Super Tuesday 2008
by Ted L Glines
Aggregated motivated
congregated celebrated
news presenting unrelenting
“McCain the winner”
before our dinner
Obama leading Clinton pleading
read it see it hear it now
stifle down that yawn somehow
it is only Tuesday dawn.
MSNBC with glee
pushing shoving me and thee
like winds upon a wayward boat
telling how we all must vote.
Media news is blatant touting
for the big three they are shouting
and I in sad and sorrow doubting
(may I merely mention)
they seem lacking in attention.
Propaganda in its guises
we prepare for stark surprises
facts come forth with goods and bads
(perhaps some crippled hanging chads)
for when the voting's said and done
we shall see who really won.
|
|
|
|
Iraqi Oil
by Ted L Glines
For all these years, we have heard “oil conspiracy” surrounding the war in Iraq. Mostly this has come from the anti-war side of politics. I am personally very much anti-war because, historically, war has never been a long-term solution; the original issues have merely cropped up in some morphed form. But, I have discounted this “oil conspiracy” as being merely a political ploy; a tool the left could easily use against the right in their fight to gain position and power. My own anti-war sentiments are based upon a much simpler idea: I do not think people should be killed for political or corporate gain. I will fight to the death if my family/friends are threatened by any on-the-ground enemy. Beyond that, the hungry politicians and corporate moguls are welcome to kill themselves off.
I did not think much of the “oil conspiracy” until I was researching Iraqi demographics, where I found a map of the Iraqi oil fields, refineries and pipelines. Especially, the refineries interested me because this is where the oil “cash crop” is created. And I saw that these refineries are positioned near major centers of long-term military conflict; like Mosul, Kirkuk, Bayji, Hadithah, Baghdad, al-Dawrah, al-Samawah, al-Nasiriyah, and Basra. Major oilfields are located at Kirkuk, al-Nasiriyah, and Basra. Oil is piped to Turkey from refineries in Mosul, Kirkuk, and Bayji. Oil is piped out to Syria-Lebanon from Hadithah. Though it is not labelled on the map, we see an oil pipeline running to Iran from Baghdad and al-Dawrah.In the south of Iraq, we have al-Nisiriyah and Basra, where oil pumps to the Persian Gulf docks (source of shipped oil for the US and UK, and lessor receiving ports). This map is located at (http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/philligr.html).
Both our military and the insurgents seem grimly interested in competing for control of these places. Does than mean there is a conspiracy? I found some interesting advisory material in the hindsight zone of 2003 (and earlier).
Here is an excerpt from The World Factbook (CIA):
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html#Issues
“Iraq's economy is dominated by the oil sector, which has traditionally provided about 95% of foreign exchange earnings. Attacks on key economic facilities - especially oil pipelines and infrastructure - have prevented Iraq from reaching projected export volumes, but total government revenues have been higher than anticipated due to high oil prices. Additionally, the Iraqi government is seeking to pass laws to strengthen the economy; this legislation includes a hydrocarbon law to encourage contracting with foreign investors and a revenue sharing law to equitably divide oil revenues within the nation.”
Some governments and people questioned U.S. intentions, but others say that Bush is just looking out for the future of the country. Some Bush Administration officials, such Vice President Cheney, have had extensive connections to the oil industry. During the Clinton Administration, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and other current Bush Administration officials joined together in the Project for a New American Century, which advocated "regime change" in Iraq and other countries. A 1998 letter by Project members stated that “we should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf—and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.”
Most Middle Eastern oil goes to Europe and Japan, but U.S. and British companies pump most of the oil for sale. Using military force in Iraq to remove Saddam also puts the U.S. and U.K. in control of Iraq's huge oil reserves. Control over the oil would limit U.S. dependence on OPEC, and increase the production of Iraqi oil, which was limited after economic sanctions were put on Iraq in 1990.
U.S. oil reserves (at current production levels) would only last only a decade if the U.S. was cut off from all other oil sources. Iraqi oil reserves (at their current use levels) would last about 526 years. Thus emerged a fact I did not know, along with the fact that almost all of the non-OPEC oil fields are running dry.
"The fundamental issue is, the day after Saddam is removed, the Iraqi oil industry is open for grabs, and it will depend upon the government of Iraq to decide how it will dispense that resource," says oil consultant Rob Sobhani, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington. "Certainly, American companies would be in a very, very strong position to compete for the right." (ABC News). On May 9, 2003, the European Union's EU Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, Poul Nielson, visited with the U.S. military commander in Baghdad, and said that the U.S. "will appropriate the oil. It is very difficult to see how this would make sense in any other way. I think that the United States is on its way to becoming a member of OPEC." (Reuters).
It becomes clear that our military presence is necessary if the US is to maintain control over Iraqi oil production and its distribution, and it is further essential that the new government in Baghdad will support this US position.
Oil fields were the first places in Iraq to be occupied by the U.S. and U.K. troops in the first hours of the 2003 war. Commanders said the move was to protect the wells, but many Iraqi citizens and other people around the world are suspicious that American and British companies will gain the first oil concessions in the new Iraq. Oil is not the only reason for this war, but as MSNBC observes, "neither is it irrelevant." In the words of Grant Goodman, the 2001 EPA Local Entrepreneur Award Winner: "Let's start with national security--the billions and billions we waste dancing around the issue, protecting those pipelines, invading Iraq, doing whatever else we're doing in the Middle East. It all gets down to continuing the flow of oil to this country."
Right about here, in my study, it came to me that I really was not liking where this was going. And I think I am glad that I won't have to read those history books, twenty years from now, with all the “humanitarian reasons” and “war against terrorism” rhetoric masking our present occupation of Iraq. And that is what the history books will be required to say, because that is the history being officially documented today.
International
Environmental
Problems & Policy
(Geography 378, Spring 2003, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire)
Assistant Professor
of Geography Zoltan Grossman grossmzc@uwec.edu
(715) 836-4471
P.O. Box 4004,
Eau Claire, WI 54702 USA
On Aug. 27, 1859, a forty-year-old former railroad conductor, Edwin L. Drake, struck oil at his well near Titusville, Pa. The oil industry was born. Soon oil exploration began to spread throughout the world.
The oil product probably most familiar to us is gasoline. Gasoline is produced in a wide variety of blends and types refined for many different purposes. In the 1920s and ‘30s, airplanes used the same type of gasoline as cars. Over the years, engineers developed new fuels for aircraft that would increase power. Fuels derived from crude oil today include liquefied petroleum gas, aviation fuel, gasoline, kerosene, diesel engine and road vehicle fuel, and gas oil and fuel oil, which are used in boilers.
When oil and gas are converted to chemicals, they are called petrochemicals. We are surrounded by products made from petrochemicals, including plastics. In the 1920s there was an abundance of hydrocarbons at petroleum refineries. Manufacturers took advantage of this and developed uses for the cheap raw materials. The petrochemical industry evolved.
The list of petrochemical-derived breakthroughs is endless, including such products as ball-point pens and sunglasses, trashbags and nylon rope, crayons and toothbrushes, deodorant and nail polish and tennis shoes and lipstick — and so many more.
Just a few more of the thousands of products derived from oil are candles, paint, carpet, soap, perfumes, balloons, photographic film, insecticides, margarine, cassettes, telephones, and polyester.
Polyester? Look at the labels on your clothing, and realize that 40- to 60% of that garment began its life in an oil refinery. Maybe in Kirkuk or Basra.
One particular area that has its share of oil-produced products is the medical industry. What would life be without hearing aids, bandages, artificial limbs and heart valves, contact lenses and hundreds of medications derived from petroleum? As the source of such important products, there is concern about the amount of oil left on Earth.
The above contains excerpts from:
http://www.teachingtools.com/CrudeEnergy/BlackGold.htm
As I gaze around the room where this is being typed, from the linoleum floor to the ceiling panels, and all the plastic things in between, I am struck with how much we depend on petrochemicals, and all of this consumer infrastructure comes from those oil refineries. It is a simple but all-pervasive fact that we live in a petrochemical-based world with petro-dollars being the medium of international exchange (US$).
In recent years, we have heard much about alternatives to fossil fuels. We are seeing vehicles capable of using such alternatives. Perhaps this is a step in the right environmental direction, and long overdue. However, our highly developed petrochemical consumer-world will remain dependent upon oil production (for the coming 526 years, it seems).
We began with a question, and the answer is this: The “oil-conspiracy” is simple reality and we will be forced to recognize ... we cannot live without it.
Little Mbuto Smiles
by Ted L Glines
Heartbreaking ads on TV CABLE
little black kids
feeble skin and bones
flies upon their eyes,
"Give as much as you can.
Five dollars feeds a child
for a year. Give now!
An operator is standing by."
See the AID station
in Uganda,
Kenya or Sudan,
bright new building
bright new white Land Rover
which passes by the sick and dying,
"No time for you today!"
No money ...
AID money comes to Kenya,
stopsin pockets
of Kenya politicians
only passing enough
to build the building
buy the white Land Rover
funding new and better
heartbreaking ads ...
and an operator is always
standing by ...
In your hand
hold the photo
which was sent to you,
little Mbuto, happy fat and smiling,
and you feel good
because you helped
(his father, the President of Hell) ,
and you write another
check.
Bless you
Author's Notes: This poem was inspired by Paul Theroux's book entitled "Dark Star Safari, " a must read for all those who would throw money at third world problems.
Donor Economy
by Ted L Glines
Just look at those poor starving kids in Niger. The horror story used to be Somalia and the Sudan, and their problems continue and grow worse with each passing day, but their stories were eclipsed by the tsunami early this year, and now it is the plight of Niger which is in the news. CNN is on the ground in Niger, and the awfulness of starvation and death is all too clear. Little kids do not look good when they are reduced to little more than skeletons with flies crawling all over them as they feebly move ...
What can I do to help? That is the question. Shall I send them money and food products? That seems like the answer.
Fact: Most of the donations of cash and products go to the government of Niger. The ruler of Niger is very happy with receiving cash. He grows fat on donated cash. The ruler of Niger is also happy with the donated shiploads of products, which he converts to cash by selling them (at reduced rates) to citizens of Niger who can afford to purchase them. The millions of people who are starving do not have any money, so they never see these products. The ruler of Niger is very happy with the reporting presence of CNN (and other medias), because these stories, broadcast around the world, are helping to bring in even more donations of cash and products. He grows fat while his people starve.
A portion of the international donations are received by the many Aid Agencies which are working in Niger. But, here, there are transport problems and a lack of ability to get enough food out to most of the starving villagers. Each Aid truck can only serve the needs of the specific village where it has been sent, and those small trucks fall very short of even supplying the desperate needs of that one village. We are seeing pictures of starving mothers walking twelve miles from their own village to another village which has received an Aid truck, only to be turned away, still hungry and dying, by a village which is suddenly unfriendly to the needs of outsiders. And we are seeing that it is the men of Niger who are getting most of the available assistance, while it is the women who do almost all the work (sound familiar?).
Fact: The Gross National Product (GNP) of Niger derives from production of "yellow cake," a uranium product used to make (among other things) nuclear weapons, and from sales of farm products such as millet (which the starving people cannot afford to buy).
Fact: Niger (along with Somalia and the Sudan) has what is known as a Donor Economy, and is largely dependent upon the worldwide donation of cash and products spurred by the horrible plight of its starving masses. Thus, starvation and death has been turned into a primary national marketing tool, and media giants such as CNN are its willing partners in a sales effort which drains the surplus resources of the world to produce a fat and happy ruler of Niger.
Author's Notes: Long live free enterprise! We are left to wonder what we should do with this...
Why We Are In Iraq
by Ted L Glines
Not long ago, maybe about a month back, we had a company of Special Forces soldiers staying at my Best Western here in New Boston, Texas. There were some nine or ten of them, all Sergeants and one Lieutenant. Like all the other soldiers who stay with us, they were processing in and out of Red River Army Depot (RRAD), and I always make it a point to talk to these people. Have they been to Iraq? Are they going back? What is going on over there? To me, this is more than simple idle conversation. My family background is military, I am old enough to have experienced the Viet Nam situation, and I am truly concerned. This Lieutenant said a small thing during one such conversation which still troubles me. He said, “We will probably never be told why we are there.” This received silent nods from the rest of his people, and we went on to talk about other things.
A popular statement we hear all the time from American civilians is, “They are over there protecting our freedoms.” This statement sounds nice and patriotic and good, and I am sure that our State Department would appreciate the sentiment. But, is it true? So far, I have not heard any of our visiting soldiers saying any such thing. Frankly, from what they have told me, their time spent in Iraq is spent simply doing what they are told to do and trying their level best to stay alive long enough to come home. Period. Every minute they are in Iraq is a minute of mortal danger and they (most of them) manage to survive on wits and great training. As of this writing, 3,000+ plus of them have failed to survive, and every soldier in Iraq feels the weight and threat of possibly becoming a fatality.
So, we have two statements:
“They are over there protecting our freedoms.”
And:
“We will probably never be told why we are there.”
These two statements simply do not agree. Forgive me, Dear Reader, but this disagreement bothers me more than you could ever know. When I am “bothered,” I look for answers.
As early as April 1997, a report from the James A. Baker Institute of Public Policy at Rice University addressed the problem of "energy security" for the United States, and noted that the US was increasingly threatened by oil shortages in the face of the inability of oil supplies to keep up with world demand. In particular the report addressed "The Threat of Iraq and Iran" to the free flow of oil out of the Middle East. It concluded that Saddam Hussein was still a threat to Middle Eastern security and still had the military capability to exercise force beyond Iraq's borders.
The Bush Administration returned to this theme as soon as it took office in 2001, by following the lead of a second report from the same Institute. This Task Force Report was co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, another group historically concerned about US access to overseas oil resources. The Report represented a consensus of thinking among energy experts of both political parties, and was signed by Democrats as well as Republicans.
The report concluded: "The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments."
The Task Force meetings were attended by members of the new Bush Administration's Department of Energy, and the report was read by members of Vice-President Cheney's own Energy Task Force. When Cheney issued his own national energy plan, it too declared that "The [Persian] Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy." It agreed with the Baker report that the U.S. is increasingly dependent on imported oil and that it may be necessary to overcome foreign resistance in order to gain access to new supplies.
Later the point was made more bluntly by Anthony H. Cordesman, senior analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies: "Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we will go to war, because Saddam sits at the center of a region with more than 60 percent of all the world's oil reserves."
See (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html) for the full text regarding these early-on Task Meetings.
Iraq's proven oil reserves are 113 billion barrels, the second largest in the world after Saudi Arabia, and eleven percent of the world's total. The total reserves could be 200 million barrels or more, all of it relatively easy and cheap to extract. Thus increasing Iraqi oil production will diminish the market pressure on oil-importing countries like the US. It will also weaken the power of OPEC to influence oil markets by decisions to restrict output. Indeed, were Iraqi oil production to expand to near its capacity, the quotas established by OPEC would cease to be honored in today's market.
But the US is not just interested in oil from Iraq, it is concerned to maintain political dominance over all the oil-producing countries of the region. Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a glimpse of US intentions when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 6, 2003, that success in the Iraq war "could fundamentally reshape that region in a powerful, positive way that will enhance U.S. interests." In conceding that it will be necessary to station US troops in occupied Iraq for the foreseeable future, the US is serving notice to Iran and to Saudi Arabia (both of which were once secure bases for US troops but are so no longer) that the US will reassert its presence as the dominant military power in the region.
The present value of the US dollar, unjustified on purely economic grounds, is maintained by political arrangements, one of the chief of which is to ensure that all OPEC oil purchases will continue to be denominated in US dollars. (This commitment of OPEC to dollar oil sales was secured in the 1970s by a secret agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia, before the two countries began to drift apart over Israel and other issues.)
The chief reason why dollars are more than pieces of green paper is that countries all over the world need them for purchases, principally of oil. This requires them in addition to maintain dollar reserves to protect their own currency; and these reserves, when invested, help maintain the current high levels of the US securities markets.
As Henry Liu has written vividly in the online Asian Times (4/11/02), "World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies. To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world's central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger. This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The recycling of petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973.
So, according to the above research, our soldiers are in Iraq securing U.S. political and economic dominance over the petro-dollar which, in turn, provides U.S. dominance over the World Bank. If you would care to read all of the documentation, you will see that Saddam Hussein had to be removed because he was threatening to sell off this dominating position to Russia and France.
What in the world does the World Bank, or the petro-dollar, have to do with “They are over there protecting our freedoms”? Possibly more than you might think, especially when you stop to ponder how the value of your dollar works in your consumer life. How many oranges can you buy for a dollar? If the dollar fell in value, you would have to spend more dollars to buy the same number of oranges. Your employer might have to double your wages so you could pay your rent, and he would have to double the price for the products he produces so he might continue to break even or make a profit (failure to do this is called “runaway inflation,” a situation which results in the correction called “depression”). We did “depression” in the 1920s and we do not want to repeat the process. No sir, we don't!
If you have a soldier in your family who says, “We will probably never be told why we are there,” just explain that he/she is protecting our freedoms and doing a damned fine job of it!
Dear Reader, thank you for sticking with me while I found an answer. The answer bothers me because it is surely a Reality Check, but I believe I will just leave it alone! Yep, sometimes it is best to do that.
One Dead Child
by Ted L Glines
one dead child
floating in debris
styro cups and strings of vomit
feces and one dead rat
unable to hear
i am sorry
help is on the way
faith based trash
you have the power
the pope loves you
dead lips leaking oil
one dead city crying
the south will rise again
and one dead child
fails to listen
Author's Notes: Katrina Revisited: It is an ugly picture. It is a snapshot with all of the "saving graces" cropped out. When I look at all of the blame-game played out on CNN - I am seeing this one dead child eclipsed by political agendas of those who only cared about their own status, the very same ones whose priority was hype rather than preparedness. When will we ever learn?