the university gets. Under certain circumstances, Michigan State even stands to receive more money if students carry a balance on these cards
And Michigan State is far from alone:
[A Bank of America spokesperson] said the bank had agreements with about 700 colleges and alumni associations, making it one of the biggest, if not the biggest, card issuer on campuses.
So not only are colleges and universities yoking huge student loan obligations onto their graduates, they’re helping greedy credit card companies heap thousands more onto their debt load:
A survey of more than 1,500 college students by US PIRG in Washington found that two-thirds had at least one credit card. Seniors with balances had an average debt of $2,623 on their cards.
Congrats, kid! Here’s your diploma. And a thousand dollar a month payment schedule. Oh, and good luck finding a job to pay for it. We screwed you in that department as well.
Citigroup Millionaires: We’re Hurting, Too!
January 1, 2009 by Captive American Editor
Citigroup’s president, after pocketing hundreds of billions in our money, wants us all to know that he and his colleagues at the bank will be ’slashing’ and even ‘forgoing’ their bonuses this year. How honorable of them. From the NY Times:
“The harsh realities of 2008, primarily our earnings results, mean that our bonus pool is dramatically lower than last year,” Mr. Pandit wrote about a year in which the bank has so far announced more than $10 billion in losses.
Pardon us for asking, but if your company loses $10 BILLION and sucks up massive amounts of taxpayer cash to stay solvent, should there even be a “bonus pool” to speak of?
Fed Up Citizens Confront Their Leaders … In Iceland
January 1, 2009 by Captive American Editor
Now this is what we call an engaged citizenry. From the AP:
A nationally televised meeting between Iceland’s prime minister and other political leaders was forced off the air Wednesday night when angry protesters disrupted the broadcast … [the show] was cut short 45 minutes into the program when a torch-wielding crowd stormed Reykjavik’s Hotel Borg in an attempt to get to the studio.
Why did Icelanders put down their bubbly and pick up their torches and protest signs?
The disruption was the latest in a series of demonstrations that have rocked Iceland since the country’s economy imploded this fall under a mammoth load of bad debt. Unemployment has increased and inflation has soared.
So shortsighted, bought-off politicians wrecked their country’s economy by allowing a “mammoth load of bad debt” to build up until it collapsed like … well, like some two-bit flimflam artist’s Ponzi scheme. Gee, that sounds kinda familiar.
And what were American citizens and political leaders doing last night while Icelanders were braving tear gas and police batons to vent their righteous rage at their negligent officials?
Let’s see, our president-elect was still working on his suntan and his golf game eight time zones west of Washington. Our current president … well, who cares where he was … Ah ha! Here’s video footage of a few prominent politicos from last night–including the ex-president whose deregulatory policies laid the groundwork for our financial catastrophe and his wife, who served in the Senate for years and did nothing to head it off. They must have been barricaded in their homes, afraid and ashamed to show their faces, right?
Right? …
Um, not so much:
For a little contrast, check out footage from Reykjavik:
