Super Bernstein to the rescue (sarcasm)

Carl Bernstein hit it big by being one of the two reporters to break the Nixon Watergate scandal to the public. In his latest article linked HERE (printer friendly version for those who want to save this), he claims a series of things that I will outline below in bulleted form to save you the time of plowing through his rocky road of bloviating.

• The ostensible subject: whether Bush should be censured for unconstitutional conduct in ordering electronic surveillance of Americans without a warrant.
• More important, it is essential that the Senate vote—hopefully before the November elections, and with overwhelming support from both parties—to undertake a full investigation of the conduct of the presidency of George W. Bush, along the lines of the Senate Watergate Committee's investigation during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.
• But the truth is we have no trustworthy official record of what has occurred in almost any aspect of this administration, how decisions were reached, and even what the actual policies promulgated and approved by the president are. Nor will we, until the subpoena powers of the Congress are used (as in Watergate) to find out the facts—not just about the war in Iraq, almost every aspect of it, beginning with the road to war, but other essential elements of Bush's presidency, particularly the routine disregard for truthfulness in the dissemination of information to the American people and Congress.
• This investigation should be seen as an opportunity to at last rise above the culture wars and, as in Watergate, learn whether the actions of the president and his deputies have been consistent with constitutional principles, the law, and the truth.
• A voluminous accumulation of documentary and journalistic evidence suggests that the policies and philosophy of this administration that may be unconstitutional or illegal stem not just from Bush but from Cheney as well—hence there's even greater necessity for a careful, methodical investigation under Senate auspices before any consideration of impeachment in the House and its mischievous potential to create the mother of all partisan, ideological, take-no-prisoners battles, which would even further divide the Congress and the country
• retired army colonel Larry Wilkerson, has attested, "What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."
• One of the similarities between Bush and Nixon is their contempt, lip service aside, for the legitimate oversight of Congress. In seeking to cover up his secret, illegal activities, Nixon made broad claims of executive privilege or national security, the most important of which were rejected by the courts.
• Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their colleagues have successfully evaded accountability for the dire consequences of their policies through a tried-and-true strategy that has exploited a situation in which the press (understandably) has no subpoena power and is held in ill repute (understandably) by so many Americans, and the Republican-controlled Congress can be counted on to ignore its responsibility to compel relevant, forthright testimony and evidence—no matter how outrageous (failure to provide sufficient body armor for American soldiers, for example), mendacious, or inimical to the national interest the actions of the president and his principal aides might be.
• "Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country," Bush added. (The special prosecutor's revelation that Bush himself—through Cheney—was ultimately behind Scooter Libby's leaking to undermine Joseph Wilson has ironically caused Bush more damage among Republican members of Congress than far more grievous acts by the president.)
• Fitzgerald told the U. S. District Court, "It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to punish Wilson."
• The unprecedented generals' revolt against the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, is—like the special prosecutor's Plame investigation—a door that once cracked open, cannot be readily shut by the president or even his most senior aides. What outsiders long suspected regarding the conduct of the war has now been given credence by those on the inside, near the top, just as in the unraveling of Watergate.

• The system has thus far failed during the presidency of George W. Bush—at incalculable cost in human lives, to the American political system, to undertaking an intelligent and effective war against terror, and to the standing of the United States in parts of the world where it previously had been held in the highest regard.

  There was understandable reluctance in the Congress to begin a serious investigation of the Nixon presidency. Then there came a time when it was unavoidable. That time in the Bush presidency has arrived.

ok thats a lot and most of what I have left out is either exculpatory, neutral or irrelevant to The Bush Administration directly.

Bernstein touches on several matters

1. Electronic Surveilance Programs/FISA/Article II War Powers
2. Senate vote to investigate illegal activities
3. Bush Administration has been overly secretive and deceptive to the public
4. Anecdotal evidence (journalistic) indicates that something might have happened that causes concern...
5. Ex-Military commader calling Bush Admin a "cabal"
6. No respect for Congress
7. Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson
8. Ex-Generals criticizing Rumsfeld
9. The System has failed and congress needs to grow a pair

OK that was my succinct summary of the article as I see it.

now on to each issue varying from 1 by 1 until the end of the article or I fall asleep (just for all of you COBOL fans)


ok so point 1
Bush Surveiled US public illegally without a court warrant.
Patently false; no evidence that such warrantless searches (which may or may not have happened) ever targeted a US citizen. No documentation exists despite the massive leaking within various branches of the federal government. If anything did happen (no evidence just allegation) then of course there should be an investigation. Foreign surveilance did happen without warrants initially (which is allowed by FISA law as long as the attourney general keeps the US Congress apprised of what is going on). Also the mandatory buh buh buh but Clinton/Reagan/Carter/etc who have all done exactly the same things.

Point 2:
The Senate should vote to investigate Bush Administration's Illegal Activities
Also a silly thing since there have been no proven illegal activities to insinuate that there have been. Its nearly libel to write such things, but its all been prefaced by the fact that this is an opinion/commentary collumn. Now...Alleged illegal activities would be accurate.

Point 3:
The Bush Administration has been the most secretive in history
Utter myth: The Bush administration has been one of the most forth coming administrations in history. However Bush does not hold many state dinners, or press galas or fancy parties that the washington press and diplomatic corps are used to. The press feels left out of a social scene that they were included in previous administrations deeply. The press can't get leaks and scoops as easy so they call the Bush Admin secretive. Its just silly.

Pint 4:
Journalistic evidence and documentation of illicit/deceptive activities.
If by journalistic and documentary Bernstein means unfounded allegations and forged documents then I agree...ample evidence indeed.

point 5:
Ex-ARmy Colonel and the Bush Cabal...
This makes me laugh so hard..I picture Bush, Rove, Rummy and Cheyney performing some pagan fertility rite over the body of Condoleeza Rice (yes I know its a bit graphic but it makes me laugh).
As to the statement that Bush doesn't listen to anyone who opposes what he already thinks (i.e. suffers from a massive case of "group think") I say, and this is my opinion, Prove that statement with memorandums and other documentation since proving a negative is impossible. Innocent until proven guilty ;).

point 6:
Bush Administration doesn't respect the powers of Congress and bullies Congress.
Lies: Bush has not vetoed a single bill passed by the US Congress; Bush has done nothing except give respect to the congress, he let Ted Kennedy write the oft cited No-Child-Left-Behind Act and other opponents of his do similar things in an attempt to be concilliatory to his opponents. In addition he has reformed the intelligence services and begun cleaning out the entrenched bureacracy that led to intelligence failures prior to 9/11/ USS Cole Bombings/Federal Building/Kenya/Lebannon/1st World Trade Center bombings (also Al Qaeida by the way)
Congress bellyaches all the time about not being consulted about this and that when its perfectly obvious they are either lying or being forgetful (i.e. pre-war intelligence)
The Sensate Select Committee on Foreign intelligence recieves the SAME intel briefings as the president on day to day matters and on important threats. The president gets the information first because he is the Chief Executive Officer and Congress has oversight powers, not executive.

Point 7:
Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson
Not secret/not CIA/Not undercover/Not a sanctioned trip abroad for intel purposes
Also: not leaked; Executive Order allows the US President to declassify any information he deems appropriate because he is the EXECUTIVE...he does not have to go through a Congressional Committee to evaluate what should/should not be declassified. The US Congress could in fact write such a law requiring the President to do so, but they have not.

FACT: The entire document was marked secret all over it and not just her name

FACT: The independent council is not pursuing the leak because he has admitted there was no crime there; now he is pursuing "Scooter" Libby for Obstruction of Justice and Perjury. Oddly enough this is what Clinton was guilty of and every one says that it doesn't matter. It sure matters during the Bush admin apparently...but I thought everyone lied in court so its okay to do it. *sigh*

Point 8:
The Ex General revolution
Bernstein has no idea how the uppr tier of the Officer corps works. Officers are far more political than we give them credit for in public. There are Military official swith varying points of view and ideological standards from left to right. Rumsfeld has been cutting the fat out of the military bureaucracy and also slashing pet projects of many generals. Rumsfeld has transformed the US Military, or at least laid down the framework for this tasnformation during his tenure. Of course he stepped on some toes, and now that the generals are no longer under the UCMJ they are attacking him because they are angry that he stepped on their toes. "He's unfit"

"why is he unfit"
"cause I don't like him very much"

*sigh* grow up

point 9:
The system has failed and congress is weak
The system has not failed, but Congress is weak. If congress wants the troops out of Iraq they can refuse to fund the military and the troops will have to come home. But they will not take a tough stand because they are more interested in staying inj power than they are in doing the "right" thing. They would rather hedge their collective bets and just snipe at the President or eachother just to stay in Washington. Congress has been steadily decreacing in power since President Lincoln made the Presidency what it is today.

SOme things Bernstein says can be interpreted as being correct in his article, but for the most part it is unsubstanciated allegations intended to lend credit to those allegations. Bernstein should be ashamed to view everything through the prism of Watergate; it has poisoned his mind and he cannot be objective about anything as long as he comes from a point of view that has pre-judged the outcome.

journalism my rear end...

And no I'm no journalist either, just a decent critic.

Why oil prices are nuts, and why it is crazy not to invest in oil stocks

OK

So we have high oil prices (~$71/barrel) and this shows no sign of dropping again soon. The reason is not lack of supply or invetory shortages or a growing demand. The given reason by various unnamed and unsourced analysts is that its is due to the "uncertainty" of supply from Iran and Nigeria for political instability reasons. In addition to political instability transoceanic shipping for the transport of oil from producers to refiners and consumers is at 100% capacity and reserved for the forseable future. Also refineries within the United States are operating at peak capacity.

That explains the costs mainly on the side of the importers.

Now for the domestic side:
Credit Card fees from retailers account for roughly $0.07/$2.00 added on to the price of gasoline that have to be added on to provide an acceptable profit for the retailer.
Refineries again
Natural Disasters: Such as any hurricane, cyclone, earthquake or other infrastructure damaging event due to nature
Mechanical Failure: hey it happens, but its rare
Terrorism: It could happen and this leads to...
SPECULATORS: Here is what really drives the price of oil. Oil futures are traded openly and when people begin buying a large sum of these contracts in the direction of higher prices then you get HIGHER PRICES.

A great deal of speculation is based on emotion; not how things ARE but how they are THOUGHT to be. If there is a rumor of a shortage, speculators begin buying more driving the prices up. THen if information comes out contradicting the shortage of supply the futures are sold short and a profit is made to buy up MORE oil futures and once again drive up the prices.
It is a fun little cycle.

Statistics on the oil industry can be found here for those that are interested in seeing how the oil industry works and also how some other industries operate in comparisson.

As to my opinion on all of this...

If one is a proponent of the european model of economics (high taxes and no growth) then this is a good way to continue. When one looks at the price of oil, one can see the real people gouging you are not in BIG OIL. They are instead in the state and federal government. The government takes revenue from these products and then on top of that does nothing else but add costs to the companies making this product and get in teh way of commerce.

I am not arguing for some kind of deregulation of the oil industry where the state does nothing in the way of environmental regulations. However, the states/federal government should realize that they are harming the consumer. Of course there are those that feel high oil prices are a good thing and will discourage the alleged disproportionate consumption of oil by the USA and this will inturn have a positive impact on the environment.

Funny thing that...

It would be true if the government could ever do with less revenue and a cut in social programs. Mind you these social programs are promoted by the very same people (yes I mean you liberal democrats) that want the higher gas taxes to discourage consumption for the sake of the environment which in turn reduces the amount of revenue (from that tax) that goes to the government which results in budget shortfalls and programs being cut and that will be blamed on the rich for not paying their fair share (whatever that is) or BIG BUSINESS.

The reality of the gas tax based on $/gallon as it is today is parasitic and not symbiotic as it would have been dreamed to be. An example of this happening outside of the oil and gas industry is with BIIIIGGG Tobacco (yes those evil evil tobacco farmers and product producers). Lately people have begun to smoke less and buy fewer cigarettes so the states get less money to fund the health care systems that the tax revenue used to. So get ready for higher taxes in other areas. You should thank smokers for subsidizing your state healthcare, give one a hug if you see him or her.

Oregon is trying to dump the gas tax in favor of a GPS driven toll tax. No need for toll booths or attendants, your in car GPS unit will serve the same purpose...oh and record everything your car does like...break the speed limit and such. *wave good bye to privacy* your car is now evidence against you.

SO don't blame big oil for big prices; blame big government

;)

Africa on the Spit

The continent of Africa has long held the interest of us westerners. Well that was true at least in colonial and imperial times where we imagined the gentleman explorer floating up the nile in to the heart of Africa to discover wondrous place, cultures and "things". We used to thinkof Africans as savages, same as we did with nearly every non-western culture. No they did not develope the internal combustion engine, and yes living in a tribal socity seems backwards to us. Not all Africans live in tribal societies of course, but the ones that are having the most trouble in recent days identify with being as a pasrt of a tribe rather than a larger ethnic or national group.

An example of this would be Rwanda. Rwanda was colonized by the Germans first, then given to the Belgians at the end of World War I (See Wiki article for a decent summary). The racial divide created by at first overt racism, and then pseudo-scientific babbitry stemming from the eugenics movement, created a rivalry and hatred between the two parties. So one party (the Hutu's) decided that they were racially superior and the war...err slaughter was on. Meanwhile the bravely brave United Nations Peacekeeping forces retreated...err move tactically to the rear to insure all of the foreign nationals got out. And by foreign nationals I mean westerners. However, some Rwandans did escape to thanks to their own efforts in calling friends back in Europe. Many thousands of others died or sought refuge in bordering nations.

A more recent example of a massacre is going on in Sudan. Teh African Union has a presence there, but they are under funded and under manned. Now we (the USA) don't necessarily have to pay for it. However, it is time that our European friends who we generously call allies to step up and fix their former colonies. WE put out the brush fire called Kosovo in their back yard and they have had plenty of time to learn a few lessons. Does the USA have any responsibility for Sudan? No, none at all. However, Sudan has oil, not much, and it belongs to the french...which is incedentally why the violence continues. The French in their INFINITE wisdom are propping up the bad guys. Who knew Chirac was crooked? (UN oil for Food Scandal and sanction violations kinda hint at this). So I don't really have a point in writing this. There are two basic options.

1) Europeans grow a pair and sort this out, or at least fund the AU better.
2) Africa sorts itself out all on its own (not a bad option, though certainly not the best, and for once people might learn something).

Africa is burning, literally, and not for freedom, democracy, or anything but a respite from unceasing racial hatred, slave trading and general misery.