Glenn Greenwald on why the Democrats lost

With that strategy, the Democratic Party now reaps what it has sown.  Its message and identity are profoundly muddled, incoherent, unclear, uninspiring, and self-negating.  Worse, its policies are mishmashes of inept half-measures that, with a handful of exceptions, produce little good for anyone (other than Wall Street, the Pentagon and other corporate interests).  They are perceived as -- and are -- beholden to Wall Street, special interests, and the corporations they vowed to confront.  They are without any ability to confront the massive unemployment crisis and financial decline the country faces.  And as a result of all of that, they lay in shambles.  Anyone who can survey all of that and cheer for the strategy which Democrats have been pursuing -- let's build our majorities by relying on GOP-replicating corporatist Blue Dogs -- or who thinks that this election loss happened because "Democrats are too liberal," resides in a world that has very little to do with reality.  And that's true no matter how many times they repeat the simplistic snippets of exit polls to which they've obsessively attached themselves.

Glenn Greenwald in a blog post at Salon.com, takes on MSNBC commentator Lawerence O'Donnell in his assertion that the Democrats lost because they are too "liberal" and the country simply prefers "conservative" candidates and governance.

Over the past decade, I too have excoriated those who babble about the fundamental divide between philosophical and political liberalism and conservatism in America.  The terms in themselves are inexhaustibly used incorrectly by both sides to impugn their opponents and distort the overall discussion.  Virtually no credible conservative government has existed at the federal level in the past forty years in America.  Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and Dubya were pro-corporatist presidents who advanced statist agendas.  Government under each of these men was widely expanded; the national debt ballooned; war and the invasion of numerous countries in violation of international law was conducted; treaties were maligned and rejected at whim; established precedents in US constitutional law were regularly dismissed and abrogated with presidential approval; corporate take over of the executive and legislative branches was perfected under Republican rule over these decades.  At what point did the fanatics of conservative causes rally against these changes?

The pro-corporatist Democrats have always used the excuse that they could not execute a liberal agenda, that was and is favored by a majority, because of the stalking horse of conservatism amongst the population.  People now realize that because of gerrymandering, corporate donations and special interest meddling, and a two-party system that invalidates third party politics, that there is very little that they themselves can do to upend and change a system.  America has for the past decade not been a democracy, but  a plutocracy governed by people who are servants, not to the constitution or the people, but to multinational corporations: including bankers, insurance companies, the military-industrial complex, oil companies, and a bevy of special interests that are more than willing to bribe politicians into executing their agenda.

O'Donnell represents the liberal version of a cultural manager; a person who nonchalantly bemoans the tyranny of the left-wing of the Democratic party, but refuses to address the perennial failure and Pavlovian response of the Democratic party hierarchy in pursuing Republican-light policies once they are elected.  Clinton was elected to improve the economy, introduce health care, and end the brutal twelve years of Republican mismanagement.  Instead, he pursed a strategy of triangulation and capitulated to conservative policies of energy and financial deregulation, which has left the American economy broken and on unsound footing.  Obama in the face of aggressive citizen support has sought legislative capitulation to the banks, big oil, big-pharma, insurance companies, and the Military-Security state.  Obama's claims which he made during the 2008 election, of attacking special interests and the oligarchs appear little more than pleasant lies told to naive children.

Peak Oil: The Germans and British Understand the Outcome

A series of recent reports have been released by both the German and UK governments on the implications of Peak oil.  Jeff Rubin, former chief economist of Canada's CIBC World Markets, discusses both reports in his Globe and Mail blog.  In it he summarizes that the emerging global consensus amongst policy makers and long term government planners is that deficiencies in accessing and utilizing petroleum will lead to severe economic disruptions, social instability, and a collapse of the current global trade arrangements.

Rubin disputes the reassurances made by governments and industry supporters that peak-oil is not a concern.  As I've outlined in previous blog entries (here and here), many persons who have had a close examination of the situation believe that we reached peak-oil in 2005.  The German study states that there is "some probability that peak oil will occur around the year 2010 and that the impact on security is expected to be felt 15 to 30 years later."  Rubin concedes that while we may not have reached "geological peak-oil" from the economic perspective we certainly have.  As global oil prices maxed out at near $150/bbl it became abundantly clear that our current economy and way of life is completely incapable of sustaining these costs.  Furthermore, it is only at these very high levels of crude that many of the untested extraction technologies and difficult to obtain reserves can be made to be profitable.  Hence, in reality, accessible global oil reserves are not growing any further.

Der Spiegel International, outlines a series of potential situations that may arise:

1. Oil will determine power
2. Increasing importance of oil exporters
3. Politics in place of the market
4. Global market failures
5. Relapse into planned economy
6. Global chain reaction
7. Crisis of political legitimacy

Altogether, the implications of this fact are severe.  Rubin summarizes:

The German study paints a bleak picture of the post-peak world: political power quickly shifts from major oil-consuming economies to major oil-producing economies. Less and less oil is traded on the open market, while more and more is traded between nation states, with national oil companies entering into long-term supply agreements that are tied to broader political and military considerations. And military alliances coalesce around the security of energy supply, rather than between countries with shared political or economic principles.

In the UK, the Guardian newspaper also heralds the dangers associated with a post-peak oil world in an article titled "Peak oil alarm revealed by secret official talks."  Previous estimates by the International Energy Agency indicated that there would be "sufficient reserves to meet demand till 2030 as long as investment in new reserves is maintained."  However, major industry players, economic skeptics, and government analysts believe the situation could be considerably less solvent.

But an internal IEA source said: "Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible, but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources."

Coupled with climate change concerns, which includes the possibility of severe drought, famine, resource scarcity based conflict, and socio-economic collapse everywhere, we are not just talking about a realignment in global powers, but the possibility of wholesale disintegration of human civilization.

Matthew Simmons, Peak-Oil Proponent dead at 67

Matthew R. Simmons, long time oil industry analyst and author of the much discussed book Twilight in the Desert, which proposed of the idea that we have already passed peak-oil, was found dead at his home in Maine from an apparent heart attack.

Bloomberg elaborates on the theme of peak-oil, which Simmons is most associated with:

On a tour of Saudi Arabia’s oil industry in 2003, Simmons was inspired to estimate the world’s largest oil reserves, and from research that included poring through neglected engineering data, determined that the country was close to or nearing peak output, Peter Maass wrote in his book, “Crude World: The Violent Twilight of Oil.”

"He built his own energy firm and, having done that successfully, used his knowledge of the industry to challenge one of its biggest accepted truths -- that there are nearly unlimited quantities of oil in the world.”

The concept of peak oil, (which I discussed in an earlier blog entry) is a function of the availability of crude reserves in relation to both time and cost.  As easily extractable sources of crude oil are consumed and more nations transition to first-world levels of industrialization and production, demand increases.  Shortly after peak oil, there will be insufficient supplies of petroleum causing global cost inflation, on nearly everything, and diminished availability.   M King Hubbard, first predicted that North American oil production would "peak" between 1965 and 1970; a physical event that did occur and is not disputed.  Simmons estimated that on a global level we reached peak oil in 2005.  While the actual date is of debate, there is little doubt based on quantitative analysis, that peak oil is real and we need to understand the immediate implications of that fact.   The first graph below, outlines global petroleum extraction levels versus time, consistent with Hubbard's (and Simmons') predictions. 

The second graph provides a timeline of America's actual proven petroleum reserves.

Given that virtually all transportation, manufacturing, and major military activities are related to the use of petroleum based products, volatility in its availability and price pose severe concerns to modern society.  The OPEC oil embargoes of the early 1970's, both Persian Gulf wars conducted by the Americans, pre-2008 agricultural commodity bubbles, and numerous revolutions in the 20th C. were a direct result of oil politics.

There are numerous opponents to Simmons' view of peak oil, who refer to his modelling as too simplistic and biased towards Malthusian conceits.   However, even if that was the fact, how long are we as a civilization going to continue to utilize oil as our primary energy source, when it has been proven that its use is causing climate change and destabilizing ecosystems across the globe.  These critics, which are primarily bankrolled by the oil and gas industries, constantly dismiss the scientific consensus on this matter and employ bogus libertarian arguments on the intrusion of "big-government" to persuade the masses that there is no climate change occurring or worries about peak oil.  Unfortunately, because these corporations and their handmaidens in politics have either ignored the facts at hand or dithered, we are well past the point of no return on both these matters. 

Available petroleum will continue to decline, the planet will continue to get hotter, and people will persist in deluding themselves that nothing needs to be done until it is too late.  As Rorschach, from the movie The Watchmen says:

[They will] shout "Save us!"... They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men ...Instead they followed the droppings of lechers... and didn't realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don't tell me they didn't have a choice. Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloody Hell.

Surprise, Republicans and Sarah Palin Lie Again!

Whereas all politicians and their paid hacks in the MSM constantly lie and ply the public with erroneous data, deliberately misleading statements, and more-often-than-not propaganda, few entities are as skilled in dissembling as the Republican Party.  Case in point is a recent flare up on the right-wing news cycle by Caribou-Barbie (aka Sarah "I'm an idiot" Palin), in which she accused the Obama administration of deliberately not waiving a 1920 law, called the Jones Act, which "requires all shipping between U.S. ports or in U.S. coastal waters to be carried in U.S.-flag ships that are owned and crewed by U.S. citizens." (Kevin Drum, MotherJones.com).

As McClatchy Press states:

From former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to Arizona Sen. John McCain to junior members of the House of Representatives, conservative Republicans have accused President Barack Obama of failing to do all he can to help clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill because he hasn't waived a U.S. maritime law called the Jones Act.

The Republican talking point is that the Obama administration is preventing much needed foreign vessels from engaging in clean-up efforts arising from the Deepwater Horizon rupture, which still remains uncapped to this day.

The central problem with this bit of hysterics is that "Maritime law experts, government officials and independent researchers say that the claim is false. The Jones Act isn't an impediment at all, they say, and it hasn't blocked anything."  Furthermore, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said that no Jones Act waivers were necessary, since all the activities were occurring outside the 3-mile limit to which the act was applicable.

On Tuesday the State Department announced that new offers of aid would be accepted from 12 foreign countries and international organizations, but spokesman P.J. Crowley noted that booms donated by Mexico, Norway and Brazil had been in use since May 11,and that 24 foreign vessels from nine foreign countries already have been helping with the cleanup.

With the exception of McClatchy, most in the press did not find it odd that ex-Governor Palin (technically 1/2-term Governor and full time moron), who claimed to understand oil politics better than any past or present governor, doesn't understand the basic facts surrounding the maritime law she is quoting.  Senator John McCain, another lying dingbat, stated that the Jones Act was subverting the recovery and was costing Americans jobs!  Others were quick to realize that the preening of the Republicans had little to do with maritime conservation or assisting the Gulf coast community, but rather an attempt to push for the removal of a federal law that limited foreign interests from controlling maritime trade within US waters.

The perennial willingness of Republicans to sell out national interests to the first multinational corporation with a fist-full of dollars, is as close to treasonous as it gets.

Quote of the Day: Ellsberg on Obama

Daniel Ellsberg, the legendary Vietnam era whistleblower, is now 79 and has a few choice words for Mr. Obama.  In the English edition of Der Speigel, Mr. Ellsberg says Mr. Obama,when it comes to "civil liberties, violations of the constitution and the wars in the Middle East" is nothing less than Dubya's third term.  He further elaborates:

He's a good politician. He said what he needed to say to get elected, and now he's just taking advantage of the office. Like any administration before, his administration caters to the profits of big corporations like BP and Goldman Sachs... His early campaign contributions, the big corporate contributions, came from Wall Street. They got their money's worth.

To those who are unfamilar with "The Pentagon Papers", here is a quick recap.  In 1971 Ellsberg, a former US military analyst, triggered a national crisis by releasing to the New York Times and other newspapers, what has now become known as the "Pentagon Papers."  The 7,000 page classified Pentagon document, commissioned by then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara,  revealed that the US government knew the Vietnam War was ultimately unwinnable. The Nixon White House fought the publication of the documents to the Supreme Court and when that proved unsuccessful, proceeded to smear and persecute Ellsberg.

Deepwater Horizon: Spill, baby, Spill...

"Every asshole who ever chanted 'Drill baby drill' should have to report to the Gulf coast today for cleanup duty." - Bill Maher

On April 20th 2010 the Deepwater Horizon, an offshore drilling platform located approximately 80 kilometres off the Louisiana coast, was critically damaged by an explosion.   Eleven workers were lost at sea and are presumed dead.  Initial estimates provided by operators of the platform stated that the rig may have had as much as 700,000 gallons of diesel on board and 1,000 barrels a day of petroleum were leaking out of the broken wellhead.

Two days after the initial explosion the entire platform sunk.   New assessments indicate that the amount of petroleum leaking out of the ruptured wellhead is approximately 5,000 barrels a day; five times the original estimate.  At least six million litres of petroleum have spilled so far, according to U.S. Coast Guard, making this incident the worst U.S. oil spill since the infamous Exxon Valdez.  In addition, millions of animals, including 1.8 million migratory waterfowl, are at risk.  The potential environmental/economic damage extends across the entire aquatic zone adjacent to the Louisiana coast, which is abundant in shrimp, oysters and other marine life.  The state's aquaculture industry, the largest in the lower 48 states, is worth $1.8-billion annually.

News reports are emerging that BP (the facility’s operator) de-emphasized the risk of a catastrophe in risk analysis’ it submitted to the U.S. government as recently as last year.  BP claimed that it was
"unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur" and in the event of such an unlikely situation, "due to the distance to shore and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected."  As of today, the oil mass has already reached the Louisiana shoreline and substantial levels of heavy oil contained within a 1,500 square kilometer oil slick is anticipated to wash ashore in Mississippi on Saturday, before reaching Alabama on Sunday, and Florida on Monday.

According to the federal Minerals Management Service, since 2001 there have been 69 offshore deaths, 1,349 injuries, and 858 fires and explosions in the American controlled Gulf of Mexico.   Occupational health and safety management under the previous Bush administration was neutered.  Republican hacks, corporate yes-men, and people who had spent their entire careers fighting OSHA were placed in positions of authority.  Policies were then created to allow industries to set their own standards of compliance.   A culture of indifference to human life and the environment, which was the trademark of the "toxic Texan", became the national standard.

With the actual consequences of Mr. Bush’s deregulatory framework and anti-environment policies becoming clearer, the dunces of the Republican Party, who made "Drill baby drill" their call to arms during the 2008 federal election, have suddenly gone silent on this issue.  The Wasilla whack-job (Ms. Palin) has yet to provide an intelligent response to the catastrophic risk she demanded Americans accept so that they could drive their Hummers and fat-asses to their anti-tax and anti-government Tea Party rallies.

Mr. Obama on the other hand, who during his election campaign vigorously defended the position that no offshore drilling should be permitted on America’s coastlines, reversed himself several weeks earlier and allowed Atlantic drilling to proceed in an attempt to garner the support of Republicans for the passage of a global warming bill.  The hypocrisy and sheer spinelessness of this president to abandon the principles for which he was elected to execute is staggering.  Unlike the daft feces-throwing monkeys of the Republican Party, Mr. Obama promised America he would deliver real change and not simply continue on with the policies of the most hated administration in the history of the nation.

The damage is now done.  Millions of litres of toxic sludge will continue to contaminate the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the shorelines of the Southern states.  Wildlife will die, ecosystems will be destroyed, and the lives and welfare of those people and communities that depend on these commons will be decimated.

Matthew Simmons: Peak Oil is Real and Has Arrived

The rise and fall of oil prices over the past few years has lead many to consider the finite nature of petroleum reserves. Optimists talk of the current price of natural gas, normalization of crude prices, and technological advancement that shall lead us to bountiful and stable energy reserves. Pessimists view structural limitations in creating a non-carbon based energy economy and a decline in fossil fuel reserves.

Matthew Simmons, who wrote "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy," offers the thesis that sudden and sharp oil production declines could happen at any time. Even under the most optimistic of scenarioes, Saudi Arabia (the world's largest producer) may be able to maintain current rates of production for several years, but will not be able to increase production enough to meet the expected increase in world demand. Eventually, a day of reckoning will arrive and the world economy will be confronted with a major shock that will stunt economic growth, increase inflation, and potentially destabilize the Middle East.

In Foreign Policy (FP) magazine, he offers a riposte to a number of critics who have recently dismissed his assertions.

First, alarming data from the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy shows that the flow of global crude oil peaked in 2005 and is now sliding steadily. The world will never "run out of oil," but its flow is in decline. There may still be ample oil reserves left in the ground when oil flows fall to half of today's use. But these remaining reserves are all either very low-quality heavy oil, which is difficult to process, or tainted with toxic elements that make it hard to refine into usable petroleum products.

He goes on to argue that his opponents arguments, which he describes as being based on belief rather than hard empirical data and meaningful econometric arguments, are unsound. His years of experience and insights into the current situation need to be fully appreciated by consumers and world leaders alike. How many times in this past decade have we heard, "Don't worry, trust us!"