Rattling the Cage: Cosby, Oprah, Powell, Rice - and Obama

Let’s face it - the thing that gives Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy its incredible BUZZ is the fact that he’s black. (OK, actually half-black, half-white, but such Americans identify themselves as one or the other, and Obama has identified himself as black and that’s the way he’s taken, so for all intents and purposes he’s black.)

I’m not saying he’s gotten to where he is only because he’s black. That’s not the point I am trying to make. There have been other black candidates for US president - Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes, at least. But what set Obama apart from them, from the start of his campaign, was that he truly had a chance to get to the White House - because of his unusual charisma, intelligence and knack for the “vision thing”; his essentially mainstream politics; and his self-definition as an all-American, not black American, leader.

So I think it’s fair to say Obama would have been a presidential contender even if he were white [if he claimed being white, which he could.. And if he was precieved that way] - just on the strength of his personal qualities. But what gives his candidacy such electricity, what makes him so “hot,” what makes his campaign into an honest-to-God movement and what makes people, especially the young and the liberal, want to be a part of it, is the fact that he’s a black contender. The possibility that America, whose history has been so blighted by white racism, will elect a black president - the sensation of it, the nearly messianic prospect of such a thing actually happening, brings tremendous added value to Obama’s candidacy.

And he obviously knows it. His message is mainly himself: a black man (OK, half black African, half white American– and I am tired of clarifying myself!] ) who really could become president of the United States. That, not his politics, is at the heart of Obama-mania. As great a speaker as he is, I don’t think his speeches would have the galvanic power they have if he were white.

He can depict a vision of a multi-racial, multi-cultural, equal-opportunity America like no other political leader partly because of his superior rhetoric and oratory, but also because he alone not only depicts the vision, he embodies it.

In the political movement he leads, he is irreplaceable. Without Obama, there’s no movement. Without Obama to give it flesh, his message seems banal.

By being the first black American with a shot at the White House, Obama offers a truly messianic vision - of an America that, by virtue of having elected a black president, will have finally washed its long, terrible racial history clean. A fresh, new America, one where race doesn’t matter any more. A black president, Obama’s hardcore supporters seem to believe, would revolutionize race relations in America, or at least improve them greatly.

I DISAGREE. The vision of a racially healed America after Obama becomes president is just pie-in-the-sky.

To an extent, though, I’m also somewhat excited by the idea of a black president. Having someone other than a white man in the White House can’t hurt. Good lord the last 8 years has to change no matter what. It would probably even help a little. It would make some people feel better about America. I’m sure I’d be one of them. [I like deluding myself at times--lol]

But America remains a rather obviously segregated country, especially when it comes to where people live and who their friends are. I don’t think that’s going to change if Obama wins on November 4.

More importantly, I do not see blacks living in what’s called the “culture of poverty” - with unstable families, violence, ignorance, teenage pregnancy, drugs and alcohol, crime and various other social pathologies - breaking out of it because they’ve got a new, better-than-ever role model.

Blacks in America’s ghettos don’t lack for role models. Maybe the most respected, beloved public figure in the country is a black woman, Oprah Winfrey. Her title probably used to be held by Bill Cosby when he was in the limelight; now he’s a revered American elder. For the last eight years, the US Secretary of State has been black - first Colin Powell, who might well have gotten elected president if he’d have run, and now Condoleezza Rice, a leading future contender for the presidency if she seeks it.

Has the example of Cosby, or Oprah, or Powell, or Rice gotten one black American out of the ghetto? Maybe, who knows– I doubt it, and I doubt that a President Obama could pull it off, either. But then again, I am a jaded person, remember. Lol.

AND AS for America’s white racists, those who would never vote for any black presidential candidate, they haven’t been swayed by Cosby, Oprah, Powell, Rice or anybody else, so why should they be swayed by a President Obama? A black president might even make them hate blacks more, make them even more convinced the blacks are “taking over.” Now that is a very scary thought! Supremists more angry. Geeeeece.

I am old enough to remember an America where there were no blacks in any positions of leadership, when a black man in a business suit drew stares because it was such an unusual sight, when a walk-on black character in a TV sitcom was a shock. This was American life before about 1967 or 1968. I remember when the only black elected official of note was Congressman Adam Clayton Powell of Harlem, when no American city or town had a black mayor, and I remember the hope for an end to ghettos and racism with the election of the first black mayors, congressmen, senators and governors.

It never came.

The civil rights movement and the black power movement brought “legal equality” to blacks, forced the government to start spending money in black communities on schools, hospitals and the like, and enabled the emergence of a large, solid black middle class that is now in its third generation and growing steadily.Some hearts have changed– but racism is still alive in America.

But after 40 years of black “mainstreaming” and the rise of countless blacks to positions of power, America’s urban ghettos are as big and as bad as they ever were, if not bigger and worse. The same goes for America’s prisons, which are about 50% black.

Meanwhile, at the unofficial level, in people’s neighborhoods, in people’s social circles, America, though much less so than it was 40 years ago, is still basically a segregated country. White ghettos and lower educational levels across the board have grown. Ignorance is the chief contributor to racism.

The election of a black president would not be a breakthrough for America - it would be a logical continuation of America’s openness to letting blacks rise as high as their ambitions and abilities can take them. I don’t think a President Obama would make America’s black middle class any larger, because they’ll do fine without any more role models. He wouldn’t make the black ghettos any smaller or less deadly because role models don’t seem to have done any good there, and he wouldn’t shrink the preserves of white racism because they’re allergic to people like him.

The glow over the election of a black president would last a few days, then it would be over, and afterward Obama would succeed or fail in office for the same reasons every other president has. If he gets to the White House, he might change America like he promises - but if he does, it won’t be because he’s black.

Columbian Hostage release…

Yes, as I stated, I am jaded. I don’t believe the smoke and mirror show. There are always different who, whys and wheres than we are ever told. Anyway– follow the yellow brick road if you will for a minute.

First there is the official… not-so-detailed reports…

 

Juan ForeroWashington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 3, 2008; Page A01

Colombia’s military yesterday rescued the most prominent of several hundred hostages held by Marxist rebels, a group of 15 that included the French-Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt and three American Defense Department contractors who had been imprisoned in remote jungle camps since 2003.

In what Colombian officials called an elaborate ruse, commandos deceived a rebel unit entrusted with the prized hostages into turning them over in a grassy field deep in southeastern Guaviare province. The prisoners, who included 11 Colombian soldiers, were then flown to freedom in what amounted to a powerful blow to a fast-waning insurgency.

By late afternoon, the hostages were transported to the main military air base in Bogota, the Colombian capital, where they were reunited with relatives as a military band played the national anthem.

Betancourt, wearing a floppy jungle hat, the kind of flimsy rubber boots worn by guerrillas, and a white flower in her braided hair, stepped off a plane and into the waiting arms of her mother, Yolanda Pulecio. She then addressed well-wishers in comments carried on national television, praising Colombia’s military for “an impeccable operation.”

“God, this is a miracle. Such a perfect operation is unprecedented,” said Betancourt, 46, an author and former presidential candidate taken prisoner by rebels in 2002.

Betancourt and the Americans — who were believed to have been held longer than any other U.S. citizens currently in captivity in the world — were among the hostages that the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, hoped to trade for hundreds of their imprisoned comrades. Using Colombia’s vast and rugged terrain to its advantage, the FARC has for years taken its prisoners deep into the jungle and threatened to kill them if the military attempted a rescue.

Shortly after midnight this morning, the Americans arrived in San Antonio aboard a U.S. military plane. Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes and Marc Gonsalves — employees of Northrop Grumman Corp. — were to undergo medical exams at the Brooke Army Medical Center and be reunited with their families. The FARC took them hostage after their surveillance plane crashed in rebel territory.

George Gonsalves, father of Marc Gonsalves, said he had been on the front lawn of his home in Connecticut when his next-door neighbor came rushing out of her kitchen door, waving her arms to tell her about the news she had just seen on television.

“We went dashing back to the house, and there it was on CNN,” he said. “It’s just wonderful, just wonderful.”

A breathless Lynne Stansell, Keith Stansell’s mother, said by phone that her family was overwhelmed by the early reports.

“Some people are coming to help us handle this,” she said, when reached by phone at her Florida home. “We can’t really react right now. It’s just all too emotional.”

The news was also greeted with relief and amazement in France, where President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had campaigned vigorously for Betancourt’s release, declared the “end of an ordeal that lasted for more than six years.” Halfway around the world, in the Colombian city of Medellin, television coverage was nonstop.

Then there are the talking heads that speak with a voice of authority. [geeeeeeece]

 

Colombia Rescues Hostages Held by Guerrilla Group for Years (Post, July 2)

The transcript follows.

 

 Peter DeShazo:Good morning. My name is Peter DeShazo. I’m Director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. I look forward to answering your questions.

Washington:Can this operation serve as an example validating the years of American training and aid to Colombia’s government and miitary? Does this event show a maturity and sophistication by Colombia’s military and political leaders not seen before?

Peter DeShazo:

The United States has provided Colombia with more than $6 billion in assistance since the late 1990s, a considerable part of which has strengthened Colombia’s abilities to combat drug trafficking and improved the capabilities of the armed forces and police. The professionalism of this operation reflects some of those improvements. Over all, U.S. support for Colombia constitutes a success story. But the success of the operation is owed to the capabilities of the Colombians themselves.

Silver Spring, Md.:Mr. DeShazo, was this release timed to coincide with Sen. McCain’s visit to Colombia?

Peter DeShazo:

This appears to have been an operation that the Colombian authorities had planned for some time, but its execution would probably depend on a confluence of factors beyond the control of the Colombian government. I therefore don’t see the timing of the event as being related to Senator McCain’s visit.

Omaha, Neb.:Thanks for taking my question. Why is the FARC in decline? Can we and other national governments learn anything from the FARC’s decline that we can apply to other militias or cartels? I’m thinking specifically of Mexico.

Peter DeShazo:

The FARC is in decline because it has nothing to offer the Colombian people. Support for the FARC within Colombia was always low, but it is now almost non-existant. The FARC finances its operations through kidnapping, extortion and drug production and trafficking, which further undercuts any ideological appeal they might have once had. Their military power has been greatly reduced since the Colombian government rebuilt the capabilities of the armed forces and police and began to establish legitimate state authority over many more parts of the country. With its support base low, its ability to maneuver limited, its finances disrupted, its popular support almost nil and its military power sapped, the FARC is now entirely on the defensive. The lesson is that it is essential for legitimate state authority to prevail and that means further strenghtening not just of security but also improvements in the rule of law and in providing other government services.

Santiago, Chile:Though the most high-profile hostages were released, what are the odds that the rest of the FARC hostages will be retrieved in a timely manner?

Peter DeShazo:

The FARC still has more than 700 hostages under its control. Many of these were taken for economic purposes — for ransom. Others are considered “political” hostages. The FARC will continue to try to use them to bargain for the release of their members held by the Colombian government or for other negotiating purposes. One can only hope that some sort of mechanism for hostage release can be arrived at, but the release of all hostages will probably only come as part of a larger peace process that will result in the FARC abandoning the armed struggle.

Arlington, Va.:So where does this leave Hugo Chavez? If I am not mistaken, for some time now he has been trying to give the impression that FARC would release its prisoners as soon as he said the word.

Peter DeShazo:

President Chavez had attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate a hostage release. The FARC holds him in high esteem but in the end was unable or unwilling to respond to his efforts. Now the FARC has lost its most important political hostages — captives they were holding as their most valuable bargaining tool with the Colombian government.

Bogota, Colombia:Last night the president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, spoke about the military operation, the situation of the three American contractors, and it seemed that he was proud about it. That’s okay, but my question is, can this situation be a tool to get the “free trade” agreement between Colombia and the U.S.? Thanks.

Peter DeShazo:

Colombia’s stronger economic situation is an important component of its recovery across the board from the very unstable point the country was in the late 1990s. The free trade agreement would further consolidate these economic improvements. It would also be a positive factor for the U.S. as well — mutually beneficial. The free trade agreement — if it were approved — would provide an important underpinning for sustaining the security gains in Colombia as well — and symbolize U.S. - Colombian friendship. Those are important arguments in favor of approval of the trade agreement.

Arlington, Va.:I know that no organizations or entities are monolithic, but as you are an expert on the region I would like to know just how unified FARC is. Is this a coherent political actor, or more like an umbrella grouping united only by hostility to the Colombian government?

Peter DeShazo:The FARC is increasingly demonstrating its lack of coherence and operational capability. While its new top leader, Alfonso Cano is an old-line Marxist of the 1960s, revolutionary ideology has become more of a veneer than a norm for rank-and-file. The FARC is organized by fronts spread over a wide geographic area. Their command and control has been broadly disrupted by Colombian intelligence and therefore coordination of FARC activities is more difficult. The successful rescue of the hostages yesterday is evidence of the FARC’s coordination weaknesses. It is very weak politically, with almost no urban base of support. The FARC is increasingly fragmented across the board.

Washington:How will these events affect the current internal political situation of Colombia, where there is a direct confrontation between the president and the supreme court? Has this granted a new re-election for Uribe?

Peter DeShazo:

President Uribe’s popularity was over 80 percent positive before the hostage rescue and so it will go higher still — despite the recent confrontation between him and the supreme court. Even though his popularity ratings are extraordinarily high for a president in his sixth year in office, that does translate into a third term for Uribe. He would have to amend the constitution once more to achieve this and has not indicated that he seeks a third term.

Rockville, Md.: I apologize for the unusual nature of this question, but I saw a very weird-looking animal on TV last night (resembling a long/narrow-snouted racoon) on the shoulder and back of one of the rescued persons. I wonder if you saw the TV footage and could identify what animal that might have been. Thank you very much. Peter DeShazo:Looked like a coati Peter DeShazo:Many thanks for your questions. Regards,

Then there is the always the BIG…” Whoops there it is!!” somewhere on the back pages of the papers!

Free at Last

Colombia’s dramatic hostage rescue strengthens the case for a trade agreement

Washington Post

“

U.S. officials were quick to play down American help in this particular rescue. But there is no question that the deft Colombian military that we have just seen in action is far superior to the brutal, incompetent force of a decade ago. The transformation, in large part, was fostered by substantial U.S. aid, delivered first by President Bill Clinton and sustained by the Bush administration — with appropriate human-rights strings attached. The success of this long-term commitment debunks the pessimistic conventional wisdom in Washington about the utility of military assistance to Colombia or other Latin American nations. That is all the more reason for Congress to carry out a liberation of its own. For months, the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement and the benefits it would bring to a host of American industries have been held hostage to politics — specifically, to the Democratic Party’s need to mollify the labor unions that fund it. The Democrats’ only argument against the pact is that the Uribe administration has not done enough to prevent and punish the murders of Colombian trade unionists. But in view of the determination and competence the Colombian government has just demonstrated, Mr. Uribe’s promises to satisfy legitimate concerns deserve the benefit of the doubt. Already, his policies have dramatically reduced overall violence and murder, including the killing of trade unionists“. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has blocked a vote on the trade pact, citing supposed White House violations of standard legislative procedure. Those concerns, never very convincing, seem petty, indeed, in light of Colombia’s latest achievement. It’s time to set free trade free.”

Tips of Icebergs…

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2049

Okay– besides being a master link you should keep, Michael Jackson’s radio Show…[ and NO its not the child perv]… watch this meeting regarding contract fraud and waste!!!! I don’t really even want to know the cost of all the contract abuse and waste etc from Bushes war! Dangerous, costly… and who the f-ck was supposed to oversight this crap?!!! … and they are all still in office because of???? PLEEEEEEEEEZE! My angry mind is exploding.  The world has gone far too mad for me right now. Anyway– HAPPY 4th of JULY!

Happy July 2nd!! Hip- Hip-Hooray!

Happy July 2nd!! Hip- Hip-Hooray! Today we celebrate the greatest day in our national history. Sound ridiculous? Not to John Adams, who in 1776 wrote to his wife, Abigail: “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. . . . It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfire and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.” At least he got the pomp and parade part right. We can’t fault Adams for failing to realize that the legislative act creating independence would be supplanted by the Declaration of Independence (though when we read those soaring phrases about self-evident truths, we can be glad that it did). So, I propose we make July 2 a national holiday to celebrate the Founders for some of their greatest but least appreciated attributes — their mistakes. Consider the Declaration of Independence itself. As the recent HBO docudrama “John Adams” amusingly captured, Thomas Jefferson squirmed in his chair as his draft was read, debated and, ultimately, edited. The Virginian thought that the revisions, including the deletion of a passage blaming King George lll for the evil of American slavery, were a mutilation. He was, of course, wrong. Less well known is that Jefferson disliked the idea of a permanent constitution, thinking it would become a “dead hand of the past” weighing on future generations. He proposed that the Constitution expire every 19 years so that a new one, more attuned to current issues, could be written. Fortunately, James Madison persuaded him not to pursue the idea. Yet Madison himself, the father of the Constitution, was not always right. Dismissing bills of rights as mere “parchment barriers,” he argued against their inclusion at the Constitutional Convention, although he later changed his mind and, as a member of the House, proposed amending the Constitution to include a bill of rights. The Bill of Rights as we know it also is not what was initially proposed. The original first two amendments, one of which concerned the number of constituents each member of Congress had and one regarding congressmen’s salaries, were never ratified by the states. What we think of today as our First Amendment freedoms were actually third on the list. John Adams also offered up the occasional harebrained idea. Believing that government officials needed titles to preserve their dignity, he proposed that America’s first president be known as “His Highness the President of the United States of America, and Protector of Their Liberties.” (Thankfully, the House of Representatives rejected the proposal, though an unofficial title, “His Rotundity,” was bestowed on Adams.) A truism during the early years of the Revolution was that “where annual elections end, tyranny begins.” At this point in our quadrennial spectacle of electing a president, though, I suspect few in this country would support making the campaign an annual process. Fortunately for us, experience convinced many of our forefathers that longer terms might yield greater stability. Then again, some founders cared too much for stability. The first Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, proposed that Senate and presidential terms be for life. He often complained that the Constitution did not create a powerful enough national government, calling the document “frail and worthless fabric.” He was hardly alone in failing to recognize its value: Historians estimate that more than half the country opposed ratifying the Constitution. Luckily for us, the Founders knew that they were still figuring things out. “Experiment” was the word they frequently used to describe their handiwork, with all that it implies about wrong paths and false starts. As we honor our nation’s birth and those who worked to bring it about, we should include some veneration for their willingness to experiment and, just occasionally, get things wrong.

Now we are down to the real issue…

 

Iraq Opens Oil Fields To Global Bidding

60% Increase In Output Sought

 

 

Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, July 1, 2008; Page A01

By Sudarsan Raghavan and Steven Mufson

BAGHDAD, June 30 — Iraq’s government invited foreign firms Monday to help boost the production of the country’s major oil fields, beginning a global competition for access to the world’s third-largest reserves.

Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said the government would seek to tap Western technology and capital to increase Iraqi oil production by about 60 percent, or approximately 1.5 million barrels a day, swelling Iraqi oil revenue and potentially easing tight petroleum markets where prices have doubled in the past year.

Shahristani said 35 companies — including firms from the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and India — had been selected to bid on long-term contracts to provide services, equipment, training and advice on the country’s biggest oil fields, which have suffered from age, technological neglect and mismanagement during years of war and economic sanctions.

“The six oil fields that have been announced today are the backbone of Iraq’s oil production, and some of them are getting old and production is declining,” Shahristani told reporters.

The invitation marked another step toward giving Western companies a significant role in Iraq’s oil industry, which the Baathist government nationalized in 1972. But the opening is likely to cause controversy in a nation wary of Western influence over its largest source of wealth and among foreign critics who say the Bush administration wanted to depose Saddam Hussein to gain greater access to Iraqi oil.

Followers of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who opposes Western firms having any control over Iraq’s oil, voiced suspicion. “Those agreements should be open and transparent,” said Liwaa Smaism, a senior Sadrist lawmaker. “We do not know whether those contracts are ordinary technical contracts with foreign companies, or are they involved in the excavation and production of the oil?”

Other lawmakers said any deals should be made after parliament approves legislation governing Iraq’s oil resources. “I do not believe that the companies should sign contracts in such a fragile political situation and confusing security situation,” said Mohammed al-Daini, a Sunni lawmaker.

Daini added that “America has come over here to Iraq in order to first control the oil wealth and, second, the entire economical wealth.” He said he and other lawmakers should review the contracts to ensure they don’t allow Western firms to infringe on Iraq’s sovereignty.

Oil experts and companies cautioned that Iraq’s government must still approve a hydrocarbon law that would clarify revenue-sharing between Iraq’s central and regional governments, the role of the Iraqi national oil company and the framework for paying foreign firms. In addition, foreign firms remain concerned about security.

“How this is going to be done is an open question, and I don’t think anyone in the oil industry expects that’s going to be resolved anytime soon,” said an oil company official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because his company is in the midst of negotiations with Iraq.

Separately, the Iraqi government is finalizing at least five short-term no-bid service contracts with major U.S. and European companies. Iraqi Oil Ministry officials said Monday that the firms were selected because most had extensive experience in Iraq’s oil industry before nationalization. The precursors of Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Total were part of the Iraq Petroleum Co., which ran Iraq’s oil industry for half a century. BP has information dating to the 1920s on Iraq’s oil reservoirs.

“They have geographical studies and other analyses,” said Asim Jehad, an Oil Ministry spokesman. “They can advise us, supply us with what we need and bring new technology.” Chevron was also among the companies selected for the short-term contracts.

An official at one of the companies, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because negotiations were continuing, said each contract could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, including the cost of some new equipment. Each of the five contracts would set a goal of increasing oil output by 100,000 barrels a day by late 2009 or mid-2010.

On Monday, Iraqi Oil Ministry and oil company officials said none of the short-term contracts, ranging from 18 months to two years in duration, had been signed yet. Oil industry sources said negotiations have bogged down over several issues, including whether the companies would be paid in oil or cash.

The companies have been providing training, analysis and advice for the past three years, without being paid. None of the companies has sent personnel because of security concerns.

More important than the size of the short-term contracts, however, is the prospect of getting a foot in the door in Iraq, whose proven reserves trail only those of Saudi Arabia and Iran. In an interview last week, Chevron’s executive vice president for exploration and production, G.L. Kirkland, said the service contracts were “a starting place” and allowed the companies to “prove what we can do and hopefully open the door” for other oil development deals.

On Monday, the Bush administration denied a report in the New York Times that U.S. advisers to the Iraqi Oil Ministry had influenced the selection of companies for the short-term contracts.

“These are Iraqi contracts. They were made by Iraqis, for Iraqis,” said Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman. “And they weren’t done at the behest of the United States or with a wink or a nudge or any kind of influence on our part.”

An official with one of the oil companies said the Oil Ministry had no model contract when it first asked for the companies to draw up short-term technical support agreements last November. He said that he wasn’t surprised U.S. officials were advising the Oil Ministry on the contracts but that he didn’t believe contracts had been steered or skewed toward his company. “I wish that were the case,” he said.

But Antonia Juhasz, a critic of the administration and author of the forthcoming book “The Tyranny of Oil,” said the short-term contracts “are a clear attempt to make an end run around the Iraqi parliament, which has refused passage of a new national oil law long sought by the Bush administration and U.S. oil companies.”

Iraqi Oil Ministry officials said none of the short-term deals were “partnership contracts” that gave Western companies a stake in Iraq’s oil production or a share in its profits. The officials said they decided to forge ahead despite the absence of an oil law. They said the contracts would be presented to Iraq’s parliament for approval.

The oil fields to be developed under the longer-term contracts announced Monday are Kirkuk and Bai Hassan in the northern part of the country and Rumaila, Zubair, Maysan, and West Qurnah in southern Iraq. Two natural gas fields, Akkas and Mansuriyah, would also be opened for bidding, Shahristani said.

The contracts would range from five to 10 years, said Jehad, the ministry spokesman. The deadline for the bids is next March, and contracts could be signed by June 2009. Firms would be required to have an Iraqi partner and hire Iraqis, the officials said.

In recent months, sharp declines in violence have allowed Iraq to increase production levels to 2.5 million barrels a day, its highest since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. With the new foreign deals, said Jehad, Iraq hopes to boost production to 4.5 million barrels a day within five years.

Ismael al-Hadidi, who works in an oil refinery in the city of Baiji, north of Baghdad, welcomed the foreign oil firms. “Iraq right now needs a lot of technical expertise to help it to move forward in oil,” he said.

Abdul Kareem, 48, an engineer in oil-rich Maysan province, said foreign involvement would create new jobs and allow engineers like him to learn the latest technology and skills.

But Ali Khalid, a 39-year-old high school teacher in Fallujah, was convinced that the United States had pushed the Iraqi government’s hand. “Americans have given a lot of sacrifices. They will not let it go,” he said. “They came to Iraq not to get rid of Saddam, but for oil.”

 

 

Still teaching after 61 years, but are we learning?

 

Gandhi’s address, delivered in English, was recorded in New Delhi on April 2, 1947, a few months before his assassination. (AP)

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/06/27/VI2008062703016.html?hpid=topnews 

 

 

 

A Rare Audio Recording of Gandhi

 

Monday Morning Mind Stuff…

Good morning everyone! Welcome to Monday June 30th, 2008, day 182.

Have a great week out there and be safe in whatever you do.

History on this day June 30

1841: The Erie Railroad rolled out its first passenger train.

1859: Frenchman Charles Blondin (aka), Jean Francois Gravelet crossed Niagara Falls on a tightrope. It took him five minutes.

1921: The Radio Corporation of America (RCA) was formed.

1936: Margaret Mitchell’s only novel, Gone with the Wind, is published on this day in 1936. The book will become one of the best-selling novels of all time, selling some 25 million copies. The book sold 1 million copies within six months, with as many as 50,000 copies being bought on a single day.

1953: The first Chevrolet Corvette, a white convertible roadster with a red interior rolled off the Chevrolet assembly line in Flint, MI. It sold for $3,250.

1958: The U.S. Congress passed a law authorizing the admission of Alaska as the 49th state in the Union.

1969: The last of 4,204,925 Ramblers was produced, ringing in the final hour for the storied car line.

1985: Thirty-nine American hostages were freed from a hijacked TWA jetliner in Beirut after being held for 17 days.

June 30, 1957
Feds pull plug on RFC

On June 30, 1957, the Federal Government pulled the plug on the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). With that, the United States effectively buried one of the remaining vestiges of the Great Depression. Indeed, the RFC was formed at the behest in 1931, as the nation was sinking deeper into the depths of poverty and despair. The brainchild of President Hoover, who felt that a revived private sector could best lead America back to prosperity, the RFC was charged with propping up the nation’s struggling banks and businesses.

Birthdays:

1917: Susan Hayward (Edythe Marrender) - Academy Award-winning actress: I Want to Live I’ll Cry Tomorrow

1917: Lena Horne - singer: Stormy Weather

1943: Florence Ballard - singer: group: The Supremes

1944: Glenn Shorrock - singer: The Little River Band

1953: Hal Lindes - musician - group: Dire Straits

1959: Vincent D’Onofrio - actor: Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Mystic Pizza

1966: Mike Tyson - boxer: youngest heavyweight champion [20 years + 144 days]

Today is Meteor Watch Day

Chart Toppers:

1957: Love Letters in the Sand - Pat Boone
Teddy Bear - Elvis Presley
It’s Not for Me to Say - Johnny Mathis
Four Walls - Jim Reeves

1965: Mr. Tambourine Man - The Byrds
(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction - The Rolling Stones
Wonderful World - Herman’s Hermits
Before You Go - Buck Owens

Word of the day: Claque \KLACK\, noun:. A group of fawning admirers.

Ponderable of the day: Keep your words soft and tender because tomorrow you may have to eat them.

Quote of the day: “Can anything be more stupid than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarreled with him?”

- Blaise Pascal, quoted by Tolstoy

Stuff……….you should know.

Interesting facts from 1905:

- The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.
- The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower
- The average wage in the U.S. was 22 cents per hour.
- The average U.S. worker made between $200 and $400 per year.
- More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S. took place at home.
- Ninety percent of all U.S. doctors had no college education. Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which were condemned in the press and by the government as “substandard.”
- Sugar cost four cents a pound.
- Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.
- Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.
- Most women only washed their hair once a month, and used borax or egg yolks for shampoo.
- Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from entering into their country for any reason.
- Five leading causes of death in the U.S. were:
>Pneumonia and influenza
>Tuberculosis
>Diarrhea
>Heart disease
>Stroke
- The population of Las Vegas, Nevada, was only 30
- Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.
-Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at the local corner drugstores. Back then pharmacist said, “Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.”
- Eighteen percent of households in the U.S. had at least one full-time servant or domestic help.
- There were about 230 reported murders in the entire U.S.

“…Live Simply, Love Generously, Care Deeply, Speak Kindly and Leave the Rest to God. …”

A Message From The Queen

To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

  

In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy).

Your new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.

A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

(You should look up “revocation” in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

1. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

2. The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as “colour,” “favour,” “labour” and “neighbour.” Likewise, you will learn to spell “doughnut” without skipping half the letters, and the suffix ‘-ize’ will be replaced by the suffix ‘-ise.’ Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up “vocabulary”).

3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as “like” and “you know” is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter “u” and the elimination of -ize.

4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you’re not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can’t sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you’re not ready to shoot grouse.

6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

7. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

8. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.

9. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

10. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat’s Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

11. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt English dialogue in ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’ was an experience akin to having one’s ears removed with a cheese grater.

12. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don’t try rugby ? the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.

13. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

14. You must tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us mad.

15. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty’s Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

16. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, with saucers, never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.

God Save the Queen!

 

 

They say it comes in 3’s

I must admit that Tim Russet passing took me back a bit because of his age and urnestness of reporting– but with the passing of Carlin… well I am saddened. He was a ‘national cryor’ for a huge and troubled generation. I had seen in in Georgetown years and years ago. Stoned as I was at that event, I still recall all of it. lol lol lol. I actually think it fitting that Tim, Bo Diddley and George are this group of three. Very symbolic. Here is an op-ed piece by Seinfeld that I found written very well.

THE honest truth is, for a comedian, even death is just a premise to make jokes about. I know this because I was on the phone with George Carlin nine days ago and we were making some death jokes. We were talking about Tim Russert and Bo Diddley and George said: “I feel safe for a while. There will probably be a break before they come after the next one. I always like to fly on an airline right after they’ve had a crash. It improves your odds.”

I called him to compliment him on his most recent special on HBO. Seventy years old and he cranks out another hour of great new stuff. He was in a hotel room in Las Vegas getting ready for his show. He was a monster.

You could certainly say that George downright invented modern American stand-up comedy in many ways. Every comedian does a little George. I couldn’t even count the number of times I’ve been standing around with some comedians and someone talks about some idea for a joke and another comedian would say, “Carlin does it.” I’ve heard it my whole career: “Carlin does it,” “Carlin already did it,” “Carlin did it eight years ago.”

And he didn’t just “do” it. He worked over an idea like a diamond cutter with facets and angles and refractions of light. He made you sorry you ever thought you wanted to be a comedian. He was like a train hobo with a chicken bone. When he was done there was nothing left for anybody.

But his brilliance fathered dozens of great comedians. I personally never cared about “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” or “FM & AM.” To me, everything he did just had this gleaming wonderful precision and originality.

I became obsessed with him in the ’60s. As a kid it seemed like the whole world was funny because of George Carlin. His performing voice, even laced with profanity, always sounded as if he were trying to amuse a child. It was like the naughtiest, most fun grown-up you ever met was reading you a bedtime story.

I know George didn’t believe in heaven or hell. Like death, they were just more comedy premises. And it just makes me even sadder to think that when I reach my own end, whatever tumbling cataclysmic vortex of existence I’m spinning through, in that moment I will still have to think, “Carlin already did it.”

Jerry Seinfeld is a writer and a comedian.

Oh those Independents, how they add-up

About Those Independents… The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll hints that the 2008 presidential election could mark the year independents reclaim their status as a swing group. After Karl Rove’s 2004 strategy attempted to circumvent independents by focusing on the GOP base, independents appear to be back in the driver’s seat. In this poll, independents split evenly between Barack Obama (44 percent) and John McCain (43 percent). A closer look at their views on the candidates themselves and key issues and attributes hints that McCain faces a more uphill battle to convince independents that he is the better candidate to handle many top domestic issues or reflect their personal values. But even with these obstacles, McCain is viewed positively and runs about evenly with Barack Obama in a general election match-up. Here are more crosstabs from the latest poll. Q. If the 2008 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were (Barack Obama, the Democrat) and (John McCain, the Republican), for whom would you vote?

NET LEANED VOTE Obama- McCain All adults 48- 42 Independents 44- 43

The following results are only among political independents:

Q. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of (NAME)? Obama McCain Favorable NET 63 57 Strong fav. 29 18 Somewhat fav. 34 39 Unfavorable NET 32 38 Somewhat unfav. 13 21 Strong unfav. 19 17 Q.

Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle [ITEM] - (Obama) or (McCain)? Obama McCain Issues of special concern to women 56 25

Global warming and other environmental issues 50 29

Health care 50 32

 Energy policy 48 33

Gasoline prices 45 32

The economy 49 37

Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court 45 39

Taxes 43 41

The war in Iraq 43 45

International affairs 42 45

The U.S. campaign against terrorism 33 55

Q. Regardless of who you may support, who do you think [ITEM] - (Obama) or (McCain)?

Obama McCain Would do more to bring needed change to Washington 64 22

Better understands the problems of people like you 50 32

Would do more to stand up to lobbyists and special interest groups 49 35

Better represents your own personal values 49 36

Is the stronger leader 44 45

Q. Which of these is more important to you in a candidate for president: (strength and experience) or (a new direction and new ideas)?

Strength and experience 39 New direction and new ideas 51

While not paying attention–

There are too many things that I want to comment on, that happened while I was busy prepping for surgery on my leg.

 THE LIE: China is drilling in Cuban waters off the Florida coast….

THE TRUTH: China is not drilling off the Cuban coast, but they do have Cuban permits to explore there. They ARE however drilling in Colorado.

THE LIE: Environmentalists are preventing oil companies from getting permits for new drilling THE TRUTH: Over 6,000 new permits have been issued by our government to drill in the last few years alone, in fact the oil companies have so many permits it would be impossible for them to drill at them all.

THE LIE: Offshore drilling and drilling an ANWR will lower the price of gas. THE TRUTH: No one knows how much oil is in ANWR, it may be enough to last a year, but estimates are no more than 10 years. There is wide speculation that it is also very poor quality crude. The cost of drilling there and the refining is now cost effective, it will only lower the price of gas at the pump by 1 - 2 pennies a gallon. Also on offshore drilling, they have permits they are not being stopped from drilling.

THE LIE: Offshore drilling is so safe that even Katrina and Rita did not cause an oil spill. THE TRUTH: The oil spill in the gulf was so large it could be seen in satellite imagery from outer space.

THE LIE: McCain and Bush are spouting how the VA bill is there idea and how pleased they are that it passed THE TRUTH: Do I really need to spell this one out….Uhm, Didn’t Bush threaten to veto it? McCain called it unnecessary..

The LIE: Britt Hume from where else Faux news channel made statements that Obama’s brother says Obama is a Muslim. THE TRUTH: What his brother really said: “Because I am a Muslim myself, and I don’t think that my being a Muslim has got anything to do with my brother being the president of the United States.”

THE LIE: The price of oil is due to a shortage THE TRUTH: The rise in oil prices are mostly the fault of speculators. There is no shortage, as a matter of fact there are container ships filled with oil and no buyers for it. Iran has a few sitting off their coast. Our very own reserves are at peak levels. The farm bill passed with a veto proof majority, Bush has threatened to veto it. In the farm Bill is legislation to close the what is being termed the “ENRON loophole” It is not a loop hole, it was legislation inserted by none other than Phil Gramm in the dead of the night, just before the bill was to be voted on, thus eliminating any debate over it. Clinton signed it. Enron was already doing some price fixing before that legislation, this just made what they were doing legal. The rolling blackouts in CA were ENRONS doing to drive the price up for energy commodities. This legislation is also the cause of out of control gas prices. It allows the speculators to drive up the price of oil. It is estimated that 60% of the increase in gas prices are due to this reason. The mortgage crisis is the exact same scenario. With many of the same players. Bears Stearns traders and upper management have been arrested, more arrests are to follow in the future. Same scenario as ENRON lying to investors, fraud, insider trading. Expect the same result. The leader will suffer a heart attack before sentencing, making it impossible for any of his assets to be seized in order to pay back the investors. I believe he walked out with 450 million in a severance package, plus he dumped quite a bit of his personal stock before they crashed.

McCain’s Pinocchio Test

Ok– I could save that much too– My plan? STOP THE WAR and the savings would be HUGE! Anyway, on to McCain’s campaign BS. Also– exactly why is Lieberman supporting him, I forgot. Geeeece.

“I can eliminate $100 billion of wasteful and earmark spending immediately–35 billion in big spending bills in the last two years, and another 65 billion that has already been made a permanent part of the budget.” –John McCain, NPR All Things Considered, April 23, 2008. John McCain boasts that he can save $100 billion a year “immediately” by eliminating the so-called earmarks that legislators attach to spending bills to finance pet projects, usually in their home state. But he has refused to say exactly which projects he would cut, and his estimates of the amount of money that is being spent on earmarks have been challenged by independent experts. The Facts The Arizona senator is promising to balance the budget by the end of his first term, while simultaneously extending the George W. Bush tax cuts, introducing billions of dollars of new tax cuts of his own, and remaining in Iraq as long as is necessary to stabilize that country. Asked how this miracle will be accomplished, McCain told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News This Week on April 20 that he could come up with $100 billion “tomorrow” by vetoing pork-barrel spending bills. Here’s $100 billion right here for you, George. Two years in a row, the last two years, the president of the United States has signed into law two big spending, pork barrel-laden bills with $35 billion (in earmarks). In the years before that, $65 billion. You do away with those, there’s $100 billion right before you look at any agency. Pouff! $100 billion in taxpayer money! Saved! Just like that! With a flick of the presidential veto pen! There are a number of problems with this magical budgetary balancing act. First of all, the suspiciously round $100 billion figure is largely a figment of the McCain campaign’s imagination. I have not been able to find a single independent budget expert to vouch for it. McCain’s economics adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, will not say how the campaign arrived at the figure, other than that it is an extrapolation from various studies, including a 2006 study by the Congressional Research Service available here. The CRS study breaks down earmarks by different government departments, without giving a global figure. According to Scott Lilly, a former Democratic appropriations staffer now with the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the CRS study identifies a total of $52 billion in earmarks for a single year. However, much of this money is tied to items such as foreign aid to countries like Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, that McCain says he will not touch. By most definitions of the term, the amount of money spent on earmarks is much lower than the CRS study. The Office for Management and the Budget came up with a figure for $16.9 billion in the 2008 appropriation bills. Taxpayers for Commonsense, an independent watchdog group that focuses on wasteful spending, identified $18.3 billion worth of earmarks in the 2008 bills, a 23 per cent cut from a record $23.6 billion set in 2005. How much of this $18.3 billion could be eliminated is a “difficult question that we have not yet figured out,” said Taxpayers for Commonsense vice-president Steve Ellis. The figure includes suc