As Received from Arthur Plum – thanks for sending this.

Joe Stack, The IRS and the T-word.

If someone flew an airplane into a building full of people to protest the Afghan war, it would be called an act of terrorism. However, when Mr. Joe Stack flew his plane into an IRS building and killed people, the news media calls it. “the accident,” and “the incident.” The local Texas prosecutor declared that Mr. Stack was not a terrorist. But what should you call it when a man pens a manifesto proclaiming, “violence is the only answer,” then kills people because they work for the government? Mr. Stack’s wife apologized on the news to “everyone affected by the incident,” but was careful not to use the term “victim,” when referring to the people her husband murdered.

Many have forgotten the violent Tea Party rallies of last summer, the buses full of anti-tax activists appearing at congressional offices around the country with their clubs and fists and foul mouths. Many have forgotten the Sarah Palin rallies of 2008, events that attracted characters similar to the murderous Mr. Stack. But the media has not forgotten those events, because they know that if they refer to Mr. Stack as a terrorist, as a man who killed innocent people to make a point, they’ll wind up in the crosshairs themselves.

 http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/18/scot…

US Oil Imports From Western Hemisphere Countries To The US Are Dropping:

Mexico Petroleum Supply, Exports to U.S. and Net Exports. Source: EIA. Chart by Chris Nelder.

= = = =

Venezuela Petroleum Supply, Exports to U.S. and Net Exports. Source: EIA. Chart by Chris Nelder.

= = = =

Combined Annual Net Oil Exports From Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Source: Jeffrey J. Brown, Samuel Foucher, PhD, Jorge Silveus.

= = = =

The Oil Export Crisis Has Unofficially Arrived.
By Chris Nelder | Friday, February 5th, 2010

Last March, his study of the effect of peak oil on U.S. imports had
brought Mexico to the forefront. “As our #3 source of imports, the
crashing of its supergiant Cantarell field had put the future of our
oil supply in serious jeopardy.”

The possibility that Mexico’s oil and gas exports to the U.S. could go
to zero within seven years looked very real.

As I explained in that piece, rising domestic consumption coupled with
declining supply puts an ever-tightening squeeze on imports. I have
found no evidence that policymakers are paying any attention to this
critically important dynamic, but it is the very point of the peak oil
spear.

Were it not for the market meltdown and recession, it would have
pierced our vital organs. Instead we felt a pinprick. Hardly anybody
realized what it really was, and most ran off on a wild goose chase
for evil oil speculators.

Now Venezuela has appeared on my radar for similar reasons… only
this time, we’re really going to feel it.

Let’s begin with a review of Mexico’s exports.

Mexico:

Shortly after publishing that article, I casually remarked to my
friend and fellow energy analyst Gregor Macdonald that Cantarell’s
production could fall to under 0.5 million barrels per day (mbpd) by
the end of the year.

I arrived at this somewhat startling conclusion by calculating the
effect of its decline rate — 38% at the time and accelerating — on
production of 0.77 mbpd in January, down precipitously from its 2.1
mbpd peak in 2003.

Gregor’s recent data sleuthing on Cantarell found its production in
December 2009 was 0.527688 mbpd, just a hair above my estimate.

To update the data on Mexico, it’s now our #2 source of imported
petroleum because Saudi Arabia has fallen from #2 to #4.

As of November 2009 (the latest data available) the U.S. imported 1.08
mbpd of crude and finished petroleum products from Mexico. Its exports
to the U.S. peaked at 1.46 mbpd in 2004, the same year as its
production peaked. Net exports (production minus consumption) fell to
1.06 mbpd in 2008.

For the years 2005-2008, Mexico’s exports to the U.S. declined by 0.51
barrels per day. In 2010, supply is expected to fall to 2.5 mbpd —
nearly half a million barrels per day less than 2009.

Mexico nationalized its petroleum operations in 1938 in a
constitutional amendment and handed over total control to the state
oil company Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), with predictable results.

Oil now provides more than 40% of the country’s revenues, which have
been used to pay for a vast array of public services and line the
pockets of the oligarchy while starving investment in both upstream
activities (new oil supply) and downstream (finished products).

Consequently, Mexico’s oil reserves have decreased by more than 75% in
two decades (owing partly to the correction of a previous,
ridiculously inflated figure), production has begun to decline and
exports are falling fast.

It now imports $4.5 billion a year worth of gasoline, $10 billion a
year in petrochemicals, and 25% of its natural gas, mostly from the
U.S. This despite having nearly 13 billion barrels of proven oil
reserves and more than 50 billion barrels of (unproven) reserve
potential.

Mexico would be in a far better position, were it not for its hostile
stance on foreign participation. PEMEX simply lacks the technical
ability to develop its more difficult, remaining resources —
particularly deep water.

Venezuela:

As of November, the U.S. was importing 0.9 mbpd from Venezuela, making
it our #3 source. Its exports to the U.S. peaked at 1.8 mbpd in 1997,
the same year as its production peaked. Net exports (production minus
consumption) have fallen 38% from the 1997 peak of 3.1 mbpd to 1.9
mbpd in 2008.

Venezuela’s oil exports to the U.S. have been declining markedly since
2004, after a long period of relative stability. From 2004 through
2009, Venezuelan petroleum exports fell 0.7 mbpd.

Like Mexico, Venezuela is endowed with enormous energy resources and
could be producing at a far higher level. Estimates of its oil
reserves range from 153 billion barrels of certified proven; to 513
billion barrels technically recoverable in the USGS’ January estimate;
to 1.5 trillion barrels in offshore potential, if you believe the
effervescent Dr. Marcio Mello of Brazil.

Most of it is heavy oil, a low-grade which must be upgraded to synthetic crude.

And like Mexico, President Hugo Chavez has exiled the Western oil
companies who might have made the investment to bring those resources
to market.

A Nation in Free Fall

The good times rolled for Chavez in the first years after his election
in 1998. His socialist programs to rebuild the country and raise its
standard of living were popular but expensive, and soon began to fail
under the crush of declining energy supply.

Oil revenues make up 90% of Venezuela’s foreign earnings, so its
dependence on oil exports is extreme.

Billions of dollars in profits from the national oil company,
Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) were diverted to welfare programs
and into the pockets of oligarchs, while investment in future
petroleum and power supply languished.

The precipitous drop in oil prices since mid-2008 only compounded the
revenue shortfall.

Oil production has fallen 25% since Chavez was elected, and a long,
devastating drought has cut into its hydropower supply, of which 73%
comes from the massive Guri Dam.

Chavez responded by nationalizing most of its petroleum operations and
its grid in 2007.

In 2009, another 76 oil services companies on the Maracaibo Lake were
taken over. The projects now sit abandoned, waiting for PDVSA to
compensate the displaced operators and put them back into operation.

Almost half a million hectares of land were seized in 2009 with the
rationalization that it was underused.

Measures to counter the declining hydro supply have been implemented
in a haphazard fashion, resulting in frequent, unscheduled blackouts,
including seven national blackouts since 2007. Malls and government
offices have had their hours of operation cut and water rationing has
been imposed.

“Some people sing in the bath for half an hour,” Chávez cried at a
cabinet session in October. “What kind of communism is that? Three
minutes is more than enough!”

In January, a wave of public protest erupted, prompting Chavez to
implement a rapid series of desperate measures.

Rolling blackouts were imposed in the capital city of Caracas. After a
few days of protests, Chavez lifted the blackouts and fired the
electricity minister. Blackouts are expected to be reinstated in an
effort to keep hydro reservoir levels from falling to the point of
collapse.
A recent report gave the power shortage a paradoxical twist,
indicating that power from one of the state refineries may have to be
diverted to the grid, cutting distillate output by 200,000 barrels per
day — or more. This will result in less heating oil for China, who
will make up the loss by burning more coal.
Chavez devalued Venezuela’s bolivar currency by half; the president
went on to nationalize a chain of French-owned supermarkets over
alleged price gouging.
He ordered cutbacks in the operation of state-run steel and aluminum
manufacturing operations, which account for up to 20% of the country’s
power demand.
This week he turned to Cuba for help on how to cope with the power
shortage, since Cuba has been through similar problems. The island
nation is providing tens of thousands of energy-efficient lightbulbs
and cloud-seeding technology to Venezuela.
Last weekend, he forced six television channels off the air for
failing to broadcast one of his speeches — up to six hours in length —
in a continuation of his campaign for “communicational hegemony.”
Since December, all radio and television networks are required by law
to broadcast his speeches live, whenever he chooses to make one.
Nationwide student marches have been met by troops armed with rubber
bullets, and at least two deaths have been recorded.
Chavez has said he’s prepared to take “radical measures” should the
situation worsen, begging the unsettling question of what could be
more radical than what he has already done.

Looking East, Not North

Now Chavez is turning east for help in developing his nation’s oil and
gas resources. Recent agreements include a $20 billion joint venture
with Russia to develop the Junin 6 field in the Orinoco oil belt, with
a potential top production rate of 450,000 barrels per day.

China has agreed to build a refinery and develop the Orinoco heavy oil
fields, and Venezuela has guaranteed 560,000 barrels per day to China
this year.

Venezuela has launched its first major auction for drilling rights in
more than a decade, for access to areas east of the existing
operations in the Orinoco. Developing the leases will be expensive
because of their distance from the existing infrastructure, and
winning bidders are expected to make offers in the $10 billion-plus
range including early payments of at least $1 billion, financing
plans, and commitments to build the necessary roads, pipelines, ports,
and upgraders. Potential bidders include Spain’s Repsol, Japan’s
Mitsubishi, the UK’s BP, and Chevron.

Given the sheer size of its resources, it’s too soon to declare the
end of Venezuela’s glory days in the oil patch. However, it does seem
likely that the new barrels it brings to market will be headed east —
not north — and Western producers will have very little stake in the
projects.

Chavez will put exports to the U.S. on a short path to zero the first
chance he gets.

—————–

Oh Imports, Where Art Thou?

The combined decline in imports from Mexico and Venezuela for 2005
through 2008 is 0.89 mbpd. If the trend continues in 2009, then over 1
mbpd will have disappeared from the U.S. import stream in the last
five years — a decline of 8% from 2004 levels.

Since 2007, the loss of production from Cantarell alone was 0.7 mbpd,
but the recession cut U.S. demand by 2 mbpd, effectively masking the
decline. This raises the question: If U.S. demand rises from here,
where will those barrels come from… and how much will they cost?

The U.S. is not only in first place worldwide in its demand for oil,
but in paying the market rate for it. Nobody else buys 8.5 mbpd of
crude at retail.

Drivers in Venezuela are still filling up for 25 cents a gallon, even
as their exports decline.

Mexico’s gasoline prices are more on par with the U.S., but its
consumption has been rising steadily since 1997 and continues to cut
into exports.

Saudi Arabia’s domestic consumption is currently growing at the rate
of 7% per year, following a trend of more than three decades. It uses
a whopping 1.5 mbpd — 1.8% of total world oil supply! — to desalinate
water, at the equivalent of 7 cents a gallon.

Before the OPEC cuts of 2009, its exports to the U.S. had essentially
flatlined at 1.5 mbpd since 2004.

Exports from our #5 source, Nigeria, have also declined — from 1.17
mbpd in 2005 to 0.98 mbpd in 2008.

In fact, of the top five oil exporting countries to the U.S.,
representing 63% of our crude imports, only Canada posted an increase
(of 0.2 mbpd).

The combined annual net oil exports from our top three exporting
countries — Canada, Mexico and Venezuela — illustrate our situation:

Given the very modest increases from unconventional domestic production and Canada, the decline of imports from Mexico and Venezuela means the U.S. will be increasingly forced to depend on suppliers farther afield — the very same suppliers that China has been buying into in size. The “collision course with China” that I wrote about in July 2005 has nearly reached the point of impact.

It also means that when oil prices rise again, the pain will be far greater for the U.S. than it is for our top suppliers. Next time, the spear of declining oil exports will puncture a lung.

The oil export crisis has arrived… We just haven’t felt it yet.

Production, consumption, and export data herein is the latest available from the EIA.

Until next time,
Chris

Thanks to the following individuals for their contributions to this
article: Venezuelan oil expert Carlos Rossi for sharing excerpts from
his forthcoming book, The Completion of the Oil Era: The Economic
Impact; Gregor Macdonald for sharing his data on Cantarell; and
Jeffrey Brown and Samuel Foucher, for their work on net exports data
and the Export Land Model.

Investor’s Note: While declining oil imports from Mexico and Venezuela
paint a nightmare scenario for meeting future U.S. demand, all hope
isn’t lost… In fact, one U.S. oil play is developing at a breakneck
pace. You’re likely aware of the Bakken oil formation. But you may not
realize fully how the Bakken has single-handedly thrust North Dakota
into the international investment spotlight.

Of course, members of the $20 Trillion Report know how profitable the
Bakken oil formation is. So far, they’ve raked in gains of 305%, 249%
and 130%! We want you to share in their success.

—————————-

Our reaction to the above goes in two directions:

To every straights there is also the possibility for an answer that provides for new opportunities. in this case:

(1) it becomes even clearer that the US has here an opportunity to make policy accommodations with its neighbors to the south.

(2) the US does not have to – and will not – continue its dependence on oil alone as its source for energy. The US can go for novel and mostly renewable sources of energy, then the Saudis might also discover sun and wind as good replacement for this insanity of using 25% of their oil to provide their water needs. Whatever – energy independence – or at least oil imports reduction for the US – is not an excuse for  a “drill baby drill” US energy policy. Actually, put a carbon tax on the use of oil in the US as a good way to tell the world that the US is capable to detoxify from its addiction to oil imports.

The White House has said that the US President would not be attending what used to be the regularly scheduled EU-US talks, which have been planned to take place in Madrid in May 24-25, 2010 by the Spanish Rotating EU Presidency for the First half of 2010.

Honestly, why should he participate in the European Games while there are so many real problems on his plate?

The EU has three Presidents – if they cannot decide who is their President in fact – do they really expect for Obama to travel trans-Atlantic, and sit at Summits chaired by all three of them – Herman Van Rampuy, The Permanent EU President, Jose Manuel Baroso, the President of the European Commission, and the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero,    who is presently the Rotating President of the EU?

Papers write of a “Snub.” This is ridiculous and for us who watched the Copenhagen Conference that was saved by President Obama under a G-2 arrangement with China, because he had to act fast if he wanted to save the meeting from itself, and there was no strong man or woman of the EU to stand at his side, the above “News” are old hat – and we say – we told you so!  Actually, we welcome Charles Forelle writes as “World News” in the Wall Street Journal of today: “Things haven’t been good recently for Europe’s position on the world stage. Despite the new treaty ambition to make the EU a bigger player, the bloc has sometimes seen itself shut out.  At climate talks in Copenhagen in December, Mr. Obama hammered out a last-minute accord with China and other emerging nations. The Europeans were left out of the picture.” This recognition of reality in a WSJ article is very unusual – but this is real life. If the EU does not get together – and still claims 7 seats at the G-20 – rather then one seat for real – they are turning themselves, by their own choice,  into world political irrelevancy. The same is true at the UN where we see more and more a 2 1/2 seats situation – with France and the UK in Security Council seats but Germany on practical UN Security Commissions, and no EU representative with any powers what so ever.

Obama’s decision not to go to Madrid is no snub to Mr. Zapatero or to Spain – but rather the cleareeded sign that he wants to go and meet the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED EUROPE. Had Obama decided to go to Masdrid it would have been as if someone from Europe would come to a meeting of the US Governor’s Association. Just think – Germany id California, France is New York, the UK is Texas, Spain is Florida, Poland is Illinois, Austria is Vermont … etc etc. Perhapse indeed Van Rampuy should come to the US Governor’s Association meeting in order to learn what is needed in order to create out of the EU the neededpartner for Obama in order to turn the G-2 into a G-3 and to create out of the G-20 a new meaningful global body.

———————–

The best article on this we found is from The Telegtaph:
Barack Obama has snubbed the EU amid confusion in Washington over which “president” of Europe he would be expected to meet at a trans-Atlantic summit this spring.

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels  – from Telegraph.com
Published:  01 Feb 2010 -
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew…

The White House has said that Barack Obama will not be attending the EU-US talks planned to take place in Madrid in May.
The White House has said that the US President would not be attending the regularly scheduled EU-US talks, which have been planned to take place in Madrid in May 24-25, 2010 by the Spanish Rotating EU Presidency for the First half of 2010.

Honestly, why should he particioate in the European Games while there are so many real problems on his plate.
US officials have expressed frustration because the Lisbon Treaty, which was supposed to give the EU a single global voice, has created a number of European presidents competing for Washington’s attention.

Even the venue for the summit, Madrid or Brussels, has been “up in the air” after a tussle between Spain, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency and Herman Van Rompuy, the new created President of Europe.

Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Van Rompuy, President of the European Council which represents EU heads of government, should host the summit in Brussels as Europe’s lead negotiator in global bilateral talks.

But Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister, insisted that he should host the summit because the EU was in “transition” after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in December.

A US official told the Wall Street Journal that President Obama had not yet received an a formal invitation to the EU-US summit, a twice yearly meeting that has taken place since 1991.

“We don’t even know if they’re going to have one. We’ve told them, ‘Figure it out and let us know’,” said the official.

Other American diplomats have blamed confusion over which of the three EU “presidents” is in charge of the summit – Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Zapatero or José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president.

“Who attends from the US and at what point will depend on who’s calling the meeting,” said a US state department official.
“There’s a competition in Europe because you now have the standing EU architecture.”

Many national and EU diplomats are dismayed at the institutional infighting that has followed the entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

“The Spanish are behaving badly. They’ve made a mess of the summit but Van Rompuy and the post-Lisbon EU institutions will carry the can in the long term. The squabbling has damaged the EU in the eyes of the most powerful nation in the world,” said a senior source.

A European Commission spokesman hinted that the meeting would have to be downgraded or cancelled if Mr Obama did not show up.

“Normally a summit is a summit because it is attended by heads of state and government,” said the spokesman.

A Spanish foreign ministry spokesman said: “The EU-US summit is scheduled to take place in May in Madrid, as was foreseen and we are still preparing it.”

US officials have indicated that Mr Obama might reschedule talks with the EU in the wings of a Nato summit in Portugal this autumn.

From: Green Chip Review <gcr-eletter@angelnexus.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Subject: The Seeds of a Full-blown Renewable Power Rebellion

The Seeds of a Full-blown Renewable Power Rebellion
By Chris Nelder | Friday, January 15th, 2010
I speculated in my article last week on how Southern California and Arizona might fare in a relocalized future where small regions are forced to become self-sufficient.

This week, we’ll draw some insights from communities that have gone local.

Jefferson, the Almost-49th State

Following two previous unsuccessful rebellions in 1852 and 1854, residents of the area from roughly Mt. Shasta in Northern California to just above Coos Bay in Oregon made a serious attempt to secede from the states in 1935, out of frustration over the lack of state support for their critical transportation infrastructure needs.

A Time magazine article from 1938 lauded the area’s “rich deposits of chrome, copper, gold, iron, coal, limestone, and platinum beneath an evergreen blanket of several billion feet of virgin timber,” which remained largely inaccessible for a lack of good roads and rail.

It described how a local self-made resource magnate named Gilbert Gable had tried to get approval from the Interstate Commerce Commission to build a rail link from Port Orford over the mountains to the Southern Pacific rail line 50 miles inland, in order to bring the region access to eastern markets. A rival group made its own bid for a rail connection from the SP line to Crescent City, on the California-Oregon border.

Both applications were denied by the ICC. The examiner commented, “Recent army reports show that the prospect of future growing importance of the ports of Port Orford and Crescent City definitely may be discarded as a factor of consequence in this proceeding.”

Frustration grew until November 27, 1941, when the residents created a provisional government and elected a governor, declaring themselves the State of Jefferson, the 49th State of the Union. A Proclamation of Independence was published and pamphlets were distributed. Armed citizens put up road blocks on the main north-south artery of U.S. Highway 99 where they collected tolls for crossing their new state line.

The Proclamation’s intent was clear: “Until California and Oregon build a road into the copper country, Jefferson, as a defense-minded State, will be forced to rebel each Thursday and act as a separate State.”

One week later, amid much fanfare, the state’s new governor was inaugurated in Yreka. Signs had been posted around town saying: “Our roads are not passable, hardly jackassable; if our roads you would travel, bring your own gravel.” Hollywood showed up and shot some newsreels.

But three days after the inauguration, the whole thing was over with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The nation united behind the war effort and built good new roads into Jefferson to access its much-needed copper and timber.

Some useful observations can be drawn from the Jefferson experiment.

First, it highlights the importance of getting resources to market. In an age when declining fossil fuels increasingly jeopardize truck transport, alternatives will be needed.

Locals may have to find ways to finance the rail and ship transport infrastructure for their goods — even if they have to do it on their own. Government officials are typically shortsighted about securing critically important infrastructure.

Second, it demonstrates that even in the not-too-distant past of the U.S., regions can (and will) secede if the support of larger entities fails. The notion that our union could fall apart under the pressures of the coming decades is hardly outlandish.

Indeed, I didn’t have to wait long for the fulfillment of my prophecy last week that California should expect another debt downgrade. This week, S&P cut its rating on California’s $63.9 billion general obligation debt from A to A-. More severe budget cuts are sure to follow, starting with health and human services. As the budget squeeze rolls downhill, it’s forcing counties and cities to follow suit.

Issuing IOUs to state residents instead of tax refund checks is one thing; but when schools, law enforcement, food assistance, and basic transport begin to fail, it’s another thing entirely. The impact of such cuts always hits the welfare and working classes first… people who would rally for secession if their state and nation failed them.

I have personally heard locals near the southern Mendocino County border joke about blowing up the Highway 101 Bridge in Hopland, if the worst should happen and hungry hordes from Southern California begin to migrate north. I’ve also heard residents of the redwoods have no great love for those of the plastic lands.

Some thought experiments may be useful here.

If our critical infrastructure were to become unreliable as state and federal unions fail, which communities would fare best? Those utterly dependent on freeway transport, like Dallas; or those with ample rail, seaborne, and pipeline capacity, like Houston? Those who can disconnect from the grid, like Texas; or all the other states, which cannot?

As Scott Pugh of the Department of Homeland Security said at the ASPO conference last year, “Texas can secede from the union any time they think they should.”

And where would the boundaries of the new regions be drawn? Would I, as a resident of the Bay Area in California, prefer to end up in Mexicali, with its massively overbuilt and overpopulated deserts… or in Jefferson, with its low population, timber and minerals, farmland, ample rainfall, and a working rail and port infrastructure?

Where would offer the better opportunity to secure a food supply within a 100-mile radius: Las Vegas, or a town in rural Iowa?

Which has the most old-school, low-energy shipping infrastructure to fall back on: Baltimore or Chicago?

The Marin County Secession

Another type of secession is playing out right now, right here, which could become a model for the rest of the country.

In 2002, California passed a state law (AB 117) allowing communities to form their own entities to buy electrical power as so-called Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs). The notion is that CCAs could choose to buy more renewable energy than the existing investor owned utility (IOU) monopolies provide, while those utilities continue to own and maintain the distribution network and billing.

State revenues normally distributed to utility energy efficiency programs, plus the usual charges per kilowatt-hour, would be redirected to the CCAs, enabling them to buy green energy and alleviate the need for building new peak-capacity plants (typically powered by natural gas). Customers are automatically enrolled in the CCAs unless they opt out.

According to the New York Times, the nation’s first test of the concept in Ohio has been an unmitigated success with 126 municipalities participating in 67 CCAs, providing power to about 800,000 customers with only a 5% opt-out rate. The latest supply contract signed by one of the CCAs, the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC) offers rates 6% lower than the local utility. Thank you, Ohio.

In California, however, it’s been a long road for those who have taken it. None have succeeded yet.

San Francisco is very close, with several bids for potential suppliers in hand. It intends to obtain 51% of its electric supply from renewables by 2017 — more than double what the ineffectual state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) mandates.

The Kings River Conservation District in the San Joaquin Valley, the farming area that forms the southern part of California’s Central Valley, tried to form a CCA since the law was passed but has essentially given up. It was simply going to cost them too much to fight the opposition of PG&E, the state’s largest utility.

With 15 million customers, PG&E has the budget and the lawyers to easily win a pitched battle with a struggling farming community. Instead, Kings River has opted to issue bonds and build its own power plants running on local solar, micro-hydro, and biomass resources.

In Marin County, where I live, the effort to create the Marin Energy Authority (MEA) CCA has been under way for six years. The county and all but three cities within it have so far chosen to join the MEA, which is scheduled to sign a power supply contract with Shell Energy North America on February 4. At that point, the majority of the county’s customers would be enrolled in the program — unless they opt out.

The MEA aims to source 25% of its supply from renewables initially, growing to over 60% by 2015, and eventually to 100%.

PG&E has launched a multi-pronged assault on the MEA, feeding sour analysis and misinformation to a grand jury investigating the proposal; creating negative press; sending out a direct mail assault full of distortions under the auspices of a “Common Sense Coalition,” which I stapled to my wall, and sending consultants to represent its views at local government meetings.

With the contract deadline at hand, the battle has intensified as city councils and the county board of supervisors decided whether to remain with the program.

I have followed the MEA since its creation, including brief correspondence with Paul Fenn, who authored the CCA laws, and conversations with local elected officials who support the MEA. Over the last two weeks, I showed up at my city council and county meetings to share my view on why it’s imperative for municipalities to take control of their own renewable energy procurement. And I have a meeting scheduled this week with the mayor to explain my reasons in more detail. I consider it my civic duty and a fulfillment of my resolution to work harder on local solutions.

CCAs are a different sort of secession than the State of Jefferson, but the aims are really the same: to let local communities take advantage of their resources when their faith in the state has failed.

Smart grid technologies and rooftop solar need not wait for sweeping support from the federal and state levels. Indeed, given the extraordinary fiduciary stress that federal and state governments are under, I don’t believe local communities can afford to wait for it. Local supply is now the name of the game. God bless the child that’s got his own.

Add in “micro-islanding” capabilities, so small services areas can disconnect from the larger grid and get by on their own distributed generation capacity, and you have the seeds of a full-blown renewable power rebellion. I have no doubt that if we pulled out all the stops on local generation capacity, and pumped water up the mountain as storage capacity, that we could get by on our own just fine.

After years of watching my state government fail to meet its renewable energy targets… of watching my utility monopoly stymie the rapid deployment of renewables… of watching the public utilities commission install a torturous obstacle course of red tape in the path of rooftop solar… I’m willing to carry that rebel flag.

It might be the only way forward.

Until next time,

Chris

The above and the bellow  are about reformulation and reformation of the American Republicans.

The following is another amazing piece of information about the way the Republican party is attempting to come back from the boondocks.

Indeed, there is an increasing noise being heard from the various Dick Cheney compadres. This article focuses on the Sarah Palin American phenomenon and her nebulous advance towards the 21st US Tea Party version that she would like to see made up of all right wingers of the nation; but this article just shows that not all right is equal – so now what?

 http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/14502…

Tea Party Split Between Libertarian Faction and Religious Right? This tension matters a great deal — the former wants smaller government; the latter wants bigger government to discriminate against people they don’t like.

Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly  on January 8, 2010.

After a series of bizarre, and often offensive, rallies in D.C., the Teabaggers are apparently going to get together in about a month for a convention.

The Tea Party Nation is gearing up for its first ever convention, to be held at the famed Opryland Hotel in Nashville next month. It’s a confab designed to help the tea parties from across the country organize, with an agenda that sounds a lot like an attempt to form an official third party.

Organizers ask for local groups to “select their best to meet with their peers from across the nation” and who “have the most desire to move this process of organizing to the next level.”

They’ll have a workshop about “the importance of becoming Precinct Committee Chairs.”

“Please join us, make and form strong bonds, network, and make plans for action. We are doing what we could not do alone, to preserve that which we value,” organizers write.

The three-day event scheduled for the first weekend in February is already rubbing some conservative activists the wrong way — the Tea Party Nation gathering is charging $549 per person. That’s significantly more expensive than tickets to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) — traditionally the biggest right-wing event of the year — which will be held two weeks later just outside D.C.

Of course, one explanation for the steep costs is Sarah Palin — the former half-term governor will reportedly receive as much as $100,000 to speak to Tea Party Nation, while CPAC does not pay any of its speakers. (Palin was invited to appear at CPAC, but declined, perhaps because there was no money in it.)

And speaking of Palin, the guest list for Tea Party Nation is what drives home just how radical a group we’re talking about here.

In addition to Palin, attendees will hear from, among others:

* World Net Daily’s Joseph Farah

* Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)

* Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore

* Religious right leader Rick Scarborough

This is not a group of mainstream Americans. Farah’s conspiracy-driven website has taken the lead in peddling Birther nonsense; Bachmann is mad as a hatter; Moore is a theocrat who doesn’t believe the Bill of Rights applies to the states and was removed from office for ignoring federal court orders he didn’t like; and Scarborough is a radical preacher best known for being a Jerry Falwell acolyte, writing a book called Liberalism Kills Kids, and trying to establish his own mini-theocracy in Texas several years ago.

With that in mind, the speakers’ list offers some hints about the direction of this “movement.” There have been fissures between the libertarian-minded factions and religious-right-style theocrats whose agenda expands well beyond taxes and “socialized medicine.”

Indeed, the tension between the factions matters a great deal — the former wants smaller government in all instances; the latter wants bigger government to prevent abortions and discriminate against minority groups right-wing activists don’t like.

It appears Tea Party Nation and its high-profile participants are signaling the success of the religious-right contingent in taking the lead. But that’s likely to make the fissures more pronounced in the coming months.

——————-

Steve Benen is “blogger in chief” of the popular Washington Monthly online blog, Political Animal. His background includes publishing The Carpetbagger Report, and writing for a variety of publications, including Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect, the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has also appeared on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show,” Air America Radio’s “Sam Seder Show,” and XM Radio’s “POTUS ‘08.”

========

But please do not think that all religious people from the heart of America belong to the Tea Party. Please see what I also got today – and this from my friend Gail who sent me material from the EDF – The Environmental Defense Fund.

Religion and Climate Change

January 8, 2010

The president of a religious institution isn’t the first person you think of as a likely EDF spokesperson. But in a recent television ad sponsored by EDF, Dr. Dan Boone, the president of Trevecca Nazarene University in Tennessee, made an impassioned plea for Congress to pass climate change legislation. “Please somehow find a way to let this global concern rise above partisan politics,” Dr. Boone said.  He’s descended from frontiersman Daniel Boone—clearly the pioneering spirit lives on.

The conflict between politics, religion and science has been with us for centuries; think of Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin. Today there is rampant confusion between faith, something you believe in, and science, something that requires only connective leaps between hypotheses and demonstrable evidence. We seem to have lost our trust in the authority of scientists, no matter how impressive their level of training and achievement. A fascinating new Pew poll showed that Republicans are overwhelmingly less likely to “believe” the science of climate change than Democrats, who aren’t entirely persuaded either.

With every passing week, the scientific data gets more precise, and more frightening. Yet this has proven insufficient to move people to action. All the more fascinating, then, to watch the growing movement among religious leaders who use their pulpits to venture into environmental action. More than 10,000 congregations of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist and other faiths are working in 30 states as members of Interfaith Power & Light (IPL). These religious leaders are clearly having an impact on people across the country who would never call themselves environmentalists.

IPL sees climate change as a profound moral issue, a matter of values—something many environmentalists have been wary of addressing, preferring to focus on technological or economic solutions as being less politically charged and ultimately more effective. But no matter what our approach, we all have something to learn from faith communities about how to bridge divisions and instruct, inspire and mobilize people.

— — —

Portrait of a Preacher (mind you – she is no Sarah Palin! – a PJ comment): The powerful message of Interfaith Power and Light—one that unites all faiths—is that people have a duty to be stewards of the earth. In loving God, we must love his creation. This is not, as some critics claim, about turning environmentalism into a religion; that is a perversion of what is actually happening. The fact is, in order to succeed in significantly altering the global course of climate change, we are going to have to harness all the power we have, whether it is the power of the market, the power of technology, or the power of heart and soul.

IPL is the brainchild of the Reverend Sally Bingham, a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of California. Bingham is also a trustee of EDF. She founded The Regeneration Project whose mission is to deepen the connection between ecology and religion. IPL is the primary campaign and is a religious response to global warming. State chapters respond to a call to action: they agree to give sermons that explain the danger of climate change, reduce their own emissions, support public policy that cuts greenhouse gases, and promote the adoption of renewable energy technologies.

“Most people want to do the right and moral thing,” Bingham wrote to me recently in an email. “They just don’t sometimes know what that is. It is for that reason that religious leaders have such an important role. We need to take this issue out of the hands of the politicians and get it into the hands of the people at the grass roots level. Clergy can do this.”

Communities of faith, in other words, can provide moral leadership, something we desperately need amplified from many quarters. Think of the two major moral issues in America’s past – civil rights and slavery; the fight over these issues was led by communities of faith, united on moral grounds. “There are millions of people who don’t listen to politicians and who are skeptical of science, but who will listen to their clergy,” notes Bingham.

“The powerful message that unites all faiths is that people have a duty to be stewards of the earth.”

Mexico vows to set new efficiency rules for autos, it will also push for more efficient new government buildings.
05 Jan 2010, Reuters

(Adds background on alternative energy, efficient buildings)
MEXICO CITY, Jan 5 (Reuters) – Mexico will limit imports of inefficient used cars and encourage low-carbon technology to reduce its overall volume of tailpipe exhaust, the energy ministry said on Tuesday.
The ministry said it was also mulling regulations that would for the first time set a national standard for auto emissions. Such standards would be at the “vanguard” of international best standards, the agency said.

—
Officials hope to slowly purge heavy, inefficient autos from among the roughly 21 million cars now on the road in Mexico. The nation’s auto fleet is expected to rise by more than 14 million vehicles by 2017.
Only 1 percent of Mexican automobiles currently use alternative fuel, the ministry said.
The new importation rules will aim to “avoid the accelerated aging of the Mexican car fleet,” the agency said in a statement.
A senior Mexican environmental policymaker said in August the country would likely adopt fuel efficiency standards compatible with those in place in the United States. [ID:nN03537208]
Mexico is one of the world’s largest car builders and most global auto companies have at least one factory in the country.
Stakeholders in the domestic auto market have long lobbied for limits to be placed on the import of older used cars from the United States to help support the domestic market.
The new goals were developed as part of a multi-year national plan to create a sustainable energy policy.
In a separate move, the ministry promised to outline new standards for energy efficiency in newly-built government offices.

——–

We wish to bring up the possibility that some unscrupulous US interest might yet bring up NAFTA and free trade arguments to disallow  stopping the dumping of old US cars in Mexico, a measure that clearly has to do with Mexico interests that prefer not to have this competition to their home produced vehicles. We will watch.

“Full-body scanners on display at Reagan National Airport: Many experts say the full-body scanners would have detected the explosives carried aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day, but the
machines have also raised privacy concerns over the detailed body image that is displayed as part of the screening.”

TSA – Transportation and Security Administration – tries to assuage privacy concerns about full-body scans.

By Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 4, 2010
It has come to this.

Already shoeless, beltless and waterless, more beleaguered air passengers will be holding their legs apart, raising their arms and effectively baring it all as they pass through U.S. airport security
checkpoints.

Add the “full-body scan” to the list of indignities that some travelers are confronting in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, era of vigilance.

Federal authorities, working to close security gaps exposed by the thwarted Christmas Day terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, are multiplying the number of imaging machines at the nation’s biggest
airports. The devices scan passengers’ bodies and produce X-ray-like images that can reveal objects concealed beneath clothes…….

- – - – - -

now add the “me-au” from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, ADC Legal Director   nshora at adc.org

Washington, D.C. | January 5, 2010 | www.adc.org |

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is deeply concerned by the new Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) directives, which went into effect on January 4th at midnight.  According to news sources, these directives will require citizens from 14 countries, all Arab or Muslim countries, with the exception of Cuba, to go through enhanced security screening. Such screening can include full pat-downs, scans, delays, and anything associated with secondary screening – an extra search of the passenger’s carry-on luggage may also be required.  News sources also stated that the directives are applicable to any travelers, including US CITIZENS, who have passed through one of these 14 countries, or who have taken flights that have originated from these 14 countries.

ADC is very troubled as such directives will have negative ramifications on Arab-Americans, citizens of the 14 countries, and all Americans who visit these countries. A disparate segment of the Arab-American community will be scrutinized because of these new guidelines. The blanket labeling of hundreds of millions of civilians based solely on their country of citizenship or travel is not only unfairly discriminatory based on national origin, but also improperly labels millions of innocent people as somehow suspect or possible terrorists.

The new directives came following the Christmas Day attempted airline attack that threatened our national security, and which ADC has strongly condemned. Implementing an effective and productive counterterrorism tool is paramount. However, casting a wide net against individuals based on their country of origin, race or religion is not an effective counterterrorism tool. During the past decade, similar racial, ethnic and religious profiling tactics and practices have time and again misdirected precious counterterrorism resources, damaged foreign relations with key allies, fueled the fires of extremists by giving them an excuse, stigmatized communities, and most importantly did not have any discernible impact on security. Based on precedent, these new directives will be no different than these past practices and their adverse consequences; and while such directives may appear to make us feel safer, the reality is that they discriminate against innocent persons and divert attention from real threats.

Resources must instead be focused on high-risk individuals based on proper intelligence, better coordination and communication between different governmental agencies. In addition, continued engagement with the Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian community groups must be strengthened, and must not be discouraged by ethnic profiling tactics.

ADC has been in contact with TSA and the Department Homeland Security (DHS) and is planning to file a complaint and request for additional information with the Department.  ADC urges all travelers affected by these new guidelines to always comply with the Transportation Security Officer’s (TSO’s) request.  In the event of any abuse or misuse of authority, please request the TSO’s name and badge number, and file a complaint with ADC’s Legal Department at  legal at adc.org.

==============

Honestly, I feel the pain of decent members of the ADC, but am appalled at the chutzpah to announce the complaints of that organization without a single word attached saying that as loyal citizens to this country they are ready to organize themselves in units of informers when it comes to transgressions by people from their country of birth, that are endangering the security of the country that gave to the ADC members the privilege of life under a secular democracy.

Yes, I know that the ADC has members that are Muslim, Christian or atheists. I know they have no Jews in ADC, but that is not the issue. The Arab countries, other Asian countries, and the African Arabized countries, on the list of 13, are all Islamic countries – in all of them Christians and Jews face very serious difficulties. Further, I know of good Muslims in the US and overseas, that participate with enlightened Jews in order to build bridges between communities. in Copenhagen I actually participated during the Climate conference at a pilgrimage that took us to places of worship that were Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, and Muslim (that last meeting was held in the rooms of a Danish humanist society) – in this time sequence. Yes – good relationships are possible, but that will happen only when, and if, there is a clear understanding, and voiced recognition, that Islamic terrorism originates with Muslim individuals, and that in order to safeguard ourselves, profiling in search of instruments of terror is not a dirty word, but a means of self defense.

Also, in order to avoid needless friction, I suggest that the ADC moves front and center in the global effort to disengage from the addiction to oil.

And one more item – this website does speak up for Cuba as they surely are not part of the group of countries responsible for Islamicists performing acts of terror. So, they do not belong on that list of 14.

GLOBAL WARMING IGNITES BORDERS AS WELL

By Manuel Manonelles, BARCELONA, (IPS) Posted by Other News January 3, 2009.

Little by little, it is being confirmed that the melting of the polar ice caps, whether in Antarctica or the Arctic, is happening significantly faster than initially predicted. The consequences of this for peace, one of the main victims of climate change, are enormous.

Glaciers and areas of high-altitude mountains that were previously considered zones of perpetual snow are now melting. A paradigmatic case is that of the alpine border between Switzerland and Italy where during a recent routine verification, certain sections of ice or perennial snow that had been on the map since 1861 were found to be missing. In this case, the two countries have enjoyed long periods of peaceful coexistence and are approaching the problem in a logical and cordial fashion, forming a commission to find a technical solution.

However, the possible implications of cases like this in other geographical areas are very worrisome. The destabilising potential of a similar development on the India-Pakistan border would be enormous, particularly in the zone of Kashmir or the Siachen glacier, where more than 3000 soldiers of both countries have died since 1984. The same is true of the tense China-India border, or the deeply problematic border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which will grow increasingly porous with melting, contributing to a rise in destabilisation in what are already two of the most unstable countries on the earth.

Another major effect of global warming is the gradual opening of major global shipping lanes in areas that had previously been impassable because of ice. The Northeast Passage along the north of Russia, used recently for the first time in history, shortens travel between the ports of China, Japan, and Korea and Hamburg, Rotterdam, and South Hampton by 4,000 kilometres. With the Northwest Passage along northern Canada, travel between the China and the ports of the eastern United States is similarly shortened.

The opening of these new routes will completely change the dynamics of intercontinental trade and might render irrelevant places that until now were considered geostrategically essential, such as the Panama and the Suez Canal.

Add to this the draw of massive reserves of raw materials expected to be present in the Arctic, ever more accessible as the ice recedes, which is provoking a race for control of the area – including an arms race – and is stoking tensions particularly between Russia, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. The Russian news agency TASS has calculated oil reserves in the area at over 10 billion tonnes. Last year Canada approved an extraordinary 6.9 billion dollar arms bill to strengthen its military presence in its arctic zone, while Russia has resumed tactical flights of nuclear bombers in its polar region, triggering the protests of numerous countries.

This also explains, in part, the speed with which the European Union is processing the application for EU membership of bankrupt Iceland, which would place the body in the best possible position for future negotiations and territorial claims in the area with regard to future access to the “Arctic banquet”.

The melting of the ice caps is also the major cause of rising sea levels, which have other irreversible territorial, social, and economic consequences, such as the physical disappearance -partial or total- of certain small island states of the Pacific likely to occur within a few years -the Maldives, Samoa, Kiribati, among others. Obviously the implications are vast, including – in addition to the personal, environmental, cultural, and national trauma – the political and legal status of future states that have no territory. The principal components of the global infrastructure, from ports and refineries to airports and nuclear plants, are also seriously at risk, and will find themselves near or at or even below sea level.

It is important to note in this context that the majority of the global population lives in areas close to the sea, starting with megacities like Mumbai, London, New York, Shanghai, Tokyo, and Buenos Aires, and densely-populated areas like the Ganges delta in Bangladesh, where rising sea levels are already wreaking havoc in the form of water pollution and related effects. Recent studies indicate the possibility of some 200 million new environmental refugees in coming years -refugees who would only increase the already considerable humanitarian pressures and tensions in these areas and exacerbate existing or latent conflict.

The Global Humanitarian Fund issued a report this year that shows unequivocally that climate change today is responsible for some 300,000 deaths per year. Numbers for the medium and long-term are even higher. In this context, the urgency of fighting climate is a pre-condition for a peaceful future. Therefore, the international community has no other option, specially after the fiasco in Copenhagen, to spring into action as soon as possible. It is about climate, but also about peace and human lives.

—————-

This and all “other news” issues edited by Roberto Savio can be found at http://www.other-net.info/index.php

This amazing article was penned by Fidel Castro himself, then later we watched how Presidents Morales of Bolivia and Chavez of Venezuela spoke in the Copenhagen plenary similar words to these, in the name of the ALBA group of Latin and Caribbean States, on that very important Friday-the eighteenth.

Today, when finally writing about this, I also wonder if besides Simon Bolivar and Jose Marti, Chavez is not ready to accept also Abraham Lincoln as a third member of a historic triumvirate intended to set the Western Hemisphere apart from global machinations, provided President Obama does indeed stretch out a friendly hand to Cuba? I believe that this is within the realm of possibilities, and perhaps the easiest way for the US to free itself of the tyranny of oil and the influence of the oil lobby of Washington. I believe that our times start looking more and more like the pre-WWII days. The Abraham Lincoln Brigade that went to Spain had among its people some of the best the US had to offer. They were not stupid and recognized the Stalinist stealth-riders, as well as the fascist opponents, and remained true to democracy ideals that brought them there. Climate change provides the world the same opportunity as fighting for democracy did in those years. If Obama is ready to rein in the US extremists when it comes to economic relations with the countries of the Southern part of the Western Hemisphere, new line-ups are possible based on new agreed common goals of helping in the sustainable development of these countries, rather then continuing to regard them only as source of raw materials. Had the US done so earlier the world might have been a friendlier place to America – at least in that part that fell into the geopolitical Western Hemisphere Monrovian design.

Clearly, Castro and Chavez will criticize the US when being held at bay by the stick of US corporations, but when approached as partners for change they might actually be ready for political compromise. The reality is that even though they do not apply democracy to their States, the did eradicate analphabetism, hunger, and established health care systems, ahead of the US. Venezuela can help fund such positive activities thanks to its income from oil, but they seem ready to help fund also other positive activities if offered a place at the American table. The way they show pride in their baseball culture that derived from the US via Cuba, shows to me that I am not dreaming about pie in the sky.

———–
 http://monthlyreview.org/castro/2009/10/…

Reflections of Fidel: The ALBA and Copenhagen.

The festivities associated with the 7th ALBA Summit, held in the historic Bolivian region of Cochabamba, showed the rich culture of the Latin American peoples and the joy elicited in children, young people and adults in general by the singing, the dancing, the costumes and rich expressions of the human beings of all ethnic groups, colors and shades: aborigine, black, white and mixed people. We could see there thousands of years of human history and precious culture that explain the determination with which the leaders of various Caribbean, Central and South American peoples convened that summit.

The meeting was a great success. Bolivia was the venue. I recently wrote on the excellent prospects of that country, an heir to the Aymara-Quechua culture. A small group of peoples from that area are bent on proving that a better world is possible. The ALBA – created by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Cuba, inspired by Bolivar’s and Marti’s ideas, as an unprecedented example of revolutionary solidarity- has showed how much could be done in barely five years of peaceful cooperation. This started shortly after Hugo Chavez’s political and democratic victory. Imperialism underestimated him, and deliberately tried to oust him and remove him. The fact that for a good part of the 20th century Venezuela had been the world’s largest oil-producer, practically owned by the Yankee transnationals, made the chosen path particularly rough to pursue.

The powerful adversary had neoliberalism and the FTAA [Free Trade Area of the Americas]; two instruments of domination always used after the Cuban Revolution to crush resistance in the hemisphere.

It is irritating to think of the shameless and disrespectful way in which the US administration imposed the government of millionaire Pedro Carmona and tried to have elected President Hugo Chavez removed, at a time when the USSR had disappeared and the People’s Republic of China was a few years away from becoming the economic and commercial power it is today, after two decades of over 10 percent growth. The Venezuelan people, like that of Cuba, resisted the brutal thrust. The Sandinistas recovered, and the struggle for sovereignty, independence and socialism gained ground in Bolivia and Ecuador. Honduras, which had joined the ALBA, was the target of a brutal coup d’etat inspired by the Yankee ambassador and propelled from the US military base in Palmerola.

Today, there are four Latin American countries that have completely eradicated illiteracy: Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua. A fifth country, Ecuador, is quickly advancing towards that goal. The comprehensive healthcare programs are underway in the five countries at an unprecedented pace in the Third World. The programs of economic development with social justice have become projects of these five states, which already enjoy great prestige in the world for their brave position in the face of the empire’s economic, military and media power. Three English speaking Caribbean countries of black ancestry, determined to fight for their development, have also joined the ALBA.

This alone would be a great political merit if in today’s world that were the only big problem of man’s history.

The economic and political system that in a short historical period has led to the existence of more than one billion hungry people, and many more hundreds of millions whose lives are hardly longer than half the average of those in the wealthy and privileged countries, was until now the main problem for mankind. But, a new and extremely serious problem was strongly discussed at the ALBA Summit: climate change. A danger of such magnitude had never been known in human history.

As Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Daniel Ortega waved the people goodbye in the streets of Cochabamba yesterday, Sunday, that same day, according to news spread by BBC World, Gordon Brown was chairing in London a session of the Major Economies Forum mostly made up by the highest developed capitalist countries, the main culprits for the carbon dioxide emissions, that is, the gas causing the greenhouse effect.

The significance of Brown’s remarks is that they have not been made by a representative of ALBA or one of the 150 emerging or underdeveloped countries on the planet but of Great Britain, the country where industrial development started and one of those which have released most carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The British Prime Minister warned that if an agreement is not reached at the UN Summit in Copenhagen, the consequences will be ‘devastating.’

Some of the ‘catastrophic’ consequences would be floods, droughts and lethal heat waves claimed the environmental group Nature World Fund referring to Brown’s assertion. “The climate change will be out of control within the next five to ten years if the CO2 emissions are not drastically cut down. There will not be a plan B if Copenhagen fails.”

The same news source claims that: “BBC specialist James Landale has explained that not everything is happening as expected.”

Newsweek reported that “it seems more unlikely every day that the states will commit to something in Copenhagen.”

According to reports from the major American press outlet, the chairman of the session, Gordon Brown, said that “if no agreement is reached, there is no doubt that the damage of the uncontrolled emissions will not be repaired with a future agreement.” He then went on to mention such conflicts as “unchecked migration and 1.8 billion people afflicted by water shortage.”

Actually, as the Cuban delegation claimed in Bangkok, the United States led the highest industrialized countries most opposed to the necessary reduction of emissions.

At the Cochabamba meeting, a new ALBA Summit was convened. The timetable will be: December 6, elections in Bolivia; December 13, ALBA summit in Havana; December 16, participation in the UN Copenhagen Summit. The small group of ALBA nations will be there. The issue is no longer “Homeland or Death”; it is truly and without exaggeration a matter of “Life or Death” for the human race.

The capitalist system is not only oppressing and plundering our countries; the wealthiest industrial nations wish to impose to the rest of the world the bulk of the burden in the struggle on climate change. Who are they trying to fool with that? In Copenhagen, the ALBA and the Third World countries will be struggling for the survival of the species.

Fidel Castro Ruz
October 19, 2009
6:05 PM

What a shame – will US Jobs again hold back US independence? With the US incapable or unwilling to act on climate, will Wind Energy Stimulus input translate into holding back from using Chinese turbines that will come with Chinese money in order to develop US wind? GM went bankrupt because it did not make cars in a competitive, efficient, and acceptable way and manage still to hide behind the labor unions in order to continue getting Washington’s protection from the real world entering fortress USA.

The US does not have the money for renewable energy because it spent the money on wars for oil. It also did not set up plants to build the equipment needed for the new industries because it is still set to guard the jobs of the workers from the old industries – this seems a ready made situation for the Chinese to move in. Right now AES Corp., the US power producer with operations in 29 countries agreed to sell $1.58 billion in stock and a 35% stake in its wind power business to China Investment Corp. CIC – read China Government – for $2.2 Billion in cash. CIC will thus own 15% of all Virginia based AES says Bloomberg. Someone will have to make those turbines – and it clearly will be the Chinese.

Now the following:

Wind Energy Stimulus -  Will Wind Energy Stimulus Funds Go To Chinese Manufacturers?

By Jeff Siegel
Thursday, November 5th, 2009
Earlier this week Jeff Siegel  of Green Chip Review told us that China marched into Texas with $1.5 billion for a 600+ megawatt wind farm. The project is actually a joint venture with Cielo Wind Power, U.S. Renewable Energy Group, and Shenyang Power Group. When completed, it will supply enough power for about 180,000 homes.
Well, now it looks like Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), wants the Obama administration to reject an expected request for stimulus funding for this particular wind project because it could end up generating Chinese jobs – not U.S. jobs. According to the Senator, if approved, the funds would be used to buy turbines and other components made in a Chinese plant.
Certainly I agree that stimulus money should be provided for projects that create domestic jobs (especially in the manufacturing sector). But it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
I suspect that part of the whole deal hinged on Chinese manufacturer, A-Power Generation Systems providing the turbines. And I can’t imagine the Chinese will set up manufacturing facilities in the U.S. just for this one project.
It’s actually quite frustrating when you think about it. After all, we have fantastic wind resources in Texas, yet at this point, the only folks willing to pony up the cash to develop this particular project are in China.
Don’t get me wrong. If China wants to invest in these projects (and make huge profits) because we can’t seem to get it done – so be it. Because the bottom line is that we need to build out our renewable energy mix and strengthen our electric infrastructure now. Not tomorrow. And if China’s willing to step in because we won’t – well, that’s on us.
And don’t kid yourself. China already has a huge stake in all of this anyway. Whether through turbines, solar panels and batteries or the rare earth elements that are necessary to build these things – China’s influence on OUR energy economy is real…and it’s massive.
Of course, it’s no secret that the opportunity for renewable energy development in the U.S. is huge. And if a Chinese company wants to invest in a Texas wind farm or set up shop here in the United States, and use domestic workers to manufacture this stuff – I’m all for it. Certainly that’s what companies like Vestas, Gamesa and Siemens have done.
But with unemployment likely to remain at unacceptable levels for years to come, we can’t afford to lose out on a single job.
That being said, if we don’t get our act together soon and start getting aggressive on providing the necessary funding and manufacturing for our own renewable energy development – rest assured, someone else will. With or without stimulus funds.

Troubling Portrait of Suspect Emerges.
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE ,  AP

WASHINGTON (Nov. 5) - His name appears on radical Internet postings. A fellow officer says he fought his deployment to Iraq and argued with soldiers who supported U.S. wars. He required counseling as a medical student because of problems with patients.
There are many unknowns about Nidal Malik Hasan, the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base. Most of all, his motive. But details of his life and mindset, emerging from official sources and personal acquaintances, are troubling.
For six years before reporting for duty at Fort Hood, Texas, in July, the 39-year-old Army major worked at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center pursuing his career in psychiatry, as an intern, a resident and, last year, a fellow in disaster and preventive psychiatry. He received his medical degree from the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., in 2001.
While an intern at Walter Reed, Hasan had some “difficulties” that required counseling and extra supervision, said Dr. Thomas Grieger, who was the training director at the time.
Grieger said privacy laws prevented him from going into details but noted that the problems had to do with Hasan’s interactions with patients. He recalled Hasan as a “mostly very quiet” person who never spoke ill of the military or his country.
“He swore an oath of loyalty to the military,” Grieger said. “I didn’t hear anything contrary to those oaths.”
But, more recently, federal agents grew suspicious.
At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.
They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case.
One of the officials said late Thursday that federal search warrants were being drawn up to authorize the seizure of Hasan’s computer.
Retired Army Col. Terry Lee, who said he worked with Hasan, told Fox News that Hasan had hoped President Barack Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Lee said Hasan got into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported the wars, and had tried hard to prevent his pending deployment.
Hasan attended prayers regularly when he lived outside Washington, often in his Army uniform, said Faizul Khan, a former imam at a mosque Hasan attended in Silver Spring, Md. He said Hasan was a lifelong Muslim.
“I got the impression that he was a committed soldier,” Khan said. He spoke often with Hasan about Hasan’s desire for a wife.
On a form filled out by those seeking spouses through a program at the mosque, Hasan listed his birthplace as Arlington, Va., but his nationality as Palestinian, Khan said.
“I don’t know why he listed Palestinian,” Khan said, “He was not born in Palestine.”
Nothing stood out about Hasan as radical or extremist, Khan said.
“We hardly ever got to discussing politics,” Khan said. “Mostly we were discussing religious matters, nothing too controversial, nothing like an extremist.”
Hasan earned his rank of major in April 2008, according to a July 2008 Army Times article.
He served eight years as an enlisted soldier. He also served in the ROTC as an undergraduate at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg. He received a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry there in 1997.
Associated Press writers Lara Jakes, Pam Hess, Lolita C. Baldor and Brett Zongker in Washington and Alicia Chang in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

—————-
Press Release from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee:
ADC Appalled by Attack on Fort Hood, Community Urged to Take Safety Precautions.

Washington, DC | November 5, 2009 | www.adc.org | The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is appalled by the attack that took place earlier today against soldiers and others at Fort Hood, Texas. Preliminary news reports have indicated that a rogue Army Major Malik Hasan and two others shot and killed at least 12 people and injured numerous others.

ADC President Mary Rose Oakar said, “This attack is absolutely deplorable. ADC has been consistent and on record in condemning any attacks aimed at innocents, no matter who the victims or the perpetrators may be.  Such violence is morally reprehensible and has nothing to do with any religion, race, ethnicity, or national origin.  ADC urges the FBI and law enforcement agencies to make every effort to see that justice is served.” Oakar continued, “ADC also calls upon law enforcement agencies to provide immediate protection for all Mosques, community centers, schools, and any locations that may be identified or misidentified with being Arab, Muslim, South Asian or Sikh as a clear backlash has already started.  The actions of a few should not invite a backlash on innocent members of any community and we urge law enforcement and others to keep that in mind.

Additionally, due to these tragic developments, ADC is releasing the following advisory statement to members of the Arab, Muslim, South Asian, and Sikh American communities. ADC feels it prudent to issue this advisory statement due to the potential of a backlash against these communities and given the historically documented acts of hate-motivated violence including vandalism against these communities.

ADC would like to emphasize that it is issuing this advisory based on experiences in the community in recent years, and purely as a precautionary measure. ADC presents these suggestions for the consideration of the Arab, Muslim, South Asian, and Sikh American communities, to be evaluated by each family and individual according to their own best judgment and in the context of their own situation and relationship with their local community. ADC urges everyone to exercise common sense and rely on their own best judgment, but offers the following as suggestions should the need arise:

1) IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS PLACED IN PHYSICAL DANGER BECAUSE OF YOUR ETHNICITY, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN:

Call the police (dial 911 in most communities)

Contact the local FBI office, It is the FBI’s job to investigate hate-motivated crimes and specific threats of violence. A list of FBI field offices is included on our website, please see: http://adc.org/fbi_field_office.htm

If the threat is imminent, go to a safe location such as a police station or church.

If you feel threatened in your home or community, move to a friend’s house, or a hotel for as long as necessary.

Contact ADC to file a complaint by emailing the ADC Legal Department at<  legal at adc.org > or by calling (202) 244-2990.

2) IF YOUR PLACE OF WORK, PLACE OF WORSHIP, OR SCHOOL IS IDENTIFIED OR CAN BE MISIDENTIFIED WITH ARABS AND/OR MUSLIMS:

Make sure the location has an open line of communication with law enforcement.

Make sure you know all the exits to your building.

Make sure the location has a current emergency plan that is defined and can be implemented should the need arise.

3) IF YOUR CHILD CAN BE IDENTIFIED AS ARAB OR MUSLIM, OR MAY BE CONFUSED FOR BEING OF MIDDLE-EASTERN ORIGIN:

Make sure you discuss the events with your children and that they feel comfortable speaking with an adult if they face harassment by others.

Make sure your children know what steps to take to avoid confrontation with other students.

Work with your children’s school to implement an anti-discriminatory policy.

Click on the following link for a list of the FBI Field Offices across the country: http://adc.org/fbi_field_office.htm

ADC would like to emphasize that it is issuing this advisory based on experiences in the community in recent years, and purely as a precautionary measure. ADC presents these suggestions for the consideration of the Arab, Muslim, South Asian, and Sikh American communities, to be evaluated by each family and individual according to their own best judgment and in the context of their own situation and relationship with their local community.
NOTE TO EDITORS: The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), which is non sectarian and non partisan, is the largest Arab-American civil rights organization in the United States. It was founded in 1980, by former Senator James Abourezk to protect the civil rights of people of Arab descent in the United States and to promote the cultural heritage of the Arabs. ADC has 38 chapters nationwide, including chapters in every major city in the country, and members in all 50 states.

The ADC Research Institute (ADC-RI), which was founded in 1981, is a Section 501(c)(3) educational organization that sponsors a wide range of programs on behalf of Arab Americans and of importance to all Americans. ADC-RI programs include research studies, seminars, conferences and publications that document and analyze the discrimination faced by Arab Americans in the workplace, schools, media, and governmental agencies and institutions. ADC-RI also celebrates the rich cultural heritage of the Arabs.

With a Russian bank buying into GM in Europe – German Government looking positively at Sverbank joint with Canadian Magna getting 55% of Opel – that puts 35% of the ownership in Russian hands; American Airlines and Delta looking at buying into Japan Airlines, the Michael Jackson family being booted out  from Vienna and London – does this all mean that we are seeing now a new – post economic crisis – look at the essence of globalization with money speaking louder then political considerations? Is it inconceivable to see in the near future more US oil industry being bought into  by their Islamic oil sources and even more direct Arab hold on Washinton DC?

And signs of more independence too – Austrian Bundeskanzler Werner Fayman of the Socialists, Joins Finance Minister Josef Proll of the ÖVP, in nixing any Austrian government financial aid to the ailing Opel in his answer to German Kanzler Angela Markel.

Energy Risk USA, Houston – Next week!

From: Mustafah Abdullah

Dear Pincas,

If you can only attend one event this year and haven’t booked on Energy Risk USA, here’s what you are missing out on……

United Nations Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC) comes onboard the conference for an exclusive keynote update on the carbon regime post-2012, and how you will be affected.

John Kilani, Director of the Sustainable Development Mechanisms (SDM) Programme at the UNFCCC brings with him a unique perspective combining his regulatory role and his extensive senior management experience in Qatar Petroleum.   He will outline how different carbon policies will impact your business and shed new light on the regulation versus legislation debate.

Investing in renewable energy – bang for your buck?

Complimenting this keynote, we present you sessions discussing:

• The worth of investing in renewable energy at the current prices
• Operational considerations you need to factor in
• Impact of carbon prices on your asset values

Silent assassins – Don’t let moral hazards eat into your profits

An extended panel on the pitfalls of moral hazards and how you can decrease rogue activities at no cost.   Our speakers from Labhart Risk Advisors, Entergy Services, and International Commerce tell you how you can instil a self-correcting risk culture.

PLUS new speakers from GOLDMAN SACHS, CITIGROUP COMMODITIES, SEQUENT ENERGY, SARACEN, MACQUARIE COOK POWER, HESS, BP

PLUS all your traditional risk issues addressed in a fully interactive and concise CRO roundtable led by the Committee of Chief Risk Officers:

Credit risk                   Regulatory risk                             Operational risk                           Market risk

For the event guide click here

Energy Risk USA is the most anticipated event of year in the energy industry.   Make this your most astute time out of the office.

Book now to secure your place

See you in Houston!

Mustafah Abdullah
Conference Producer – Risk Events
Incisive Media

  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Arab Asia, Future Events, Qatar, Reporting from UNFCCC Meetings, Reporting from Washington DC, Texas

Discuss this article

15 / 12 / 2008
Delaying climate agreement could cost billions in private investment, warns global wind power industry

The Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) urged governments to pick up the pace of negotiations during the next 12 months in the run up to the Copenhagen summit at the end of 2009.

“We have seen very little concrete progress coming out of the Poznan talks, and time is not on our side,” said GWEC’s Secretary General, Steve Sawyer. “Private sector investors are looking to governments to prove their commitment to a post-2012 agreement. Clean energy businesses have a crucial role to play in achieving climate protection goals, but we need strong signals that governments intend to establish a clear and stable policy framework.”

The private sector is expected to provide the vast majority of the investment necessary for decreasing global emissions to sustainable levels. Any delay in agreeing stringent and legally binding emissions reductions targets for the period after 2012 threatens the mobilisation of this much needed investment. “Governments need to understand that their delaying tactics and bickering over minor details threaten billions in investment that could be mobilised to help avoid the worst damages of global climate change”, said Sawyer.

“Nearly 150 billion euros were invested in the clean energy sector in 2008, and we expect a similar level for 2008. Around 34 billion euros will be invested globally in the wind energy sector in 2008, and this figure is set to rise to 150 billion by 2020,” said Arthouros Zervos, GWEC Chairman. “In order to secure this investment, however, the sector needs full political commitment from governments, and a robust agreement in Copenhagen.”

The wind energy sector is committed to playing a leading role in the transition to a sustainable energy economy, and estimates that the deployment of wind energy could be scaled up from the current 100 GW to over 1,000 GW by 2020, providing 2,600 TWh of clean, fuel free electricity every year. This would result in a reduction of 10 billion tonnes of CO2 by 2020, providing a substantial contribution to combating climate change.

During the Wind Power Works reception organised by GWEC during the climate talks, UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner urged governments to examine the long term parameters of their economic decisions on clean technologies such as wind power. “The competitive economies of tomorrow will be built around clean energy such as wind power. There are many good examples of how wind, solar, and other renewable energy technologies are – today – providing carbon free energy while creating jobs and contributing to local economic growth, but these need to be promoted more widely. UNEP is proud to support the Wind Power Works campaign as it is perfectly aligned with our own efforts to help countries in their efforts to move towards a greener economy,” he concluded.

“It is essential to mobilise private sector investment in clean technologies, especially in times of economic uncertainty,” said Steve Sawyer. “We now need to ‘mind the gap’ between the first and the second Kyoto commitment periods. Any political delay will deter this investment and jeopardise global emissions reductions.”

- –   E N D S – -

The Bush Era Has Been an Eight-Year-Long Madoff-Style Ripoff.
By Frank Rich, The New York Times. Posted January 12, 2009.

It will be easier for us and Obama to push for a bold agenda if we demand accountability for the robbery and theft of the Bush years.

Three days after the world learned that $50 billion may have disappeared in Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, The Times led its front page of Dec. 14 with the revelation of another $50 billion rip-off. This time the vanished loot belonged to American taxpayers. That was our collective contribution to the $117 billion spent (as of mid-2008) on Iraq reconstruction — a sinkhole of corruption, cronyism, incompetence and outright theft that epitomized Bush management at home and abroad.

The source for this news was a near-final draft of an as-yet-unpublished 513-page federal history of this nation-building fiasco. The document was assembled by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction — led by a Bush appointee, no less. It pinpoints, among other transgressions, a governmental Ponzi scheme concocted to bamboozle Americans into believing they were accruing steady dividends on their investment in a “new” Iraq.

The report quotes no less an authority than Colin Powell on how the scam worked. Back in 2003, Powell said, the Defense Department just “kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces — the number would jump 20,000 a week! ‘We now have 80,000, we now have 100,000, we now have 120,000.’ ” Those of us who questioned these astonishing numbers were dismissed as fools, much like those who begged in vain to get the Securities and Exchange Commission to challenge Madoff’s math.

What’s most remarkable about the Times article, however, is how little stir it caused. When, in 1971, The Times got its hands on the Pentagon Papers, the internal federal history of the Vietnam disaster, the revelations caused a national uproar. But after eight years of battering by Bush, the nation has been rendered half-catatonic. The Iraq Pentagon Papers sank with barely a trace.

After all, next to big-ticket administration horrors like Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and the politicized hiring and firing at Alberto Gonzales’s Justice Department, the wreckage of Iraq reconstruction is what Ralph Kramden of “The Honeymooners” would dismiss as “a mere bag of shells.” The $50 billion also pales next to other sums that remain unaccounted for in the Bush era, from the $345 billion in lost tax revenue due to unpoliced offshore corporate tax havens to the far-from-transparent disposition of some $350 billion in Wall Street bailout money. In the old Pat Moynihan phrase, the Bush years have “defined deviancy down” in terms of how low a standard of ethical behavior we now tolerate as the norm from public officials.

Not even a good old-fashioned sex scandal could get our outrage going again. Indeed, a juicy one erupted last year in the Interior Department, where the inspector general found that officials “had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.” Two officials tasked with marketing oil on behalf of American taxpayers got so blotto at a daytime golf event sponsored by Shell that they became too incapacitated to drive and had to be put up by the oil company.

Back in the day, an oil-fueled scandal in that one department alone could mesmerize a nation and earn Warren Harding a permanent ranking among our all-time worst presidents. But while the scandals at Bush’s Interior resemble Teapot Dome — and also encompass millions of dollars in lost federal oil and gas royalties — they barely registered beyond the Beltway. Even late-night comics yawned when The Washington Post administered a coup de grâce last week, reporting that Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne spent $235,000 from taxpayers to redo his office bathroom (monogrammed towels included).

It took 110 pages for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan research organization, to compile the CliffsNotes inventory of the Bush wreckage last month. It found “125 systematic failures across the breadth of the federal government.” That accounting is conservative. There are still too many unanswered questions.

Just a short list is staggering. Who put that bogus “uranium from Africa” into the crucial prewar State of the Union address after the C.I.A. removed it from previous Bush speeches? How high up were the authorities who ordered and condoned torture and then let the “rotten apples” at the bottom of the military heap take the fall? Who orchestrated the Pentagon’s elaborate P.R. efforts to cover up Pat Tillman’s death by “friendly fire” in Afghanistan?

And, for extra credit, whatever did happen to Bush’s records from the Texas Air National Guard?

The biggest question hovering over all this history, however, concerns the future more than the past. If we get bogged down in adjudicating every Bush White House wrong, how will we have the energy, time or focus to deal with the all-hands-on-deck crises that this administration’s malfeasance and ineptitude have bequeathed us? The president-elect himself struck this note last spring. “If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” Barack Obama said. “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”

Henry Waxman, the California congressman who has been our most tireless inquisitor into Bush scandals, essentially agreed when I spoke to him last week. Though he remains outraged about both the chicanery used to sell the Iraq war and the administration’s overall abuse of power, he adds: “I don’t see Congress pursuing it. We’ve got to move on to other issues.” He would rather see any prosecutions augmented by an independent investigation that fills in the historical record. “We need to depoliticize it,” he says. “If a Democratic Congress or administration pursues it, it will be seen as partisan.”

We could certainly do worse than another 9/11 Commission. Among those Americans still enraged about the Bush years, there are also calls for truth and reconciliation commissions, war crimes trials and, in a petition movement on Obama’s transition Web site, a special prosecutor in the Patrick Fitzgerald mode. One of the sharpest appointments yet made by the incoming president may support decisive action: Dawn Johnsen, a law professor and former Clinton administration official who last week was chosen to run the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice.

This is the same office where the Bush apparatchik John Yoo produced his infamous memos justifying torture. Johnsen is a fierce critic of such constitutional abuses. In articles for Slate last year, she wondered “where is the outrage, the public outcry” over a government that has acted lawlessly and that “does not respect the legal and moral bounds of human decency.” She asked, “How do we save our country’s honor, and our own?”

The last is not a rhetorical question. While our new president indeed must move on and address the urgent crises that cannot wait, Bush administration malfeasance can’t be merely forgotten or finessed. A new Justice Department must enforce the law; Congress must press outstanding subpoenas to smoke out potential criminal activity; every legal effort must be made to stop what seems like a wholesale effort by the outgoing White House to withhold, hide and possibly destroy huge chunks of its electronic and paper trail. As Johnsen wrote last March, we must also “resist Bush administration efforts to hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive immunity, assertions of state privilege, and implausible claims that openness will empower terrorists.”

As if to anticipate the current debate, she added that “we must avoid any temptation simply to move on,” because the national honor cannot be restored “without full disclosure.” She was talking about America regaining its international reputation in the aftermath of our government’s descent into the dark side of torture and “extraordinary rendition.” But I would add that we need full disclosure of the more prosaic governmental corruption of the Bush years, too, for pragmatic domestic reasons. To make the policy decisions ahead of us in the economic meltdown, we must know what went wrong along the way in the executive and legislative branches alike.

As the financial historian Ron Chernow wrote in the Times last week, we could desperately use a Ferdinand Pecora, the investigator who illuminated the history of the 1929 meltdown in Senate hearings on the eve of the New Deal. The terrain to be mined would include not just the usual Wall Street suspects and their Congressional and regulatory enablers but also the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a strangely neglected ground zero in the foreclosure meltdown. The department’s secretary, Alphonso Jackson, resigned in March amid still-unresolved investigations over whether he enriched himself and friends with government contracts.

The tentative and amorphous $800 billion stimulus proposed by Obama last week sounds like a lot, but it’s a drop in the bucket when set against the damage it must help counteract: more than $10 trillion in new debt and new obligations piled up by the Bush administration in eight years, as calculated by the economists Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz in the current Harper’s Magazine.

If Bernie Madoff, at least, can still revive what remains of our deadened capacity for outrage, so can those who pulled off Washington’s Ponzi schemes. The more we learn about where all the bodies and billions were buried on our path to ruin, the easier it may be for our new president to make the case for a bold, whatever-it-takes New Deal.
 http://www.alternet.org/workplace/119041…

A Pre-Inaugural Sunday, 10 AM Programs, on US TV:

THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC) had on the President-elect Barack Obama to discuss the issues he will face during his first 100 days in office.

FOX NEWS SUNDAY WITH CHRIS WALACE announced president George W. Bush and former president George H.W. Bush, about their experiences as president and the current president’s legacy. That is two for the price of one.

We dread to find out the TV ratings on these programs as we feel that everyone is more interested in the future, in these days of of the US having brought most of the world down with the policies of this last President, rather then a sweet overview tour with the President and his father.

While ABC has now established itself as the network to cover the incoming Administration, Fox has opted to stick with its connection to the outgoing conservative minority, and hope the for eventual changes in the years to come.

——————–

Barack Hussein Obama opened by stating that the US has lost 2.6 million jobs in 2008, over 500,000 in December alone, and the underemployment rate is extremely high (later Warren Buffett put the total figure at 11.1 million people. We are in the worst recession since the Great Depression – Obama said.
He stated that his intent is to double alternative energy production and we will make homes more energy efficient. And there will be a class-room for every child, and an improved health care system.

We will do this as much as roads and bridges, the question comes – do tax cuts also help? They do, though less then direct stimulus. We look at acceleration of depreciation – those are short term measures. But we must move quickly – not just short-term. We must help on structural improvements. We welcome input of good ideas, but not pet projects.

The country’s mayors proposed projects and we have to evaluate them if they provide long-term help. We prefer energy improvement in housing, health care, energy education, but not a Christmas tree!

We are losing half a million jobs per month so we cannot wait another 5-6 months before we move.

We must keep the financial systems stable – and the credit system – this is crucial. I, like many, am disappointed that there was not oversight on the money approved in the last few months. I have asked my team to come up with how we will maintain transparency so we can regain the confidence of Congress and the American people.

GS: Which of your campaign promises will have to give in?

A.       We inherit a trillion dollars deficit and we will have to start bending the curve.

GS: You will get a 1.2 – 1.3 trillion deficit whatever you do.

A.       We will have to eliminate programs that do not work. There is a current health care program that costs $200 Billion and produces no results. (this is the program D that the Bush Administration introduced.)

GS: Tax reform, health care reform etc… when will you do?

A.       That is exactly – we will have to look at the structural deficit …

* * *

GS: On Israel & the Palestinians?

A.       The basic principle of any country is to protect its people, but we cannot have two Administrations talk on this. I am putting together the best team that will engage immediately with all the actors in the area. I am determined to break the deadlock. If you look not only under the Bush Administration, but also under the Clinton Administration, and you see the principles under which it has to be handled. A third party must be involved and I hope an Obama Administration will do it.

* * *

GS: On Iran?

A.       This will be one of our biggest challenges. They can trigger an arms race. We must send a signal that we respect the Iranian people, but expect them to obey to international norm.

* * *

GS: Homeland Security i.e. the Mumbai attack. This could happen in any US city.

A.       the Every day when I awake in the morning the priority is how do we keep the American people safe. We will be vigilant. Not just suicide bombings, but commando attacks even. There will be Mumbai copy cats. We will have to intercept and worry about Al Qaeda.

GS: Are we safer?

A.       I trust we have made progress, but the dangers are because we do not talk of conventional armies. With todays arms, a small number of people can do major harm.

GS:   Based on Cheney’s advice, what is your answer?

A.       We should not make judgement on the base of incomplete information. VP Cheney continues to defend extraordinary measures like torture – and we will not! My view is that US military under fire is that rule of law is the base for our safety.

GS:   Guantanamo?

A.         It is more difficult then people realize. We must balance properly the Anglo-American legal system with the danger and it will take some time. We will close Guantanamo and we will make sure that we do this   part of our broader security concerns. At the CIA there are extraordinarily talented people that do a good job and I do not want them to feel that we look over their shoulder.

Eric Holder is the people’s lawyer not to be pursued by my day to day policy. I am confident he will be confirmed.

* * *

GS: The Inaugural?

A.       Here is a genius – the Lincoln speech – so was the Sorensen – Kennedy speech – some addresses were less inspiring. I am influenced by these two and will try to focus in simple terms on the challenges and tell the American people that we will measure up to these challenges.

About Church going – we will want to make sure that we do not create too much of a challenge.

We are closing in on the dog choice and it is more difficult then finding a Commerce Secretary.

———————–

the ABC George Stephanopoulos Roundtable:

Peggy Noonan, Thomas Friedman, George Will, and Newt Gingrich.

NG:   if you are a small business, yo do not get bailed out by the government.

TF:     In the discussion the root of the crisis was lost. It started for the banks. We went for one extreme to the other. You are now declared bankrupt before you prove it otherwise. There is no money that flows to the small businesses.

GW: He was very shrewd. The tax cuts idea makes it hard for conservatives to reject him.

NG: $200 Billion tax cuts must be taken serious. But speaking to mayors not to do the things they want, is tough.

TF:   Israel and Hamas – both reject the peace plan. The conflict is worse then at any time in my professional life. The Hamas has now home-made rockets that can close the airport any day.

PG: Diplomacy is an open area that Obama can come in and jump-start anew. Obama is buying into a very low market here.

GS: Does Iran make a difference to Iraq and Israel?

GW: The existence of Israel is objectionable to some people.

NG: Iran wants to eliminate Israel and Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Now let’s have a discussion. They forfeited the right to negotiate. Hamas says every morning – we exist to eliminate Israel and we drag it out by calling for a
ceasefire that brings in more weapons.

TF: We do have to avoid the choice of Israel ruling the West Bank.

GS: Will closing of Guantanamo call for the investigation of the Bush Administration?

GW: George W. Bush wants to close it but it is not easy. Who will take the people?

NG: On Mexico – the illegal narcotics teams are at war with the government.

TF: There are terrible hands-off that Bush leaves to Obama. The fact is that the Asian people will watch how Obama will handle this.

PG: I would like to be Shakespeare and write this as a play. He will try to write a speech that is clear and direct and short.

GW: Understatements will be in place.

TF: This is a radical moment.

NG: He will have to show the American people in the inaugural address the way to the future.

================

When this was over we turned to the Fox channel in time to see the two Bushes and Mr. Chris Wallace stand in front of a writing desk. GW Bush was speaking on the strain of Democracy. I wondered if the whole program was done with them standing up. Then I realized that the section was filmed right in front of the President’s desk in the White House. It ended and the advertisement that followed was from “Just for Men” – the lotion for graying hair. The picture of the three standing there and that advertisement, amounted to a surreal image.

=================

on LATE EDITION CNN – THE FIRST HOUR (11-12pm), Wolf Blitzer picked up some of the above, but his interview was with VP Richard Cheney and asked him “What goes on?”

The answer was that we are in the middle of a recession. Cheney said he is not an economist and lauded the President’s TARP program of $700 Billion. He thought that having committed half of the amount he saw already positive results. He believes this is a World Crisis – not a US crisis.

WB: When you took office – you inherited the office – you had a $2 Trillion surplus, now you leave a 1.3 Trillion deficit?

A.         We had to pay for Afghanistan, Iraq, it was necessary. We put in place policies for everyone who paid taxes, but some financial institutions – Fanny May, Fredy Mac – collapsed and people from all over the World had invested in them.

WB:   Was the Bush Administration complicit? Did you go too far by allowing this unregulated industry?

A.           I remember having discussed this with Allen Greenspan when he was still in charge at the Federal Reserve, but I am not an economist.

WB:   This is the worst economic situation since the Great Depression?

A.         I can not say that. I do not think so. I remember …. difficult times … the worst since WWII … I can not say that …

Wolf Blitzer announced that further on they also talked about why Osama Bin Laden was not captured and about the historic election of Barack Obama, but I did not watch those parts.

* * *

Wolf Blitzer also had Nancy Pelosi on his program and she said we cannot afford Iraq anymore – that is in financial terms.

Further, we will have to correct the tax cuts that the Bush Administration dished out, and we will give tax cuts to the middle class. We want fairness in our tax policy. Our priority is to turn the economy around – have tax cuts for 95% of the people,   and to be able to do that we will have to ask those in highest income brackets to pay up.

Nothing brings more money to the treasury then investment in education, she said.

* * *

Campbell Brown of CNN said that sooner then later – at the time of the inaugural speech – the very popular incoming president will ask for our sacrifices in order to move forward his plans.

=================

At 1 pm, on CNN FAREED ZAKARIA’s GPS program dealt again, the second week in a row, with the situation in the Middle East. He started by saying that Barak Obama is right in staying out of Gaza at this time.

His panel included: Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian Activist living in Ramallah, Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, Martin Indik, a former US Ambassador to Israel, Stephen Walt – author of a book on the Israel Lobby, and Gilles Kepel from the Institute of Political Studies, Paris, who speaks on “Inside Al Qaeda.”

Question to HA: Do you think that the attack on Hamas has strengthened the Palestinian moderates?

A. it is actually working the other way – it inflamed the public opinion and weakened the moderates. Israel is punishing a captive civilian population.

BS:   (a) the conflict has become religious
(b) the influence of Iran, and this war with Hamas is a proxy of Iran, this is why Israel must reach a successful conclusion.

MI:   It is important to get a ceasefire in place because of the reality that moderates were weakened. The problem is the smuggling of weapons across the Egyptian border.
Hamas is a Sunni Islamic Organization that has become dependent on Iran.
Iran might not have triggered this but is a beneficiary of this. Iran is concerned that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (the stress on the middle name) will take out part of the wind from under Iran.

SW: The paradox is that the US policy made this worse. Yes, there should be a US involvement, but of the right kind – to lead to a two-states solution.

HA: The Palestinians have adopted since 1988 a Two-States Solution.

BS:   That is not the case – The Palestinians voted for Hamas that rejects the right of Israel to exist. WE LOOK NOW AT A 3 STATES SOLUTION – that is also untenable.

Fareed Zakaria: We turned away from the democratic elections.

MI:   It was wrong to push for the Us – these elections. but the military putsch took Gaza. There is a need to reintroduce the Palestinian Authority.

Fareed Zakaria: What about the Israeli electoral politics?

MI: Barak was reluctant to enter the fight, he cannot go into elections with the army in the quagmire, so he is fully intended to avoid staying in there.

* * *

Fareed Zakaria question to Stephen Walt: What about the French-Egyptian ceasefire?

A. The PA has no interest to be seen as complying with the US.

FZ: Do you think that Israel is interested in keeping away from a solution?

A.   The problem is Hamas prestige. Israel wants to come out as demonstratively having humiliated Hamas – so it does not look like the result with Hezbollah.

* * *

Fareed Zakaria question to Hanan Ashrawi: What do you want for Israel?

HA:   An immediate cessation of violence.

* * *

Fareed Zakaria question to Gilles Kepel:   What did Zawahiri think by saying Obama is an Uncle Tom?

A.   The idea is to have a device against the US rebuilding its influence in the region. The language implies a serf – in Egypt they used to have blacks as waiters in the household.
            Al qaeda thought Iraq will be another Afghanistan, but Al Qaeda failed.

            The Petraeus concept with Saudi help, brought Sunni tribes into the US sphere. in Afghanistan things misfired because of the opium – growing onions does not provide the farmers the income that opium gives them.

              The way out is an astute offer to negotiate with Iran.

=====================

Last Items we watched on CNN was a program with Warren Buffett who described the dire situation of the US economy in terms of “Thriftville” vs. Squanderville.”
According to him, and he is an adviser to Obama, the economy is already beyond repair because of the enormous foreign debt already on the books. He calculated this debt, including Social Security, Medicare A + B + D, and the $11 Trillion we know about, as totaling already $32 Trillion, with another $1 Trillion marked as Other – for grand total of $33 Trillion and this is already inconceivable – so what is an Obama Administration to do after getting in its hands this huge rotten apple?

On the other hand, Samuel J. Palisano, the CEO of IBM, a company with headquarters in the US but only with 35% of its business in the US, he is doing very well – thank you. Fareed Zakaria speaks to him full with admiration, and asks him if he considered the question: “HOW DO I CREATE A SMART GOVERNMENT?” He was not shy in his answer – it was that foreign governments, in developing countries, not just the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India,China, South Africa), but in 20-30 of them, study the US and decide not to repeat mistakes but to “Leapfrog.”

Q, Is there a tension between your company and the interests of US citizens?

A: Our view of the world is not outsourcing – we are in Brazil for 99 years, we operate in India already for 50 years. We have a multi-cultural, multi-gender policy. Our most important manufacturing and research is in the US – so working overseas helps the US. We pay taxes here, our headquarters are here, but we pay also taxes all over we do business.

I took his answer as meaning that to play it safe it makes sense to have a foot overseas – and you know what – you eventually move slowly more and more of your body to where the opportunities seem better – for IBM this is by now 65%

But this is not all. Why can the BRICS leapfrog and not the US? This is one for Obama and our favorite topic is obviously alternate energy systems to replace the stinking fossil fuels of the past. Why can Brazil do it but a US under the proto-presidency of Dick Cheney had to stay chained to imported oil?

Then, Cheney was a wise man, his Haliburton stepped also slowly across borders and now has its headquarters in Dubai. Would this be the retirement place of choice for the Cheney family? Could this be in the cards?

Warren Buffett was talking about PSEUDO TRADE when you buy but do not sell. He also pointed out that it took 244 years and 0ver 40 Presidents for the the first Trillion dollars US   debt, while it took just 6 years for this President to achieve this.He also showed President GW Bush as saying himself that he got an A in providing tax cuts but had a D in econ 101. That was amazing too.

Bailout or Bust: How to Save the Big Three From Themselves?

Opinion by: Titus Levi, Truthdig, Thursday, November 29, 2008.

CEO’s of the big three automakers were on Capital Hill Wednesday requesting a bailout. (Photo: Getty Images)
The American automobile industry occupies a near-mythic status in the nation’s cultural and economic imagination. President-elect Barack Obama echoes the sentiments of many when he says that Detroit is “the backbone of American manufacturing.” If it is-Detroit’s economic importance is great but now occupies a lesser role than it did before it entered a slow-but-steady decline in the 1970s-then it suffers from acute and advanced damage that will require major surgery. And like any major surgery, treating Detroit’s malaise will be a complicated affair with no assurance of success. However, doing nothing may be worse, especially for the state of Michigan.

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics’ figures for September 2008, Michigan’s labor force was about 4.9 million, with about 4.5 million holding jobs. That’s a significant decline from September 2007, when the labor force numbered just over 5 million, with 4.6 million employed. The state lost roughly 149,000 jobs in the period and saw unemployment rise from 7.3 percent to 8.7 percent, which is 2.2 points higher than the national average. The rate would have been even higher if people hadn’t dropped out of the labor force altogether.

The Big Three trimmed thousands of jobs in the state during that period, which no doubt triggered additional job cuts among automotive subcontractors and suppliers, various retailers, and even homebuilders and home improvement firms. These job losses keep politicians, business leaders and citizens up late at night. As Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm recently quipped: “Forget ‘Drill, baby, drill.’ Here it’s ‘Jobs, baby, jobs.’ “

All told, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler employ somewhere around 500,000 people, many of them outside Michigan. However, these figures underestimate the total employment impact, since at least 3 million Americans rely on the U.S. auto industry for their jobs, with the highest concentration in and around Michigan. The Center for Automotive Research calculates much higher estimates: about 7 million jobs directly and indirectly tied to the industry, with 2.5 million hanging in the balance in the event of a 50 percent contraction in output from the Big Three.

This brings us to a simple cost-benefit analysis: $25 billion in loans for the industry that will save millions of jobs and about $150 billion in economic activity in 2009 alone. So it’s a no-brainer, right? Well, not exactly.

There is no guarantee that throwing money at Detroit will save these companies and the network of jobs that they sustain. Even if the companies do survive, we can almost certainly anticipate steep job losses anyway. Job losses will be increased if GM and Chrysler’s parent company, Cerberus Capital Management merge. But will cutting jobs now spare jobs in the long run? That question dominates all others in the conversation.

Focusing on jobs moves us from an argument about nostalgia for American manufacturing prowess and bailouts of large, and largely incompetent, firms to the more meaningful conversation about livelihoods. Doing so takes us beyond purely economic analysis, since the value of a job exceeds its economic value to individuals, their families and their communities. Livelihood includes paying for basics like food and shelter, but also touches upon important, if hard to measure, assets like one’s sense of identity and the health of neighborhoods and towns.

Applying a cold, hard economic calculus would probably throw cold water on the idea of a bailout for Detroit. First, the companies may well be beyond hope. They have been slow to change, they repeat the same mistakes and they turn out products that too often do not compete successfully with imports. Quality, safety, durability and customer satisfaction numbers remain spotty. Moreover, the so-called “bridge” funding that Detroit hopes to receive may be a bridge to nowhere: It will take years to work off the debts that weigh down consumers and governments, which will constrain spending for several quarters if not years.

Once we emerge from this hole, Americans may renounce our spendthrift ways and that could leave the entire automobile market much smaller over time. In short, the demand side of the market may not rebound sufficiently to resuscitate Detroit. The supply side looks no better: Over time, Detroit will face tough competition on many fronts. Japanese, German, Korean-and it had to happen-Chinese and Indian automakers will battle American carmakers tooth-and-nail. Simply put, the amount of money that Detroit can earn over the next 10 years may not cover the “loans” they want from the Feds. Taxpayers will likely end up footing the bill.

But if Detroit doesn’t get an infusion of cash, then what? The companies could declare bankruptcy, but so far they have stubbornly refused to consider that possibility-with good reason. Market research shows that 80 percent of consumers will not buy cars from insolvent firms. Therefore, GM’s leadership equates bankruptcy with liquidation. However, this view may well be somewhat overwrought. Bankruptcy would likely allow some leaner, meaner and more durable versions of GM and/or Ford to survive. (Chrysler looks like a dead duck; the only reason GM has any interest in the firm is its $11 billion cash stash.) Overcapacity could be pared back more rapidly under the watchful eye of bankruptcy courts and the companies could shed various obligations. This bodes ill for livelihoods and communities and must be carefully managed to lessen the damage to both. However, while going the bankruptcy route may make short-term economic sense, it may be too high a price to pay in terms of the devastation it would inflict on jobs, families and communities.

So what to do? No shortage of ideas have floated through the media, the blogosphere (The Huffington Post has been especially active on the subject, including articles by Neil Young, GM family man Ricky van Veen, and Raymond J. Learsy), broadcasters’ letters’ sections, and probably over many a kitchen table conversation, including my own, where friends engaged in a spirited examination of Detroit’s tendency to confuse novelty-releasing “new models” each year-with genuine innovation.

First, let’s put together a careful cost-benefit analysis. To begin with, Detroit must open its books to thorough scrutiny, and that includes the tight-lipped Cerberus. As a taxpayer, I’m sick and tired of the leap-before-you-look approach to taking action. I’m equally exasperated with Detroit’s tired claims of “trust us, we’re professionals” in demonstrating genuine recalcitrance to changing its organizational culture.

Second, we need to produce a no-holds-barred assessment of the managerial dysfunction at these firms and come to terms with what needs to be done to improve performance and change organizational cultures for the better. Given the track record of these firms, and their reaction to the bad news that immediately had them pulling back on innovation and new product development, I’m not sanguine about the quality or nimbleness of the current leadership. They have to go as part of this process.

Third, jettison utterly hopeless brands and initiatives like Hummer while focusing on integrating innovative ideas into GM’s R&D, design and production systems.

Fourth, engage in a thoughtful analysis of what individuals, families and communities lose in an environment of sweeping job losses and what can be done to ease the pain. This is especially important in places like Michigan, which will suffer near-Great Depression levels of unemployment and disruption, at least in the short run.

Fifth, Detroit could become a public-private partnership built around encouraging innovative and viable ideas in transportation technology. This would allow the automakers to readily leverage the research going on in the U.S. on various fronts and to create systems for developing ideas into commercially viable packages and processes. Even if the Little Two lose some money, they will provide jobs and harness economic benefits that will accrue across the country and even the world.

Finally, if GM and Ford do go into bankruptcy, they probably need to be given some federal support in the form of debtor-in-financing, since financial markets will not back Detroit given the conditions of banks and the auto industry.

My instincts as an economist tell me to cut the Big Three loose, letting them go into bankruptcy so that “the market” can decide their fate, but my heart tells me that we must do something to assure that communities most dependent on the automotive industry and its jobs do not suffer as post-Katrina New Orleans-or pre-Katrina New Orleans-has. After all, that city suffered through a century of decline before its final humiliation and abandonment. Parts of Michigan have endured long-term decline as well, and this experiment in market adjustment has produced far too many losers to regard as anything like a successful treatment.

As a nation and as an economy, we probably can survive the loss of cities like Detroit and Flint, but letting that happen will likely bring on human losses that do not show up in economic statistics. As we decide the automobile industry’s fate, we need to consider something else in this process: What kind of lives will we consign the people of Michigan to living? What kind of people have we become when we plan for, and perhaps execute, the demise of whole cities and even states? How can we prevent genuine harm from coming about and begin the healing process for those who have been and will continue to be displaced by the shrinking of the U.S. automobile industry? How can we, to borrow a sentiment from Albert Camus, strive our utmost to be healers?

Why We Shouldn’t Bail Out GM.
By Nicholas von Hoffman, The Nation. Posted November 20, 2008.

The bailout should be used to expand unemployment compensation instead of propping up a single, failing corporation.

Now it is the auto parts suppliers who want government money. They employ 600,000 people, more than work for the automobile companies themselves.

If the standard for giving out money to companies is the threat of lost jobs, the auto parts suppliers’ claim is as good as that of General Motors. The argument against subsidizing money-losing companies to preserve employment is that it would be impossible to think up a more expensive way of helping people.
There ought to be another way — and there is. Unemployment compensation should be expanded to ensure those losing their jobs will not lose their houses or their health insurance. Helping people on that scale will not be cheap, but helping them by propping up corporate losers is infinitely more costly: sooner or later people will find other employment, but the automobile companies will never turn a profit.

They have been steadily losing money for a generation. Their predicament has nothing to do with today’s credit crunch or the stock market crash. It has to do with their being incorrigible foul-ups.

Their record for money-losing is beyond comprehension. David Yermack, professor of finance at New York University’s Stern School of Business, has calculated how much capital the car companies have destroyed over the last few decades.

He writes, “General Motors and Ford…between them…destroyed $110 billion in capital between 1980 and 1990…. GM has invested $310 billion in its business between 1998 and 2007. The total depreciation of GM’s physical plant during this period was $128 billion, meaning that a net $182 billion of society’s capital has been pumped into GM over the past decade — a waste of about $1.5 billion per month of national savings. The story at Ford has not been as adverse but is still disheartening, as Ford has invested $155 billion and consumed $8 billion net of depreciation since 1998. As a society, we have very little to show for this $465 billion.”

Having eaten its way through almost a half-trillion dollars, the American car industry will gulp down the $25 billion now proposed to save it faster than most of us can swallow. The Democratic leaders in Congress think they can prevent that and force a turnaround by attaching some kind of government oversight board to the financial aid. Such a board might make sure that executives do not draw down indefensibly high salaries, but any such arrangement will make it doubly certain the companies will not find their way back to prosperity.

Not that revivals are impossible. General Motors teetered on the edge of bankruptcy once before, in 1920. Then, as now, the cause was incompetent management. At that time one of GM’s biggest stockholders was the du Pont family, who realized that its investment was in danger of evaporating. To save its holdings the family put its most talented member, Pierre S. du Pont, on a train to Detroit.

Once settled in at GM, du Pont installed Alfred P. Sloan as its new president. Together these two business geniuses created the single greatest industrial organization of the last century. At its apogee under Sloan, General Motors became the model for creative and effective corporate management. Quite literally, the world had seen nothing like it.

This is the inheritance that the epigones running Detroit’s today have ruined. What they have done is a crime against their stockholders, employees of the Big Three, their customers and the nation.

Now we are amid these splendid corporate ruins. The best hope — and it is only a hope — is bankruptcy. With bankruptcy comes the chance of reorganization, the breaking of the anachronistic union contracts and the possibility of new and effective management. A modern version of du Pont and Sloan is asking too much, but surely somewhere in the three major car companies there are more effective and courageous executives than those now them.

The Republicans are against a bailout for the usual doctrinaire reasons — free market blah-blah, creeping (or galloping) socialism. Such meaningless abstractions aside, the reality is that a society pockmarked by large, losing, subsidized corporations is a society on the way to the poorhouse. By propping up GM and saving some jobs now, we will see many more lost just down the road.
$2 TRILLION HANDED OUT BY PAULSON AND BERNANKE, BUT WHO GOT IT, NOBODY KNOWS
By Nicholas von Hoffman, The Nation
We have no idea who got this money or the conditions or
collateral put up in return for the loans.
 http://www.alternet.org/workplace/107340…

R.I.P.: THE FINANCIAL EXPERTS, 1929-2008
By Sasan Fayazmanesh, CounterPunch
What’s the likely fallout of our economic crisis? Nobody
knows for sure — but the economists won’t admit it.
 http://www.alternet.org/workplace/107194…

WALL STREET’S BAILOUT IS A TRILLION-DOLLAR CRIME SCENE — WHY AREN’T THE DEMS DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
By Naomi Klein, The Nation
Washington’s handling of the bailout is not merely
incompetent. It may well be illegal.
 http://www.alternet.org/workplace/107000…

WHY THE ECONOMY GROWS LIKE CRAZY AMID HIGH TAXES
By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet
The raw truth is that the economy has grown faster when
taxes were higher, but how can we explain that phenomenon?
 http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106979…

HOW TO END OUR FINANCIAL MISERY
By Robert Pollin, The Nation
A large-scale stimulus program is the only action that can
possibly do the job.
 http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106821…

HOW OUR GUTLESS MEDIA HELPED TRIGGER THE CREDIT CRISIS
By Trudy Lieberman, Columbia Journalism Review
Government and greedy bankers aren’t the only ones to blame.
 http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/102…